Slashdot Mirror
Free Republic v. Aldridge
Jim Howard writes: "The controversial conservative political web site Free Republic has won a permanent injunction against one of its users who was alleged to have conducted a campaign of disruption against the site. The decision was rendered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia." Free Republic's allegations against the user are online as well.
What makes the bean bag right hysterical
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. Free Republic v. Aldridge - FR Motion for Preliminary Injunction Miscellaneous Announcement Source: Free Republic Published: 1-25-01 Author: Winston & Strawn Posted on 01/25/2001 16:15:44 PST by Clarity V I R G I N I A: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Chancery No. 170290 FREE REPUBLIC, LLC, Complainant, v. THOMAS CHAPPELL ALDRIDGE, JR. Respondent. ____________________________________ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION Respondent Thomas Chappell Aldridge, Jr. ("Aldridge") is a computer vandal. His target for the past three years has been a web site operated by Complainant Free Republic, LLC on the Internet. His stated goal is to force Free Republic's web site off the Internet because it promotes political viewpoints with which he disagrees. To accomplish this goal, Aldridge has used a variety of illegal tactics. Those tactics include: (1) using his computer to trespass on Free Republic's web site under anonymous names without authorization; (2) "posting" (i.e., publishing) lewd and defamatory messages on the web site, often under someone else's name; (3) using his computer to harass authorized Free Republic users; (4) using his computer to intimidate Free Republic authorized users by surreptitiously obtaining and posting private information regarding them; (5) using Free Republic's electronic message services without authority to disseminate his messages to millions of users on the Internet; (6) bombarding, in concert with others, Free Republic's web site with bulk electronic messages (commonly called "spam") in order to tie up its bandwidth and disrupt its operations; and (7) counseling others on how to disrupt Free Republic's web site. This conduct violates the Virginia Computer Crime Act ("VCCA"), Virginia Code 18.2-152.1, et. seq., the Virginia conspiracy statute, Virginia Code 18.2-499 and 18.2-500, and common law. Complainant hereby moves the Court to issue a limited temporary injunction that would prevent Aldridge, and others acting in concert with him, from posting any further messages on Free Republic's web site. Factual Background I. Free Republic Background Complainant Free Republic is a California limited liability company that operates a web site on the Internet under the domain name http://www.freerepublic.com. See Affidavit of James Robinson ("Robinson Aff.") at 2. Jim Robinson founded Free Republic in 1996 as a conservative Internet forum that would provide breaking news updates and encourage users of all political persuasions to comment on current events. Despite its concentration on conservative viewpoints, Free Republic is not affiliated with any political party, news source, government agency or any other entity. Id. at 4. Free Republic is funded solely by donations from readers of its site. The web site has over 50,000 registered members and receives an average of 50,000 to 100,000 "hits" per day from people around the world. Because of the volume of daily activity on its web site, Free Republic's limited resources render it vulnerable to attempts by Aldridge, and others acting at his behest, to halt or disable Free Republic's web site with harassing or bulk electronic messages. Id. at 3, 5. II. The Free Republic Web Site Registration Process and User Agreement Anyone on the Internet is welcome to view the messages on Free Republic's web site without registration. But the ability to post a message or a response on Free Republic's web site is a privilege granted only to users who complete a registration process and agree to the terms of Free Republic's User Agreement. Id. at 6. Due to the number of new users who register at the web site each day, the process has been automated. The registration process requires a potential user to supply a valid e-mail address and to agree to the terms and conditions of usage before receiving posting privileges. On the Free Republic registration web page, the user specifies a "screen name" and password after providing his or her e-mail address. Once the registration form is submitted, an "activation code" is sent back to the e-mail address specified by the user in the registration form. The activation code must then be entered at Free Republic's web site before posting privileges are activated. Id. at 7-11. The screen name selected by the registrant becomes the identity of the person on the web site. This allows users to post messages anonymously. If the user posts a message, his or her screen name--but not necessarily his or her real name, e-mail address, or password--appears along with the message on the web site. A Free Republic user cannot post a message on Free Republic's web site, however, without inputting both a screen name and the corresponding password. Id. at 7, 8. Free Republic instituted the password feature to prevent a third party from posting messages under someone else's screen name, one of the activities in which Aldridge was engaging. All potential users agree to the terms of a User Agreement before receiving authorization to post messages on the web site. This User Agreement is found and completed on Free Republic's web site. Id. at 9 & Ex. 1. The User Agreement makes it clear that Free Republic has reserved its right to revoke a user's privilege to post messages on the web site when the privilege is abused: Please remember to use courtesy when posting, refrain from personal attacks and do not use profane or obscene language. Your posts will be read by thousands of people and will be archived for years to come. Violation of these guidelines can cause your account to be suspended or revoked. Your Free Republic account cannot be used to engage in any illegal activity. Id., Ex. 1 (emphases added). The registration process contemplates that a Free Republic user will have only one account and only one screen name. There is no legitimate reason for a Free Republic user to have multiple accounts on the web site. Indeed, the use of multiple screen names circumvents the ability of the operators of Free Republic's web site to refuse access to individuals whose accounts have been suspended or revoked. Id. at 12. A person can respond to having one screen name blocked by using another screen name. That is exactly what Aldridge has done. Free Republic unfortunately lacks the technology and manpower to prevent Aldridge and others acting in concert with him from circumventing Free Republic's registration process and User Agreement. Free Republic has found it difficult, if not impossible, to prevent Aldridge from posting unauthorized messages on Free Republic's web site. Id. at 13. III. Aldridge's Illegal Conduct Targeted At Free Republic, Its Founder, And Its Users Aldridge's political beliefs conflict with the conservative views expressed by other Free Republic users. Instead of engaging in legitimate political debate--which is encouraged by Free Republic--Aldridge, since 1997, has engaged in systematic actions, alone and with others, to halt or otherwise disable Free Republic's web site as well as to harass Free Republic, its founder, and its users. Id. at 14. Aldridge originally registered under the name Eschoir. This was a pun, combining the word Esquire (Aldridge is a member of the Virginia Bar with a law office in Springfield, Virginia) with his being a member of a choir. Aldridge used this name to post messages that attacked the positions espoused by others. Free Republic allowed Aldridge to post messages under Eschoir for several weeks. In the latter part of 1997, after Aldridge went beyond the pale and began posting lewd messages and personal attacks on other users, his privilege to post messages on Free Republic's web site was permanently revoked. Id. at 15, 16. For example, Aldridge used his infamous screen name "Eschoir" to post profane and obscene comments about the daughter of a Free Republic user: "Yuo [sic] can hide but you can't run. You know, when your daughter makes it with President Clinton, she prefers doggie style. RRRrrruffff! . . . And your daughter not only likes it doggie style, but do the words 'Hershey Highway' mean anything to you?" Robinson Aff., Ex. 4 at 7, 8. A. Aldridge's Breach Of Contract And Computer Trespass Aldridge--whose privilege to post messages on Free Republic's web site has been permanently revoked--has found a hole in the registration process that allowed him to register at least 50 new Free Republic screen names. It appears that Aldridge has taken advantage of a feature offered by his Internet Server Providers America Online, Inc. ("AOL") and Erols, Inc. that allows him to create multiple e-mail addresses. Aldridge uses his new e-mail addresses to register dozens of new screen names with Free Republic. Id. at 17 & Exs. 5-7; see also id., Ex. 8 at 2. Based on Aldridge's request for documents from Free Republic, it appears that he has also used the following screen names on Free Republic's web site: 1952vet, 23yotz, 78rpm, a scaparelli, activist amor fati, aptly put, ardent one, ardentdeb, amo vitusian, arnold lunn, atheist conservatives, backtotheesch, basket lunch, batjack v. Klayman, beautiful streamer, ben watson, biggles, big wanda, billingsgate, bloodiedbutunbowed, blunderbuss, blutamoto, boxcars, braveandtrueheart, bite the bullet, burned up, cabinfevered, cancer l999, capncranky, Capt. Freeps, cardinal richelieu, celestian, chappell, cogan's bluff, Connie's a liar, coolid2349, correction fluid, could it be esch?, david schimmel, ddnajar, debased one, debutante, dfu is nuts, dixie