Freedom Fighters-FR mentioned in Liberal paper

One of the most influential and monumental First Amendment battles of this new millennium is being fought in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The unhappy marriage of print media and the Internet has finally reached an impasse. Free Republic bills itself as a "loosely organized group of grassroots Americans who support the constitution and look for honesty, integrity and honor from those in government." Nice PR. Really, this staunchly conservative activist group's popularity and fondness for a good battle have turned quite a few heads on Capitol Hill. Active members, who call themselves FReepers, include Dr. Alan Keyes, Gary Aldrich, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Congressman Bob Barr and Matt Drudge. In its fifth year, the Free Republic has grown to over 60,000 members with chapters all over the country. The crux of their movement is Freerepublic.com, a massive forum-driven website where the pseudo-militant grassroots conservatives can convene to pontificate at the virtual podium on the devious workings of government and media.

There is no noise on the Internet, but these ranters are screaming loudly enough to garner the reproach of more than easily offended liberals. The FReepers frequently use examples from current media to facilitate their arguments. Their practice of posting entire articles lifted from news sources all over the country has infuriated commercial media.

Crying theft, unfair competition and intellectual property rights, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times have filed suit against Free Republic.

What a delicious irony, that a group of enlightened and loquacious defenders of constitutional privilege are now entangled in this trenchant imbroglio calling into question the very principles their movement was founded upon.

The Free Republic calls their media adversaries "elements of the socialist propaganda machine" and claims that the practice of posting articles is tantamount to "gathering in our virtual town hall where we virtually pass around newspaper clippings."

The newspapers claim their copyrighted material is produced at great expense to them. They post these materials online, and the ad revenue from their websites is necessary to sustain their operation.

As both sides are armed with strong and persuasive rhetoric, the issue is exacerbated by the fact that Free Republic is a nonprofit movement. All of its funding comes from private donations. Therefore, there is soundness in the Freepers' assertion that they are not stealing the articles for commercial gain but rather passing them around to educate and illuminate each other on issues of immediate relevancy.

The district judge disagreed and ruled erroneously in favor of the Post and the Times, saying that Free Republic is a commercial enterprise. Free Republic is appealing to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and will likely have its arguments heard in September. In the meantime, the group is barred from allowing its members to post full-text articles from The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times.

The FReepers are calling this legal fight no less than a "life-and-death struggle." In fact, this description is the truth. If this battle falls in favor of the commercial media, the Free Republic will die. With its principled dedication to the First Amendment called into question, the group is being forced to defend it absolutely. If it fails, then the fundamental foundation of the group's movement will have been destroyed. No structure can stand without a foundation.

The fight that Free Republic is embroiled in is broader and farther-reaching than just the relatively small group of people involved. The U.S. Constitution is the foundation upon which our democracy is built. Its first and foremost amendment is being challenged in the name of monetary gain.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals must recognize that to rule in favor of the commercial media in this case will weaken and debase the words supporting this country. Chipping away at the foundation doesn't bode well for any American: conservative, liberal, or purveyor of socialist propaganda.

But I dont agree with you that political change can only come about through a constitutional amendment.

Didn't say it needed an amendment, only the overwhelming consensus that would be required to make an amendment. Such a consensus is politically irresistable. If I am not mistaken, the GOP has not had such irresistable control of the government, for the length of time I suggested, since the end of Reconstruction.

If you can cite a link to a story wherein Alan Keyes filed as a third party candidate for President in 2000...

Technically, you're correct. But for all intents and purposes, Alan Keyes presidential bid in 2000 was viewed by most republicans and conservatives, as a third party effort. Keyes' unwillingness to relinquish his campaign, after he was soundly defeated, showed him to be a bitter and angry candidate. All of the President's challengers in 2000, pulled out and allowed George W.Bush to have an open field. Even John McCain placed the party interests before his personal ambitions. No apology is necessary on my part. I do think, Keyes still owes President Bush an apology, for acting like a spoiled brat, during the primaries and just prior to, the general elction.

But for all intents and purposes, Alan Keyes presidential bid in 2000 was viewed by most republicans and conservatives, as a third party effort.

I strongly doubt that this is true, and if it is true, so what? Back during the days when most (uneducated) people believed that the world was flat, it was no flatter than it is today. A fact is not subject to a democratic vote.

I strongly doubt that this is true, and if it is true, so what?

That depends on your politics. Any intelligent individual viewing FreeRepublic, from December 1999 through August 2000, would have received a good education from The Keyesters. The never ending, pro-Keyes rhetoric and anti-Bush attacks, were front and center. Their endless efforts to weaken the Bush campaign and sabotage his chances of securing victory over Algore was obvious, to even the casual political observer. However, their lack of any success, was also obvious.

Any intelligent individual viewing FreeRepublic, from December 1999 through August 2000, would have received a good education from The Keyesters. The never ending, pro-Keyes rhetoric and anti-Bush attacks, were front and center.

I need no help from you to tell me what I was posting in 2000. Your remarks are precisely what Ford backers said in 1976, when they attacked Reagan for daring to run against Ford. At least Ford was the incumbent, which Bush was not. How it must grate the politically foolish, that anyone would dare not kneel down and kiss the ring of their annointed candidate. The fact that you make these charges against Keyes, and not against McCain, where they would be far more justified (or do you consider that Mad John McCain's actions in the last two years constitute loyalty), leads to the suspicion that you are motivated by something much darker, and nastier, then your surface protestations of loyalty to the President.

Their endless efforts to weaken the Bush campaign and sabotage his chances of securing victory over Algore was obvious, to even the casual political observer.

Obviously the Keyes backers, before the convention, were not intested in Bush's chances of securing victory over Gore, they were planning on beating Gore themselves. And what this is called is not weakening and sabotaging the President's nominating campaign, it is called trying to defeat Bush's efforts to be nominated. That is called the democratic election process. Perhaps where you come from people inherit political office, but this does not happen in this country.

