To my knowledge, there has been one post deleted - because it revealed someone's real identity.
But I wasn't referring to LF as "real freedom" - I was referring to the fact that real freedom requires allowing people to voice their opinion. Even if we don't like that opinion.
As I keep saying, LF isn't perfect either. If it was, I wouldn't be over here part of the time :)
There's another right you are ignoring, and that is the right to own and manage one's property.
We have real freedom. There is not a single person anywhere on the internet in America who does not have real freedom. Everyone can voice their opinion somewhere on the internet, somewhere in a printed publication, somewhere on the radiowaves, in a letter, at city hall meetings, over the phone to friends, on the streetcorner, in the park, etc. But nowhere is it written that others are obligated to make sure you are heard, and nowhere is it written that others have to publish your words or provide audio support, batteries, paper or bandwidth for other people's rants. Everyone can get their own web sites, radios, printing presses, cardboard signs, and paper, but no one has to buy, maintain or deliver these things for people. Refusal to do so isn't a restriction on freedom.
On the web, sites can be had for free, although that is certainly not a right. I've got my own web sites, a free one and a paid one, and so far I have never gotten myself banned no matter what was posted on either of them. Anyone can get their own web site and post their rants, because there is nothing stopping them from doing so. Jimrob hasn't stopped a single person from getting their own site, nor has he ever vowed to bring down other people's sites as his detractors have on occasion vowed to do to FR.
But if everyone had the freedom to post whatever they want on your web site, or mine, even when we don't want them to post on our web sites, or manipulate our forums, or spread propaganda, then WE would not have freedom. The first ammendment isn't there to protect anyone's right to be heard or to be read on other people's property. The first ammendment isn't there to dictate to web site owners what is and what isn't 'fair,' or 'free.' It's to make sure that Government can't take away your right to speak- not to prevent someone from kicking you off of their property for yelling in their yard, or off their web site for any reason they please. It's to keep government from taking YOUR printing press away, but not to prevent the owner of the press from repossessing a machine that you used but haven't paid for. Jim Rob is nowhere near as powerful as people make him out to be, nor are the moderators. They simply cannot stop anyone from starting their own web site and posting to their hearts consent on it, even if the moderators or JimRob were so inclined- which they aren't. So they cann't 'censor people,' or prevent a person from voicing their opinion. They CAN and rightfull so, prevent people from using the web site as if it was communal property.
I don't understand why people think they have a right to someone else's web site, or why, when denied posting privileges on a web site which belongs to another, they think this impairs their liberty. It simply doesn't impair their liberty in ANY way. Why don't all these whiners write angry protest letters to EBAY or Amazon.com, National Geographic, the St. Louis Post, Democrats.com, the Red Cross, Catholic Church web, the Sierra Club web, or some blogger's web site for not allowing any stranger who stops by to take up as much bandwidth as he pleases with any topic or rant he pleases? It's simple- the whiners know very well that EBAY, Amazon.com, National Geo, the Post, Democrats.com, the Red Cross, the Catholic Church web, the Sierra Club and a bunch of bloggers own their sites and they know very well that those site owners, instead of wasting their time trying to explain the difference between 'my' web site and 'your' web site, will simply ignore the whining or send a response like this: 'What part of 'site owner' don't you understand?'
Does the Lutheran Church web site HAVE to host Islamic web pages, or vice versa? Would it be 'free' if they were so obligated? No. It wouldn't be freedom if they did so, it would be 'web welfare.'
Why is it that people think they have ownership and 'inalienable rights' on this site simply because they know how to log in? Did Jim pass out stock certificates or deeds? Is there some legal proof that those who complain about being 'denied rights' have any legal rights at all to post here? I sure haven't seen any proof of ownership from them.