gal, dreadscot, dsl69, dung from outhouse, dydimus, elainek7722, ergotism66, eschhaton Eschoir, eschoiragain, eschoir's back 121398, evayy2000, evoy2001, evvay2000, far from it, father abraham, fed foe, Feet of Klay, felching, flush right, freaglerfan, free thought, freedie the dreamers, freeze-out, frogtown justice league, Frogtown commando, frogtown2000, gargantua99, ghfjdk, global warning, gorebore00, grass roots, Hairy True-man, Hand of the White House, hoo- yah!, hot debater, intellectualdebt, jintentionall, italia, italiana, it's embarrassing, jbs1950, jim bowie's blade, Jim Rob'emsome, jim robnson, judge ross, justanewbie99, justice league of frogtown, jwmp271, kenyon, lasserboy, klaxamative, lazy freeps, ledee, lms228, lol hehe rbfhe, longtime lurker, Lotte luigi45, luvvie, macroplay3, major freeping, malocchio, marginalized, mariano, mark text, mark time, massa bush, mcb49, mendoza, merkin, naval gazer, never never never give up, newbie, newbie0987, newsman, nine2fiver, nomorecorruption, nomerrinos, not gary aldrich, novacaine, numberonefreeper, oldster, paco loco hombre, pacolo8294, Paula Jones' Twat, pequod, permanent injunction, pestsquire, philemon2000, Pleaase Delete Me, policywond45, pongopain, posterboy1922, purgedpurged, rat bastard from hell, really eschoir, recovering one, reggie stration, reedeet, regurgitation, riohese, rjt24, scalia wolvet, scooter1967, serpenthead, sfc29, sha-man, shrewish, slowload, smegma, snakeyes, snork, Spamster, st vitus jig, st. Vitus, st.crispin, starrgeezer, stavro galt, street fighter, streetphighter, sturmer, sun'll come out to Morrow, tab align, Tapphy, techlawguy, That Old Black Magic, thatsess-choir, the Discredited Mr. Buckley, the Late Mr. Buckley, the mipplebing of barsoom, The Truth, thebabe, tom, tom the sodomite, to Morrow, toastville, true2you, truemogga, unpersuaded, updater, viagrown, vigorish, villiens 1956, vindicator 1999, virtual chocolate, warrior princess, whuzzup!, xanthan, xantippe, xantippe68, xtream 1st, zondervan, The Dreaded Eschoir, repubilus_fr, sub_terran_1, or Lenny. See Robinson Aff. at 18 & Ex. 9 at 6-7. Because of the multiple e-mail addresses, Free Republic cannot easily trace these new screen names back to Aldridge, thus allowing him to post unauthorized messages on the web site until detected. Aldridge's multiple Free Republic screen names include, among others, "Tab_Align," "Not_Tab_Align," and "my_white_plume." Aldridge also has registered under the screen name "Spamster," evidently in recognition of his use of spam to disrupt Free Republic. In addition, Aldridge has used the profane screen name "Paula Jones' Twat." Id. at 18 & Exs. 4, 7, 9-13. Each time Aldridge re-registers, he agrees to abide by the User Agreement. Aldridge then proceeds to violate the User Agreement by posting lewd and obnoxious messages. See, e.g., id. at 19 & Exs. 6, 7. Once Free Republic detects his presence, his new screen name is blocked from accessing the web site. Aldridge then signs on Free Republic again, using yet another screen name. Id. at 19 & Exs. 11, 15. As a result, Aldridge's privilege to post messages on Free Republic's web site has been revoked on many occasions by various means. Since 1999, each time Mr. Robinson identified Aldridge as the person behind a particular harassing e-mail, Mr. Robinson would ban Aldridge from posting messages on the web site. Id. at 20. Free Republic's counsel, Brian Buckley, also sent Aldridge internal emails (or "private replies") through Free Republic's electronic message service to remind Aldridge that he had been banned from the site. Affidavit of Brian Buckley at 7; see also id., Ex. 1. In 1999, the banning process was automated. Since then, Aldridge, or any other person who has been banned from Free Republic's web site, receives the following message--"You have been denied posting privileges"--when attempting to post a message on the web site under an unauthorized screen name. Robinson Aff. at 20 & Ex. 17. Unfortunately, however, there is no simple way to detect Aldridge's presence on Free Republic's web site when he uses a new screen name linked to a new e-mail account. Id. at 20. Aldridge not only is aware that his postings are unauthorized, he takes pride in it. Aldridge is a self-proclaimed "dedicated disruptor [sic]" of Free Republic's web site, id. at 21 & Ex. 18, who "refus[es] to be banned" by Free Republic. Id. at 21 & Exs. 12, 13, 19. On other occasions, he has bragged of the disruption he has caused. Id. at 21 & Ex. 20 ("Have Laz and I working together caused so much bandwidth drain that [Free Republic] is closed down effectively?"), Ex. 21 (encouraging action by others that would "eat up major bandwith [sic]" on Free Republic). His ultimate goal is to force Free Republic off the Internet. Id. at 21 & Ex. 20. Aldridge sometimes has succeeded. His misconduct has forced Free Republic to shut down its posting program for periods of time to ensure that Aldridge's unauthorized posts were identified and deleted. Id. at 22 & Ex. 22 ("Free Republic has been disrupted by some clown [i.e., Aldridge] who is posting under other people's names. I am shutting down the posting program until I can get the mess cleaned up."); see also id., Ex. 16 (boasting that he is the "one disruptor [sic]" of Free Republic's web site). When Free Republic was unable to identify and delete Aldridge's unauthorized posts immediately, such posts commonly elicited many responses from legitimate Free Republic users. This, in turn, has further halted or disrupted Free Republic's web site. Id. at 22. There is little Free Republic can due, short of obtaining an injunction from this Court, to stop Aldridge from continuing his pattern of trespass, disruption and harassment. B. Aldridge's Harassment By Computer Apparently not satisfied with his efforts to halt and disrupt Free Republic's web site, Aldridge and/or people acting at Aldridge's behest began targeting Free Republic's founder, Jim Robinson, and other Free Republic users with harassing messages. Id. at 23. Aldridge apparently hopes that such messages will further his "ceaseless work to put [Free Republic] in the worse possible light" as well as his stated goal of chasing Free Republic off the Internet. Id. at 23 & Exs. 6, 30. Before Free Republic instituted the password feature on its web site, Aldridge posted messages under the name "Jim Robinson" without Mr. Robinson's knowledge or consent, thus falsely attributing insulting and lewd Free Republic message posts to Mr. Robinson. Id. at 24 & Ex. 23; see also id., Ex. 24 at 15-16. Aldridge has since bragged about his impersonations. See id., Ex. 48. Aldridge also posted obscene, vulgar and profane messages under the respective screen names of other Free Republic users. This sometimes resulted in the legitimate users having their posting privileges revoked. Id. at 24 & Ex. 44 (Aldridge bragging that his "disinformation re Lenny" resulted in the real Lenny being banned from Free Republic). In July 1999, Aldridge authored several messages on the Internet that falsely suggest he had sexual relations with Free Republic's Director of Media Relations, Connie Hair. See Affidavit of Connie Hair ("Hair Aff.") at 5 & Exs. 1 & 2 ("Let me nudge her . . . No, she still wants to sleep a little . . . BTW, after a few drinks, CaL [an abbreviation for Clinton's a Liar--my screen name on Free Republic] can be quite - er - vivacious! . . . I don't want to get her revved up again. Hummina hummina hummina."). In late 1999, Aldridge raised his level of harassment to a more serious plane. In an attempt to intimidate and threaten Ms. Hair, Aldridge described the interior features of her personal residence in detail: I went by 831 N. Van Dorn St. today. . . . It is the next to end unit of a two story row house development that dates back to just after WWII. . . . The morning paper [the Post, BTW] hadn't been picked up when I was by about 2:30, but the drapes were wide open and I could see the blue glow of a big screen TV on. There was wicker furniture on the shared stoop. Id. at 6 & Ex. 3. Aldridge has never been invited to the residence; he apparently obtained this information by going to the house itself. See also id. at 7 & Ex. 4 (Aldridge asked the user whether he should "stop by [her] Van Dorn Street row house later for a little night cap?"). The Free Republic user took these messages by Aldridge as a threat and filed a report against Aldridge with the Alexandria, Virginia Police Department early last year. Id. at 7. The police investigation did not deter Aldridge's disturbing behavior. On October 10, 2000, Aldridge harassed Ms. Hair by listing without authorization her California address, her phone number and all but 3 digits of her social security number on the Internet. Id. at 8 & Ex. 5. On October 21, 2000, Aldridge posted an unauthorized message on Free Republic's web site that described Ms. Hair's "room" and an imaginary sexual encounter with her. Id. at 9 & Ex. 6. To further his scheme and to enlist others to assist his cause, Aldridge has used several so- called Yahoo Clubs, many of which he created, that are dedicated to targeting Free Republic, its owner Jim Robinson, and its attorney Brian Buckley. Yahoo is a well-known Internet portal that offers several free services to its users, including the ability to participate in certain so-called "Yahoo Clubs." A Yahoo Club is a web site where users who share an interest in a particular topic can create and join a "virtual club" on the Internet. Aldridge earlier formed clubs titled "AFParodiesSite," "TheAntiFreepers," "AntiFreep," "AFSecretSite," "AFSecondEdition," "AFSS2," "AFSS7," "Up the Anti's," and "Trolls R Us." (Aldridge and his co-conspirators typically refer to Free Republic users as "Freepers.") Aldridge's latest Yahoo Club is called "Free Republic Death Watch," which can be found on the Internet at http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/freerepublicdeathwatc h. Robinson Aff. at 27.