My point is:
I honestly believe that FR has set in motion a conservative online "revolution", for lack of a better term. I think that there is a better than even chance that FR could... perish the thought... be forced to shut down.
They may cut off FR but, like the Hydra, two more sites like it will pop up in its place. The media is running scared because they know that more and more people are aware of their bias. This suit is nothing more than an attempt to stifle conservative views.
In short, the LAT & WP can stifle FR... but they can't stifle all of us!

I agree, CD. My mind was following a different line of thought initially with the thread, but I do agree that what has been set in motion among conservatives with this forum is both unstoppable and a "nightmare" to liberals and the media.

I need no help from you to tell me what I was posting in 2000.

My memory is good too. So you're a "Keyester" and it would seem, I struck a nerve. Good.

Your remarks are precisely what Ford backers said in 1976, when they attacked Reagan for daring to run against Ford.

I was around, campaigning for Governor Reagan at the time and it wasn't the same. Ford and Reagan had a good realtionship with each other. Reagan highlighted his differences with President Ford, but he never viciously attacked Ford in a personal manner, as Keyes did, time and again with Bush. Reagan was always the gentleman and so was Bush. Ford invited Reagan to speak at the Republican National Convention and Reagan gave a strong speech favoring Ford's candidacy. Reagan even considered Ford for his VP running mate in 1980.

How it must grate on the Keyesters, to look so foolish, in support of someone like Keyes, who was clearly outmaneuvered and outclassed by George W.Bush, at every turn during the 2000 campaign.

McCain is a nut job, but I have to give him credit for bowing out with some appearence of grace. OTOH, Keyes was mean spirited, arrogant and belligerent until the very end. Sad, very sad.

Perhaps where you come from...

Let's not get personal now.

Anyone has the right to run for political office, even a novice like Alan Keyes. But once it became obvious, that Keyes had no chance of securing the nomination, he should have showed some class and halted his campaign. He chose not to. Instead, Keyes and his supporters decided it was more important to attack the Bush campaign and show their utter contempt for his presidential candidacy. They demonstared that over and over, right there on FreeRepublic. Frankly, it was embarassing behavior and the Keyesters should be ashamed of themselves.

How it must grate on the Keyesters, to look so foolish, in support of someone like Keyes, who was clearly outmaneuvered and outclassed by George W.Bush, at every turn during the 2000 campaign.

Talk about your poor winners!! How strange it would seem to a normal person to see that a fringe supporter of the candidate who won an overwhelming victory still obsessing over the defeated candidate. What deep twisted pathology this demonstrates would be for an expert in abnormal psychology to diagnose, and not for me.

Any normal backer of the President would recognize that both political wisdom, and moral duty require them to make the sort of effort to reach out to the defeated candidate and his supporters that President Ford made in 1976 (not that it was all that much of an effort). On the other hand, a democrat disruptor, attempting to sow disharmony in Republican and conservative ranks, would be doing exactly what you are doing.

But whether you are a disruptor, a fool, or a psycho is a matter of complete indifference to me.

What deep twisted pathology this demonstrates would be for an expert in abnormal psychology to diagnose, and not for me.
On the other hand, a democrat disruptor, attempting to sow disharmony in Republican and conservative ranks, would be doing exactly what you are doing.
But whether you are a disruptor, a fool, or a psycho is a matter of complete indifference to me.

Well, I see the passing of time hasn't tempered your disposition and attitude. You're still a nasty, whining, mean spirited Keyester, through and through. You've lost the argument, so you revert to personal attacks against me. LMAO. Typical Keyester behavior. Once a loser, always a loser. Hahahahahahaha

I've become a dissident, so might as well become a militant!

When I go out there on the streets of the USA, armed with my posters, there's nothing 'pseudo' about it!

I was wondering what else Ms. McDonald was going to tag us with, but she surprised me and seemed to have a handle on what was going on. However, her doom/gloom bit on our 'structure' was off. Our foundation was not built on the pleasure of the Times or Post.

"...her doom/gloom bit on our 'structure' was off. Our foundation was not built on the pleasure of the Times or Post.
You got THAT right!

Here is a short post from Free Republic founder Jim Robinson, from another AMAZING thread:

Even if I lose it all and the LAT/WP forces me into bankruptcy, I can still operate this thing from the poor house, or even from a jail cell if I have to, as long as someone donates a computer and internet connection and donors pay directly to the bandwidth provider and systems maintenance people. There is no law prohibiting that. If someone or some group of people want to set up a Free Speech Trust for a Free Republic, then all donated funds could flow through that and be controlled and disbursed by a board of trustees. No money will have to come to me at all, unless the board decides to help fund my maintenance.

255 posted on 12/5/01 12:51 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson

Actually, the ENTIRE thread is worth re-reading, even with the insipid disruptions from the anti-FReepers:

$1,000,000 Million Judgment against Jim/FR LLC - What does it mean?
12-02-01 | Bob J
Posted on 12/2/01 11:09 PM Pacific by Bob J

You say this is a lib paper? Pretty good article, how pleasantly surprising.

Nice that the liberals realize that if FR falls to these arguments, they fall, too. They do, just barely, realize this. But it does indicate that some liberal nose skin is above the intellectual water level.

There is hope. . .

You say this is a lib paper?
Perhaps it is more precisely a moderate outpost on a liberal CAMPUS.

(They call themselves a "conservative newspaper" in "liberal Madison." - see post #86 of this thread.)

The Badger Herald hosted a fundraiser in 1971 with William F. Buckley, and in 2001, printed David Horowitz's editorial against slavery reparations. These are not the actions of a traditionally liberal college newspaper.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.