What does “Free” in Free Republic stand for?
I ask because I am constantly seeing people banned and comments pulled by the moderator.
There are two topics that I see this done consistently.
One is discussions on immigration, particularly Hispanic immigration.
People are being banned and posts pulled simply for discussing the wisdom of allowing unrestricted immigration to continue. Yet, to question our immigration policy is to be accused of being a “racist”. This charge is more in keeping with the liberal left silencing critics than it is with Republican ideology.
The second topic that is getting posts pulled and people banned at an alarming rate is discussions on our relationship with Israel.
I have yet to read a post where someone said, “Hitler was right” and yet posts are pulled for being “offensive” to some people and people are constantly being charged as being a “nazi” for simply discussing US-Israeli foreign policy.
According to the posting protocol, it says “Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.” I don’t read where it says “Please, no comments that may offend people”.
Are we to be politically correct? Is there to be no free speech or debate because someone might find a comment “offensive” to their personal or political views?
Speech is either free or it isn’t. Censorship, either by moderators or self-censorship, cannot lead to finding solutions to complex problems.
I for one feel that the “abuse” button is too often abused by those seeking to intimidate or silence thoughtful criticism.
You ask, "Is Free Republic a fraud?" As I said, that depends on what you mean by the word “free”.
This black and white attitude is the root problem. So many people see free-speech as an all or nothing deal. Philosophically, this is an impossiblity. You and I are hopelessly bound up into a human conglomerate of diverse cultural backgrounds. Without limitations on pure freedom, we would annihilate one another. And so society has learned, for the common good, to limit individual freedoms. The U.S. has done the best job of protecting individual freedom without imposing those on the common good. Is it perfect? Hell no. But it is still the best there is. What is my point? You say,
Censorship, either by moderators or self-censorship, cannot lead to finding solutions to complex problems.
I say that if there is a land of absolutely no-censorship it is a land of make-believe. There has been and always will be censoring, and sometimes, even though I may not like it, it may be good and for the common-good. When I deny, as an individual, the rights of the common good, I become an advocate of totalitarianism.
You also said,
I for one feel that the “abuse” button is too often abused by those seeking to intimidate or silence thoughtful criticism.
I, for one, feel that the "abuse" button SHOULD be used when the common good is threatened by the selfless rhetoric of an anarchist.
Please don't take this personally. Just MHO about civil liberties. There are times when people are unfairly censored, but I am not talking about those times.