Aldridge uses Free Republic Death Watch to boast about his "forced entr[ies]" onto Free Republic's web site. Id. at 28 & Ex. 27. To flaunt his misdeeds, Aldridge provides hypertext links from his messages on Free Republic Death Watch to his unauthorized posts on Free Republic's web site. See id., Exs. 27-29. This allows Free Republic Death Watch users to see for themselves the messages posted by Aldridge on Free Republic's web site and the responses they generated.
In one post on Free Republic Death Watch, Aldridge implied that he intends to disrupt and harass Free Republic until it is "blown up," that is, removed from the Internet. Id. at 29 & Ex. 30. As a means to that end, Aldridge has harassed Mr. Robinson by requesting information about Mr. Robinson's benefits from the Social Security Administration and falsely accusing Mr. Robinson of defrauding that agency. See id. In addition, Aldridge often refers to Mr. Robinson using the crude term "RimJob." This was apparently intended as a spoof on Mr. Robinson's screen name "JimRob" that he uses on Free Republic's web site. Id. at 29, Exs. 13, 31.
On several occasions, Aldridge also obtained and then posted portions of the Social Security numbers, date of birth, home address, and phone numbers of Free Republic users on Free Republic Death Watch's web site. Id. at 30, Exs. 32, 33. It appears that these messages by Aldridge were meant to imply that he had obtained private information concerning these individuals and would not be afraid to use that information if they did not end their respective relationships with Free Republic.
Finally, Aldridge has sent harassing E-mails to Free Republic users concerning messages they had posted on Free Republic's web site. Buckley Aff. at 9 & Ex. 2. In fact, Aldridge confessed in one such e-mail that he has worked on concert with others to disrupt Free Republic's web site with bulk electronic messages. In a June 1999 e-mail to Deb McKay, a Free Republic user, Aldridge discussed how he had registered "ol' Deb" as an unauthorized screen name on Free Republic's web site. He explained that his co-conspirators, or "bannees" (a term describing people banned from Free Republic), "were having trouble registering" when attempting to spam Free Republic. Ex. 3. He accordingly had the "bannees" use the "ol' Deb" screen name. They then posted what Aldridge characterized as "inflammatory, troll-attracting articles." Id. at 10 & Ex. 3.
C. Aldridge's Theft Of Computer Services
As indicated above, Free Republic operates an electronic message service that allows authorized users to post messages on its web site's so-called electronic bulletin board. Once a message is posted to Free Republic's web site, that message can be viewed by millions of users around the world on the Internet. Free Republic is fully aware that its messages can be viewed by virtually anyone, and it therefore has adopted procedures that govern who may post messages on its web site. Robinson Aff. at 31.
By the means discussed above, Aldridge posts unauthorized messages on Free Republic's web site with the intent to obtain use of Free Republic's electronic message computer services without authority. In essence, Aldridge has turned Free Republic's web site into a vehicle through which he showcases his unauthorized messages to the world. Aldridge, who does not contribute to maintaining Free Republic's server and defraying its operating costs, has used, and continues to use, these stolen services at Free Republic's expense. Id. at 32.
D. Aldridge's Transmission Of Unsolicited Bulk Electronic Mail
Aldridge also uses Free Republic Death Watch to conspire with users of that Yahoo Club to halt or otherwise disable Free Republic's web site. Specifically, Aldridge registers new screen names with Free Republic and then bombards the site with messages. Aldridge also publishes those new screen names and their corresponding passwords on Free Republic Death Watch to encourage others to "spam" the web site. Id. at 33, 34 & Ex. 34 ("Screen name reedeet . . . password andrews . . . Post as much as you can"), Ex. 35 ("jwmp271 . . . password patsie"), Ex. 36 ("Thank you for registering with Free Republic! . . . Your screen name is: Jim Robnson . . . Your password is: freeper"), Ex. 37 ("Anybody want Time to Bite the Bullet, the password is bullet."). Aldridge has expressed his satisfaction when others use screen names he has created to disrupt Free Republic's web site. Id. at 37 & Ex. 40 ("The second one [i.e. message posted by a person using his unauthorized screen name] got a lot of attention. . . . Love it when I can get a troll [i.e., a co- conspirator] to hype my profile [on Free Republic] while I am away.").
To further his spamming of Free Republic, Aldridge instructs others on how to register multiple screen names on the web site. Id. at 35 & Ex. 19 ("I have posted over and over the method for using AOL to register and get new screen names."). As referenced in this post by Aldridge, he had previously discussed, on an anti-Free Republic site that has been deleted from the Internet, how to register multiple email addresses with AOL and use those email addresses to register multiple screen names on Free Republic's web site.
Even the filing of this lawsuit has failed to deter Aldridge's disruptive behavior. On January 5, 2001, one day after Aldridge was served with the Bill of Complaint, he posted one of his so-called "Freedie run" posts, i.e., a message soliciting others to spam Free Republic:
I have created a valid screen name and password for anyone who cares to use it. Lindam, you can have that passage posted that you said you would love to have posted on FR [an abbreviation for Free Republic]. It is now in your hands.
The screen name is "Activist" and the password is "freeper."
You can post whatever message you have been longing to see on Free Republic now without cost.
Id. at 36 & Ex. 38; see also id., Ex. 47 (talking about the "First Freedie Run").
As recently as January 18, 2001, Aldridge posted Jim Robinson's e-mail on Free Republic Death Watch in the apparent hope that others will harass Mr. Robinson with unsolicited bulk messages. Id. at 37 & Ex. 39. Through posts such as this one, Aldridge has worked in concert with other individuals (some of whom also have been banned from Free Republic's web site) to disrupt Free Republic's web site with unsolicited bulk electronic mail submissions.
Finally, Aldridge, or someone acting at his behest, repeatedly posts fabricated articles on Free Republic's web site. Id. at 38 & Exs. 40-43. These "articles" result in hundreds of responses by legitimate Free Republic users. When this occurs, Aldridge succeeds in harming Free Republic by spamming its web site with unsolicited bulk electronic mail. Id. at 38 & Ex. 15 ("[W]e have a disruptor [i.e., Aldridge] on Free Republic posting false articles. Please ignore all articles by this specific person. He gets banned then signs up as a new member in just a few minutes."). As illustrated by Aldridge's posts to Free Republic Death Watch, Aldridge takes great pride in the number of times his unauthorized posts to Free Republic's web site are viewed, how many irate comments his unauthorized posts generate, and thus how much of Free Republic's bandwidth data he ties up with his unlawful conduct. Id. at 39 & Exs. 29, 40-43 (noting the number of article views and comments generated by his fake articles posted on Free Republic's web site without authorization).
Argument
Aldridge Should Be Enjoined From Posting Unauthorized Messages On Free Republic's Web Site And Causing Others To Do So
Despite multiple warnings, Defendant Aldrich refuses to stop his unlawful attempts to disrupt Free Republic's web site and harass its users. Only a Court-ordered injunction that prevents Aldridge from directly or indirectly posting unauthorized messages on Free Republic's web site will provide any assurance that Aldridge's illegal conduct ceases.
An injunction is appropriate under well-settled common law principles. In Blackwelder Furniture Co. of Statesville, Inc. v. Seilig Mfg. Co., Inc., 550 F.2d 189 (4th Cir. 1977), the Fourth Circuit confirmed that the appropriate analysis is the balance of hardships test. Id. at 194. This test--which encourages a court to "maintain the status quo ante litem, provided that it can be done without imposing too excessive an interim burden upon the defendant"--requires a "flexible interplay" of the following factors: (1) likelihood of irreparable harm to the complainant if the injunction were not granted; (2) likelihood of irreparable harm to the defendant if the injunction were granted; (3) complainant's likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) the public interest. Id. at 194- 196. The Blackwelder standards have been recognized by many Virginia state courts. See, e.g., Plate v. Kincannon Place Condominium Unit Owners Assoc., 30 Va. Cir. 323, 325 (Cir. Ct. Fairfax County 1993) (Annunziata, J.) (temporary injunction granted); see also Zaki v. Oberoi, 18 Va. Cir. 209, 210 (Cir. Ct. Fairfax County 1989) (Kenny, J.).
Pursuant to the balance of the hardships test, the "first step is to balance the likelihood of irreparable harm to [complainant] against the likelihood of irreparable harm to the defendant[]." Blackwelder, 550 F.2d at 195. If a "decided imbalance of hardship should appear in the [complainant's] favor," then the likelihood of success is determined by the following formulation:
[I]t will ordinarily be enough that the [complainant] has raised questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful, as to make them fair ground for litigation and thus for more deliberate investigation.
Id. at 195 (quoting Hamilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co., 206 F.2d 738, 743 (2nd Cir. 1953)). Accordingly, the two most important factors are those of probable injury to the complainant without an injunction, and of likely harm to the defendant if an injunction were issued. If the balance were found to be in favor of the complainant, it would be enough that grave or serious questions were presented, and the complainant would "need not show a likelihood of success." Id. at 196.
I. Complainant Will Suffer Irreparable Injury.
In the instant case, application of the common law factors warrants the issuance of a temporary injunction. Aldridge has committed, and continues to commit, computer crimes in an effort to disrupt Free Republic and harass its founder and users. Those crimes disrupt Free Republic and its operations, antagonize its readers, and frustrate its purpose.
Free Republic has no adequate remedy at law. The majority of the harm Aldridge has caused Free Republic--i.e., harm to reputation, a diminution of membership, lost employee time devoted to ferreting out and rectifying Aldridge's misdeeds, and lost donations--is intangible or difficult to quantify. The Fourth Circuit in Blackwelder stated that "irreparability of harm includes the 'impossibility of ascertaining with any accuracy the extent of the loss.'" Blackwelder, 550 F.2d at 197. Similarly, potential destruction to a complainant's goodwill equals irreparable injury. See, e.g., Federal Leasing v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, 650 F.2d 495, 500 (4th Cir. 1981) ("[T]he right to continue a business is not measurable entirely in monetary terms[.]") (citation omitted); see also Blackwelder, 550 F.2d at 197 (holding that "indirect, though at times far reaching, effects upon [complainant's] good will" constitutes immeasurable damages that equate to irreparable harm) (citation omitted).
II. No Irreparable Injury Will Befall Aldridge If The Requested Injunction Were Issued.
By contrast, Aldridge will not incur any injury, much less suffer irreparable harm, if the Court enjoined his conduct. Aldridge's legal practice is not dependent on his ability to post messages on Free Republic. While he may invoke the First Amendment, his First Amendment rights do not give him a privilege to violate the VCCA or breach his User Agreement with Free Republic. Indeed, he has no constitutional right to disseminate his opinions, much less his form of harassment, on Free Republic's web site. Since Free Republic is a private enterprise, it is not required to give Aldridge access to its web site.
Cf Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. America Online, Inc., 948 F. Supp. 436, 437 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (holding that, "in the absence of State action, the private online service has the right to prevent unsolicited e-mail solicitations from reaching its subscribers over the Internet"); Lloyd Corp. Ltd. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 568 (1972) ("this Court has never held that a trespasser or an uninvited guest may exercise general rights of free speech on property privately owned and used nondiscriminatorily for private purposes only"; "property [does not] lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes").
On the other hand, Free Republic is not asking that Aldridge be totally muzzled, as tempting as that prospect may be. Under the proposed injunction, Aldridge would be precluded only from unlawfully posting unauthorized messaged on Free Republic's private web site and causing, counseling, and/or enabling others to do the same. Aldridge otherwise would be free to operate Free Republic Death Watch and any other forum he wants to establish to broadcast his political viewpoints.
III. Free Republic is Likely to Succeed on the Merits.
Aldridge has willfully and maliciously violated the VCCA, violated the Virginia civil conspiracy statute, and breached his User Agreement with Free Republic. Accordingly, there is a very strong likelihood that Free Republic will succeed on the merits of this action.
A. Aldridge Violated The VCCA And The Virginia Conspiracy Statute.
In 1984, the General Assembly enacted the VCCA, which criminalizes computer-assisted crimes. The General Assembly provided a private cause of action for violations of the VCCA. Va. Code Ann. 18.2-152.12. The evidence described above establish that Free Republic is likely to prove at trial that Aldridge violated several sections of the VCCA.
First, Aldridge committed computer trespass. Aldridge posts, and conspires with others to post, messages on Free Republic's web site without authorization for the purpose of temporarily or permanently removing, halting, or otherwise disabling Free Republic's computer data, computer programs, and/or computer software in violation of Virginia Code 18.2-152.4(A)(1). Aldridge's conduct has directly and/or indirectly caused Free Republic's computers to malfunction for some period of time in violation of Virginia Code 18.2-152.4(A)(2). Aldridge has also directly and/or indirectly falsified or forged electronic mail transmission information or other routing information in connection with the transmission of unsolicited bulk electronic mail through or into Free Republic's computer network in violation of Virginia Code 18.2-152.4(A)(7).
Second, Aldridge stole Free Republic's computer services. Aldridge has willfully used, and continues to use, his computer with the intent to obtain Free Republic's electronic message computer services without authority in violation of Virginia Code 18.2-152.6.
Third, Aldridge harasses Free Republic and its users by computer. Aldridge has directly and/or indirectly used, and continues to use, his computer to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, and/or indecent language, as well as veiled threats, on Free Republic's web site and Free Republic Death Watch with the intent to coerce, intimidate, and/or harass Free Republic in violation of Virginia Code 18.2-152.7:1.
Finally, Aldridge has caused Free Republic to suffer injury from unsolicited bulk electronic mail. For example, Aldridge has caused others to post messages on Free Republic's web site under unauthorized screen names he has established. See, e.g., Robinson Aff. at 34, 36 & Ex. 34 (Aldridge posted on Free Republic Death Watch an unauthorized Free Republic screen name and corresponding password along with the message: "Post as much as you can"); , Exs. 35-38. In addition, Aldridge posts fake articles on Free Republic's web site with the intent to cause multiple responses that result in halting or disabling the web site. Aldridge keeps careful tally of how many comments his fake articles generate, and thus how much Free Republic bandwidth he wastes. See, e.g., id. at 38 & Exs. 40-43. This malicious conduct has caused Free Republic to suffer injury from the transmission of unsolicited bulk electronic mail in violation of Virginia Code 18.2-152.12 as well as the Virginia Conspiracy Statute, Virginia Code 18.2-499 and 18.2- 500.
B. Aldridge Breached His User Agreement With Free Republic.
Like all users who post messages on Free Republic's web site, Aldridge voluntarily agreed to the terms of Free Republic's User Agreement in consideration for obtaining the privilege to post messages on Free Republic's web site. In exchange for this commitment, Free Republic granted Aldridge the conditional privilege to post messages on Free Republic's web site. Free Republic expressly reserved the right, however, to revoke those privileges if abused.
Free Republic had to exercise that right after Aldridge posted personal attacks, used profane and obscene language, and engaged in illegal activity on Free Republic's web site. As a result, Aldridge was banned from using Free Republic's electronic message service to post messages on the web site. See Robinson Aff. at 16-20. Because he has been banned from posting messages on Free Republic's web site, Aldridge breaches the User Agreement each time he posts a new message on Free Republic's web site without authorization.
IV. The Public Interest is Served by the Issuance of an Injunction.
The public interest is served by issuing the requested injunction. Aldridge cannot possibly show that the public has an interest in allowing him to violate freely the VCCA, breach his User Agreement, and harass other citizens. To the contrary, the public has an interest in an exchange of political viewpoints on the Internet that is uninterrupted by those who in essence are computer hecklers and vandals.
Another factor is that Aldridge is a member of the Virginia Bar. Indeed, Aldridge has touted the fact that he is a lawyer on Free Republic's web site and has published the statutes he has violated on his Free Republic Death Watch web site. At one time, Aldridge posted his form retainer agreement on Free Republic's web site. Robinson Aff., Ex. 4 at 4.
Allowing an attorney to so openly flout the laws of the Commonwealth can only increase the public's disdain for the legal profession and increase the public's skepticism of the legal system.
Conclusion
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Complainant Free Republic prays that this Honorable Court grant its Motion for Temporary Injunction and enter an order enjoining Aldridge and those acting in concert with him from:
(a) posting messages on Free Republic's web site;
(b) counseling others on how to post messages on Free Republic's web site;
(c) obtaining screen names and passwords for others to use in posting messages on Free Republic's web site; and
(d) revealing non-public personal information (including, but not limited to, social security numbers) concerning Free Republic's founder or its users on the Internet.
Free Republic further asks for an award of such further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
WINSTON & STRAWN
______________________________
Gordon A. Coffee #25808
Charles B. Klein #39117
1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-3502
(202) 371-5741
Attorneys for Complainant
Dated: January 25, 2001
homophobic.
That's an misused word.
Homo - same
Phobic - fear of
So, homophobic means 'fear of the same'.
Stop bastardising english/latin. Perhaps "a-homosexual" or "antihomosexual" would be more appropriate.
And as for you:
Yeah, I love the way the conservatives roll up their sleeves and wade in when there are problems needing solving. Like the civil rights movement. While liberal politicians were fighting tooth and nail to keep segregation legal, you conservatives were the ones passing the legislation, attending the marches, and arguing for equal treatment under the law.Oh, wait. I have that backwards.
As for the Revolutionary War, it was the liberals who were demanding independence, throwing tea into the harbor, and loading muskets. The conservatives of the age were called "Tories," and wanted nothing more than to make peace with mother England.
As you look at the evolution of the political parties, there has been so much upheaval and machination that no one party can claim to carry the mantle of the revolution. To claim such might be politically useful, but it's certainly not an exercise in intellectual honesty.
Yawn. . . yes, yes. Folks of your political mindset are the cause of all things good and noble. Those who oppose you are moral reprobates akin to Stalin and Hitler, in spirit if not in body count. Tell me, did you actually think your way into this position? Or simply settle into it because you found it comforting to shore up your own preconceived notions?I guess in your world, "liberals" sit around cluttered, tiny apartments smoking weed, growing their beards, and showering twice a year whether they need it or not. Occassionally, they might arise from their drug-induced stupor to hop in their rusted-out VW bus and attend a PETA rally. If you took off your Republican-colored glasses, you'd see that the vast majority of so-called "liberals" are holding steady jobs and adding just as much to "the wealth of our nation" as you and your Objectivist friends are.
Yeah, yeah. Death to the treehuggers. Taxes do not automatically "sap the strength" of a country. It depends on the utility of the program. You can't describe the Interstate Highway system as a toilet for money while championing the free market which spawned the ridiculous dotcom craze. Both government and free market spending have their uses and their excesses. So if you'll can the "liberals are Satan-worshipping child eaters" rhetoric, perhaps you could add something to the debate over what those uses are. Not believing in a book written by nomads three thousand years ago which claims all sorts of implausible miracles is a sign of madness? Refusing to believe in things which have no evidence to support them is madness? As for it being a sin, the term means "offense against God," so an unbeliever isn't going to be worried by that.80md?
(But of course, a right-leaning group is going to go for a property claim (however wrongheaded) since property rights are central to their philosophy (however wrongheaded).)
slashdot broke my sig
> What group of people brought AIDS into the US? It sure wasn't heterosexuals.
And you can prove this can you? Given that heterosexuals can transmit it as well.
And it was much less likely to have been a gay female than any heterosexual.
Given the number of STDs that can affect solely heterosexual men, it's a rather poor argument
You have misrepresented the site. Not that a prayer thread is really anything to be embarassed by anyhow.
There are seemingly endless threads all the time where people debate drug legalization; I'd hardly characterize the often bitter arguments as "monocultural."
It says *right there* in what you quoted that "there never was any counterclaim against anyone but FR." That means that there was only a counterclaim against FR. Then, it talks about that counterclaim against FR.
Anybody who wants to get a feel for the mindset of the site's inhabitants need only browse one article to understand.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
You've managed to state explicitly what I was illustrating with the link. My post doesn't constitute a judgement unless yours does too.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
We have not earned our Rights. These are god-given; inherited by being. We, and our fore-fathers (and fore-mothers :), have fought to keep this assumption valid. Any limit to these has to be earned.
In this case, where people are disruptive to the site may have earned a limit. When the topic is ignored and postings are made only to disrupt the flow of dialog, it is my most humble opinion that limits are permissable.
Second, his Aldridge seems to have released private information about the site's caretakers. This is a direct invasion. Can this be covered by stalking laws? (I don't think he'll be charged w/ stalking because one of his followers could have visited the Hair home and reported findings.)
Third, Robinson, et al. own the site and can ban anyone they want. Is the ban for a particular UserID or the human behind it? In this case, it is for the human. After so many IDs, this Aldridge didn't leave them alone. Maybe, this can be covered by stalking laws, too...
If I could flip a switch and activate a magical device that would filter out such an overly loud rendition of the Consitution, such an action should no longer be used as an excuse to ignore the 1st Amendment.
Unless this was a REAL DoS attack, there is simply no cause of action here. The tools available here make such claims considerably less meaningful.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Actually, if this were a lunch counter and not a magazine and the product were sandwiches and not ad space: there would be no question that this sort of BS is wrong.
Once you allow for equal access to merchants, it should be applied evenly and pretty much universally. That is what is meant by "equality under the law".
Also, no one said that it was the New York Times that was being exclusionary here. Publications associated with educational institutions should be held to higher standards of openness.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Read the second link - the allegations. It goes into quite a bit of detail.
:)
Some of the points touched on make me think I need to cancel all my extra hotmail/yahoo ID's and just create one with my name and that is it, lest I get sued by yahoo
Hmm, would that be anything like the gestapo tactics used on the GOP convention protesters in Philly? Cops destroying "dangerous" puppets?
Kind of hard to scream and shout when you're held in jail without charges, then released when Bubba's gone
Or jailed for $1M bail and released when W. is gone?
When you write annoying opposing thoughts to a liberal president, it's not illegal and you get thrown in jail without going to court.
Right, like the guys who did parody websites of W.'s campaign and Bush's campaign sent the FEC after 'em. Bush's take on it? "There should be limits to freedom".
You guys would vote for Mussolini if he were still around, although he'd probably be considered a Republican moderate at this point.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Amusingly, this very same argument was used by Southern slaveholders in their accusations against the British.
I think a distinction must be made between pseudonymity-- in which an author posts under a consistent "nom de guerre", and strict anonymity, where authorship is unknown.
To put it another way, I could adopt a nickname (e.g. CommodusTerraMajor), and post scientillating political commentary under that name. CommodusHumusMajor would aquire karma (perhaps) and a "track record" of previous posts. But few would be able to connect CommodusHumusMajor with me, allowing myself to go about my life unmolested by angry slashdotters.
At the same time, the name CommodusTerraMajor could become synonymous with insightful commentary (Score +1 bonus). It could be that the very name would inspire people to carefully read the post, trusting his every word. This would be a valued pseudonym
Or, I could post as an Anomymous Coward, knowledgable of the fact that my words (Score:0) will be ignored by most slashdotters, as an anonymous individual cannot earn a reputation.
OK, OK, OK
I know there's hypocrisy in both political camps. I just get tired of the news media always portraying liberals as the "good guys" and conservatives as "environment hating rasists". That's my biased perspective anyway.
School administrators have NEVER been unwilling to sacrifice freedom at the altar of a smoothly-run school
Fine, then ban the 48 pink triangles they have laying all around the school! If a school promotes one view, but does not allow the opposing view, then we have a problem. If you want proof, let's have schools have school prayers and the Ten Commandments on every wall. Oops, can't have that, some people don't like religion in school because they are worried that the government is mandating a religion. Kind of like schools mandating a "lifestyle". Both arguments don't make sense to me. But if schools follow one view point, they need to be consistent.
All those damn liberals are facists and liars, who don't want freedom for anyone but their friends, and only tolerate other liberals
No, but as a conservative I don't like the government mandating "politically correct thought". I see it every week based on observations at schools and city boards. Schools constantly tell students that guns are evil, you HAVE to accept the gay lifestyle 100% and that government schools should get every damn dollar they ask for (you have to be in Minnesota to appreciate the last two).
Too many decisions are being made based on emotions rather that logic. People cannot be free if the rule of law is based on emotions.
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
Nationalism should not be mandated. I agree 100%. School is for reading, writing and arithmetic (yeah throw history in there too). Government schools should be for education not indocrination.
Here's the rest of our example:
Teacher: Now Juan, why don't you get up and join us in our Pledge of Allegiance? Are you a communist or something?
Student: Yes I am.
Teacher: Good! I'm glad we have some "open minded" students here that know that Communism is better than Democracy. By the way class...tell your parents to vote of Al Gore. He will bring us one step closer to a Communist Utopia in America.
OK. Maybe it's not quite THAT bad.
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
The kid wearing it was pretty clearly going out of his way to be an asshole, and he succeeded>/i>
Then are gays that wear "Gay Pride" shirts assholes too? Or are they just proud of their lifestyle? It works both ways.
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
be prepared that we may start muttering "McVeigh" under our breaths
And conversatives will sigh "SLA". Remember that left wing group of American terrorists who killed a mother in front of her child during a bank robbery?
Anyway, McVeigh is not a right winger. He hated all things about government which is not a right wing view. He was coined a right winger by the left wing media folks like Dan Rather (you know, the "independent" who raises money for the Democrats - no media bias there).
While the original posters message was over the top, there is hypocricy in the liberal camp. Here in Minnesota a 13 year old wore a harmless sweatshirt the read "Straight Pride" because his school has placed pink triangles around the school as "safe zones" for gay/lesbian/transexual kids (your basic government run indocrination centers - but I digress). Anyway the same "tolerant" liberals who put up the pink triangles banned Elliot from wearing his "Straight Pride" shirt even though the government run school could display "Gay Pride" posters.
So here we have liberals who want free speech, but ONLY if you say the right thing. So much for liberal tolerance.
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
...is that this fellow's attitude isn't that uncommon.
A lot of neo-leftists out there think that things like anti-gay speech, and anti-abortion speech are illegal, and any tactic they can use to shut them up is completely justified.
At Portland State University in Oregon (from which I graduated 4 months ago), I saw "peace activists" scream at, spit on, and assault street preachers who said things that pissed them off.
Granted, the preachers were bozos and probably deserved the yelling, but seeing a hippie punch a priest in the jaw... is something to see.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Just post the diffs. I think this would be considered fair use.
-- Brian
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
That's not reporting ... that's vitriol. Can anyone supply an actual impartial view, or at the very least a balanced one that includes biased views from both parties? I would have expected a link to a counterview in the so-called "story" on the front page of Slashdot, in fact....
:: "I am non-refutable." --Enik the Altrusian ::
they allow anonymous users, but even the anonymous users have to agree to the user agreement.
Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
" (For instance, Gore never said he "invented" the internet.) Even if he didn't - even LIBERAL's used that joke against Gore.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
Just did a little digging - what Al REALLY said -
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Close enough - which of course isn't close to accurate since the Intenet evolved from Arpanet which has been around since 69.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
This goes in my quote file as bizzare quote of the day.
STOP MODERATING THIS TROLL UP!!!!!!
Um, anyhow, back to the stormtroopers
You're in violation of George Lucas' copyright, please cease and desist from using the term Stormtroopers to refer to what you believe to be brainwashed strongmen acting on behalf of the Evil Liberal Empire. Or at least capitalize it. Grammar Nazi.
It's a fact. Their religion was considered "unacceptable" and they were exterminated
Just like your very own organization promotes. If you aren't reformed Christian, you're wrong. Heh. You know, there was no Christian until 2000 years ago. Before that, we were all Catholics. And, according to your own organization, you wouldn't have condoned Koresh's "congregation" - where in the Bible does it say you need to stockpile massive amounts of firearms and force your way upon the unsuspecting masses?
The FBI monitors and harasses many churches whose views are considered "politically incorrect". Just a year ago, we narrowly escaped imposition of a brutal military dictatorship which would have outlawed Christianity entirely
You say this as though it's the bleeding liberals who are guilty of this heinous act. That's funny, because the last time I checked:
- The Nazi's (a right-aligned political party in Germany in the first half of the 1900's) kept tabs on churches and people whose views were unacceptable. Like Jews. And Blacks.
- Republican hero Sen. Joseph McCarthy wanted to keep tabs on people whose views were unacceptable. Like Communists. And people who contributed to political causes. Like Republican fundraising committees.
- Affirmative Action seeks to keep tabs on who works where. Hey, look, that's a Republican-sponsored initiative, too...
The Conservative Right has plenty to brag about when it comes to suppressing and repressing groups it doesn't believe in.If Y2K disruption had not been kept under control by the wisdom and forsight of American business and the patriot community
During the Y2K Disruption, most of your "Patriot Community" was hiding out in their bomb shelters with enough canned food to feed the homeless in a major city for a week and enough ammunition to kill those homeless multiple times over. And those that weren't hiding in basements were raving like a bunch of lunatics that the end of the world was coming, and were counting the minutes until they were taken up. Well, you're still here, I'm still here, and the world goes on. What exactly did you do to control the Y2K disruption?
Secret documents were leaked and have found their way into the patriotic resistance underground
Please post these documents along with their obvious equivalents OT-III and such, please. And Kennedy was killed by a bunch of heathens because he was a good Catholic boy.
It is insane and unjust that I am subject to the same laws as a citizen of Massachusetts
I assume you aren't in Massachussets, because if you are, then you're just an idiot spouting off, because you make no sense. You are subject to the laws of the state you live in, and to the laws of the country which contains the state you live in. The only reason you would be subject to the laws of Massachussets would be if you were either physically in MA, or doing business in MA, in which case, you are involved the the daily life of the state of MA. Where's the confusion here?
Federal interference in the housing market directly violates my Constitutional right to freedom of association
What does your right to associate have to do with someone else's right to buy a house in a neighborhood. I've lived in my house for a year and haven't even seen half of my neighbors, let alone associate with them. If you're buying real estate to make a profit when you sell it, then you should
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
There's nothing fascist about that.
---
I wish more people would realize this. Last election I was a party poll worker for the first time. I stood all day handing out GOP literature outside (in a very liberal precint, in a liberal town, in a liberal state) and then watched the recording of the machine counts (we used the levered machines...very nice...impossible to overvote and damned near impossible to undervote).
There were rotating Dems and an all day Green. When introduced ourselves the running joke was 'I will be your opponent for the day'. And then we argued all day, covered each other in our coffee runs, and generally had a pleasant day.
And we all knew although we differ in how to get there we generally wanted the same things out of life (although it was a bit of a revelation to our Green friend).
Herb
Herb
Again, feel free to sentence me to death if my questions annoy you. I'll come back in 5 minutes anyway. -Sythi
So, maybe you could have done just a little bit more digging and found this, which gives a full background of the story, including multiple quotes from Vint Cerf - arguably one of the real Internet inventors - who has attempted to defend Al Gore's statement many times.
But then, if you dig too hard, you might actually come up with something closer to the truth, and who wants the truth if it clashes with one's preconceived notions.
Per capita, per schmapita... being a native Texan I love a good bar-b-q... so I'll bring the steaks and the grill if someone will bring the beer. We can turn this into a tail gate party! Can I buy a block of those tickets?
I see the moderators are on crack again.
I forget what 8 was for.
You know, it's at times like this I wish I had some moderator points. Informative posts like this will go unnoticed, and from a general view of moderation so far, it appears a group is running roughshod over this particular forum topic. Many, many posts are being marked as troll and flaimbait that are not. Corellationally the posts are also the "liberal" views or pro-Aldridge. Just putting two cents in for an excellant link.
USA-Democracy is 270 million YESes and NOes a day, not one every four years.
Many of the articles on the site border on disgraceful racism
WTF does this mean? That because someone posts an article that you *think* (note the key word, as liberals tend to think most anything is racist) is racist, the whole site is bad?
Hm. Since the thoughts in the mind of the accused can never be proved one way or the other, racism is very much in the eye of the beholder...
Sure, which is why we have civil rights, women's rights, abortion rights, gay rights, the right to engage in political action free from police harrassment, a 40 hour work week, social security, FDIC, and most of our national parks. Because of the right wing
What is this, "Troll Slashdot" day on FreeRepublic? The right would gladly shut people like me up in a heartbeat, because I don't agree with their cultural agenda. Hell, me and about half the pro-choice activists I know have received death threats from the "freedom-loving" right. Many of them want to make it a capital crime to support abortion rights. So much for defending freedom.
The only right that the Right has stood up for, really, in the last 20 years, is the right to keep and bear arms. For this much, I am grateful. But I can't help but feel that many persons on the extreme right would gladly take *that* right away from me, too, because I don't subscribe to their side of the culture wars.
ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Finding God in a Dog
Problem? What problem? I acknowledge the Creator every day. I just don't see the Creator the same way that you do. But that's part of life in a pluralistic society, isn't it?
An interesting theory, except that I haven't seen any legal precendents to the effect that one's Constitutional rights are in any way dependent upon religion. Additionally, since these rights are endowed by our Creator, who are you to take them away?
That's a pretty idiotic statement on your part. For all you know, the guy was a US Marine. (Yes, there are liberals who have served in the military. My dad was one. I didn't, but I put in a stint with the US Army Corps of Engineers, doing urban planning for well below market salary for my skill set). You also don't know whether he votes in every election (I've voted in every election but one, and that one was because my absentee ballot didn't get sent to me, bastards), or whether he keeps and bears arms (which is one "reasonable" definition of a citizen).
Tying patriotism and citizenship to Christianity is a sign of likely mental retardation, in my view.
ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Finding God in a Dog
Strange, I feel exactly the same way about many elements of the extreme right.
Then again, I also know better than to not respect other people's rights.
Maybe that's the real difference between left and right.
Anyways, you just provided me with a one paragraph argument that I can show to my fellows on the ultra-left to convince them that RKBA is a valuable cause. Thanks a ton.
ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Finding God in a Dog
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Dude, you're a laugh riot! Deliberate environmental genocide...what a joke!
Tell you what, let's make a compromise. We on the left will call off our Kudzu and our nazi skinheads, if you call off the Army of God and the developers ripping whole square miles of trees out of the ground in North Georgia. We got a deal?
ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Finding God in a Dog
OH MY GOD...this is too fucking funny. I gotta see that again!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHA......oh goddamnit...let's see that again....
WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
(sniff sniff) hehehe...ok...hehehe...I'm done now...promise...hehehe....
BRAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH AH AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
Stop it! Stop it! Oh god make him stop! HAHAHAHAHAHA....
ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Finding God in a Dog
You'd be surprised. Many lesbians find men in general disgusting, regardless of their sexual habits. Gay and lesbian cultures are very different from one another; the two groups didn't have much to do with each other until recently.
They only really get along because there's a group of right-wing assholes who can't mind their own goddamn business. These assholes want to throw people in jail for being homosexual, or sometimes subject them to psychological torture in order to "heterosexualize" them. Then there's the NARTH camp, which promises hysterical parents that they can "straighten out" their children through reparative therapy; except that their claims have only anecdotal support.
Eventually the homophobes are just going to have to deal with the fact that some people are just plain homosexual, much like some people are just plain left-handed. Bush and Cheney seem just fine with it, which puts them light years ahead of most so-called "social conservatives."
ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Finding God in a Dog
One of the most destructive people on my old BBS was a 46 year old man with money to burn. I have every confidence that if you could buy mod points, he would buy up a passel and do some real damage - I could imagine him modding up Natalie Portman to a +5.
Of course the obvious response is that then other people would buy the points to counteract him, and he'd be down in the dungeon again. And the limitation of ratings to no more than +5 would ensure that even unlimited funds could not increase ratings too much. Still, there are enough serious abusers who would want to buy power that I would be worried about the results.
Still, limiting moderator point use to one per message would most likely limit the damage significantly. Otherwise you'd see moderation wars, which I doubt would serve anyone well but the folks selling the points; I could imagine the confusion as messages dropped down to the bottom and zoomed up to the top almost at random.
Perhaps the most promising feature of moderator point purchase and sale is that it might do something that has been incredibly hard: provide a revenue source so sites like Slashdot could be profitable.
Hi back, by the way. Got a real job. Started making real money. Didn't have time for anything else for a long time, so I had to slough off a ton of projects. Drop me an email and I'll respond.
D
----
Sadly, due to all the graphical gingerbread, ads, and so on cluttering up the commercial sites, it's really enjoyable to read articles on FR that are totally unsullied by same. But when I see a news source I like, I will usually read the article over there because I feel a moral responsibility to give them ad revenue.
Free Republic really is a fascinating collection of articles, on a wide range of topics with a wide range of political viewpoints expressed. (Just look for the "barf alerts" to see articles opposing the general FR ideology).
It's true that there are many comments that are poorly thought out, ungrammatical and ill-informed. But there is some intelligent wheat among the chaff, and the byplay between users can be interesting.
It's definitely not as sophisticated as Slashdot, but it's aimed at a population much closer to the American average, so that should surprise no one. And surely the members of the American average deserve some kind of voice? They deserve to be heard, by those who wish to listen.
I ran a bulletin board system some years back that eventually wound up being overrrun by harassers; they're like locusts, and even a small number of them can completely destroy the atmosphere of a board. So on the whole, I have to side with Free Republic here; otherwise, every political forum would be effectively unusable. Even Slashdot, with its sophisticated software and elaborate moderation system, descends into unusability at times. Unfortunately, I suspect the average user could not be lured into understanding, let alone operating, a moderation system. Perhaps I'm wrong; I don't think I am.
Thoughts?
D
----
For those that don't know, Rushdoony and the Chalcedon organization are Christian Reconstructionists, a group that advocates eraticating the Constitution!
Political Amazon has an excellent article on these freaks.
From the article:
So, essentially, your group Chalcedon says to hell with civil rights. GO AWAY, TROLL
Send lawyers, guns and money. The shit has hit the fan.
It's really sad that this flaimbait has been moderated up to five. I can only hope that it got that high based on "+1 funny" votes for the double-irony of the content.
I wonder if because of this story we will see less postings by the Slashdot Trolls now?
I hope so.
I realized that slashdot trolling has gone way too far when I saw goatse.cx scrawled on a restroom wall of a local pizzashop/geek hangout. That was just too much.
You say you want a revolution....
It's true - usually hitting one of those links makes me stop thinking "open source blah blah blah" and start thinking for myself: "dammit, hit the back button!".
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Whoa. At the time I'm posting this, you have a score of 5. This is obviously a troll or at least a joke. Speaking as an extreme-mad-as-hell-militant-not-your-daddys-bleed ing-heart liberal, I have to say that you are full of bullshit for linking some vandal with liberalism in general. Is it okay for me to think of all conservatives by my impressions of the morons from Texas that dragged that man on their truck? (btw, I'm native Texan - conservative capital of the world).
I'm really interested, why are you calling this vandal a liberal? He has nothing to do with me.
. I sure wish those who would label him a right winger, would find a quote of his, any quote, which displays any of the values that are advocated by the political right
Like his feelings on states' rghts, reducing the federal government, abortion, gun laws, taxes, military spending, etc? Or did you mean something OTHER than every major republican platform?
I must have missed his staunch support of universal healthcare and public education.
Please not, I don't lump conservatives/republicans in with McVeigh (he is clearly an extremist) but to suggest he WASN'T a conservative extremist is mind-boggling to say the least.
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Free Republic seems to be a load of right-wing, racist, homophobic crap but the bottom line is Aldridge stepped over the line. Either engage in discussion within the rules of the forum or leave it alone. Any sensible person should be able to see that spamming and posting personal information and threats is not the way to fight and now the courts have put it in writing. I may not like what FR has to say but I'd rather let them say it than have a**holes like Aldridge get away with that kind of behaviour...
*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I work all night and I post all day
In Soviet Russia, hot grits put YOU down THEIR pants.
You know what? If I pass a group of young black guys on the street, I sometimes get a little nervous....does that make me racist? Perhaps. I'll tell you one thing though, the terms 'sexist', 'racist', 'homophobic', etc. ARE used as bludgeons by liberals against people who don't agree with them. I claim, however, that normal, sensible people who were brought up to believe that people should be treated with respect KNOW racism when they see it. My 7 year old could tell you there is something wrong with a Nazi or a Klan site even though he doesn't yet understand why these people must also be allowed to have their say.
*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I work all night and I post all day
In Soviet Russia, hot grits put YOU down THEIR pants.
That was an excellent composition. I don't think I believe you though. This seems more like just a troll. Good though. The idea of goat.sex as political activism is quite humourous, though the advocacy of spamming (essentially what you are claiming to have done) is ... distasteful. Still, a good curry has some unexpected spices in it. Your impersonation of a frothing lunatic was quite good, and only slightly overdone. Just enough for humor.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Err, just a note ... they're being sued by a bunch of newspapers for mirroring those stories as you seemed to hint slashdot should do. Copyright infringement and all, just like cmdrtaco always said....
Close enough - which of course isn't close to accurate since the Intenet evolved from Arpanet which has been around since 69.
But, what did happen in the early 90s was that the Internet was expanded from a research entity to the publically available Internet. It required an act of Congress to open the closed, research network to commercial entities which sold access to the public. This allowed the Internet as we know it today with access available to all (who can pay) to develop.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
I see. So if I subscribe to such attacks, I'm ok, but if I call them what they are, I'm a hypocrite? Interesting reasoning.
Ignorance is the root of all evil.
"But you were at least trying to quote the Declaration, so I'll take the thought for the deed and let it slide." - Wow, how generous of you! BTW, I wasn't trying to quote anything. It's called a paraphrase.
"The problem here is that you and the rest of the liberals do not acknowledge your Creator." - Really? And you know my religious views how? What gives you the monopoly on God? And yet you claim to acknowledge God, and acknowledge the rights granted by God, and somehow those rights don't apply to those you can slap a "Liberal" label on. Are you saying that God plays partisan politics?
And what "reasonable standards" are you referring to? Obviously not US law, that doesn't seem to interest you. By what right do YOU decide who is and isn't a patriot, much less even a citizen?
Ignorance is the root of all evil.
"Trespassing" on a public web forum? Interesting concept.
And it seems that if you scream, shout and intimidate people in an attempt to influence a national election regardless of the vote, it's free speech. When you act annoying on a conservative web forum, it's illegal and you get taken to court. Funny world.
Ignorance is the root of all evil.
Continue to choke down the lies your peers and poorly trained musicians feed you. Liek Judge Smales once said...Someone's gotta dig the ditches!
Blar.
There are guidelines posted by the owner of the forum over what is and isn't allowable -- objectionable posts (especially those with profanity or racist comments) are quickly removed when discovered, usually within minutes. Repeat offenders are temporarily or permanently banned.
--
This can be thought of as Road Rage on the Internet! This idiot has made quite a pest of himself. However it brings up questions of free speech and public debate. The following would ring true.
1. You should be a gentleman/lady in one's posts.
2. You should refrain from using language which is profane in nature.
3. You should not slander co-debaters.
Just because users don't know who you really are, should not allow you to become a complete twit. The same concept applies to road rage. A driver feels isolated and protected within their car, so they perform aggresive acts against others. If these people were standing on the street they would not be pusing others around like they do with there automobiles.
Point number two:
A website who provides a public forum should clearly define the rules (as Free Republic did) and they need some sort of moderation technology. Without moderation, you have to manually sensor content and ban user accounts. This is not a free forum, but a skewed reality. Free speech should be allowed, even if you don't like the content of the speech. Although Slashdot's moderation technology is not the greatest, it does work most of the time. Allowing other readers to moderate posts prevents a whole lot of worthless content that does not flow with the debate. This can kill off topic posts, first posts, and other junk. The moderation system is entirely optional. If you don't want to read the junk, turn on a moderation level that strips it out. If you wish to see the junk, set it to the lowest level.
We will never be free from the idiots but we can at least filter some of their junk. I don't know about you but I have been using Newsgroups and BBS forum systems since their inception. I simply don't have the patience for inconsiderate time wasting filth. But I believe that someone should not be blocked from posting such filth.
Eventually, the troll gets bored when no-one bites into his bait. Those that are ignorant enough to bite the bait deserve the resulting onslaught.
I don't believe this user would have started attacking the Free Republic website if he hadn't been banned in the first place. Banning the user id and deleting his messages only escalated the situation and caused the user to retaliate. This is the exact same thing as intentially cutting off another road rage afflicted driver or breaking hard when he/she is tail gating you. It escalates the already dangerous situation. People end up crashing their cars, brawling on the side of the road, and shooting each other over nothing at all.
Not turning one's cheek to a trolls flamebait, only encourages the troll to become more aggresive. One needs to identify a troll and simply ignore their coments completely. Let the troll see that they succeeded in posting but no one cares what they have to say.
Moderation technology and the ability for users to completely ignore posts by a known offensive individual are the only way to stop the problem. Taking action against an individual in cyberspace only escalates the situation. There are people in cyberspace that are knowledgable enough to make your online life very difficult, why test their resolve?
This to me shows the overwhelming hypocricy of the liberal movement. I have no doubt that those attacking this site were liberals, doubtless believing themselves to be on some righteous crusade.
You have no doubt? Well, then, that settles it, right?
Typically, however, the liberals show themselves to favor censorship when it suits them, - that is to censor opposing views.
Ah, I guess I missed the part where conservatives encouraged opposing views. Well, if you're right about liberals, at worst, they're no worse than you.
It appears clear that these liberals will stop at nothing in the pursuit of their own agenda - posting obscene messages, and so on, and even "targeting Free Republic's founder, Jim Robinson" in pursuance of "his stated goal of chasing Free Republic off the Internet". I have seen enough. I have tolerated their supposedly well-meaning activities, but I will not accept these kind of attacks.
Stop by a liberal website sometime; you'll see plenty of obscenity and general hate mail sent in by freedom-loving, tolerant conservatives.
As for accepting these kind of attacks, who the hell asked you to? You almost sound like you want to censor an opposing view!
I'm just embarrassed that this idiot stooped to freeper tactics to attack them; I'm glad they shut him down. Let him start his own website.
Sometimes it's worth replying to trolls, if only to help correct the common mistakes that they exaggerate.
This essay points out how the most central principles of both the Declaration of Independance and the Consitution not only are not supported by the Bible but in fact contradict it directly.
Of course, the support of slavery and conquest of native peoples are well-supported by the Bible...
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
This to me shows the overwhelming hypocricy of the liberal movement.
I'd say that being an a**hole is pretty much orthagonal to your political persuasion. Look around -- if you can't find somebody on your side that is an embarassment, then it's probably you.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
We have not earned our Rights. These are god-given; inherited by being.
I'll not dispute this, but for the purposes of discussion, it's interesting to discuss which god or gods our individual rights come from. For example, the right to keep and bear arms is almost certainly bestowed by the Hebrew wind god Yahweh, which currently holds the position of Christian God. This view is shared by virtually all sane historians and theologians. There are those that believe that the god Kali, worshipped by the Thugee, is the source of the right to bear arms, but most of those people are (quite frankly) batty.
The right to free speech most likely originated with Zeus. Most of the other gods that have existed in the past have been very restrictive when it comes to speech, placing arbitrary and draconian limitations on what can and cannot be said. Zeus was/is more (pardon the term) liberal in this sense. Ditto for freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, etc. The bulk of the evidence suggests that all freedoms related to expression originated from the Greek pantheon. This was refreshing to people after having to endure thousands of years of warlike gods that did not look kindly on free expression.
At any rate, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but it's a topic that interests me.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Ever hear of "Uncle Tom" Blacks? The ones who side with Whitey to the detriment of his/her own people? We Chicanos have people like that in our own community -- we call them "Tio Taco"...
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
From Merriam-Webster: racism 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
You claim that African American culture breeds ignorance, therefore it is obvious that you feel that they should subscribe to your "superior" White American culture.
You, sir are a racist, you just don't have the balls to come out and say it openly like your skinheaded neo-Nazi brethren...
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
Besides, no one is fucking with your "freedom of association" rights. You can always join the Ku Klux Klan and move to Idaho.
Pendejo...
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
Hi David, glad to see you're better now (or at least posting).
/. are what could be termed a quickly-expiring online "currency," although with limited value due to the lack of an exchange marketplace and I'm not sure the word currency is right in this case (hence the quotes).
:)
I disagree (reluctantly, I get to see the mayhem that some "average users" manage to inflict upon themselves every working day) that users won't understand -- and indeed WANT -- moderation. Indeed, I think that moderator-points on
Everyone here has probably seen a comment that they'd like to mod up (or down, I guess) and not had any points to do so. I'm not proposing this for Slashdot itself (I'm not against it, either) but it might be nice if the "SlashCode" were modified so that mod points could actually be purchased, if a site owner chose to sell them. Obviously, I stand to gain from widespread adoption of one currency in particular (which seems ideally suited for the job, IMO) but I'd of course want to let all flowers bloom if this happens.
I don't write code, and I have no idea how hard this would be to do. The sites I've seen operating the Slashcode (Cluebot and Fairtunes) seem not to have user-moderation enabled at all, so I'm not sure that's an option in the publicly available version. I think that if average users more-quickly (well, ok, slowly) saw reputation as a valuable thing -- one that should be guarded and handled with care, the 'net might benefit. I agree that it won't be an easy job trying to teach them, but in the end it might be worth it -- even for others besides greedy-old Jim Ray.
Of course, for those who don't know me, I'm tremendously self-interested and biased. I'm also ready to admit that "moderation-for-the-rich" might not improve some sites, but I'm not convinced that it's never "worth it" to sell mod points. For example, I'd have paid half a gram or so to moderate this comment up this morning. I could not, so I didn't, but look at the comment and see if that would have been a good thing for yourself. The green-eyeshades types at Andover.net just *might* want to look into how many clickthrus that single transaction would equal...Or maybe not, I don't know.
JMR
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
Apparently these folks don't believe that freedom includes rights to free speech. Rather than competing in the marketplace of ideas, they apparently prefer to impose their own brand of free speech antitrust law.
I imagine that the defendant must have gone well beyond the pale for a court to grant such a motion. However, it is ironic that these folks couldn't themselves find more credible ways to monitor and moderate their own property.
The freedom of speech issue is consistently held on this forum, both by liberals and libertarian conservatives. You allege "cowardly and snakelike" inconsistencies, but none can be found here. Partisans of Slashdot here have consistently defended speech they loved as well as speech they have hated.
It would appear that it is the FreeRepublic, however, that has deviated from avowedly libertarian views by seeking court-ordered censorship of speech which they disdain, and not the denizens of Slashdot.
Brandeis had it right: the only proper remedy for bad speech is more and better speech. The marketplace of ideas does not require antitrust laws.
If actors, be they right-wing or left, cannot stand the heat of enlightened, reasoned argument and respond in kind, but must resort to hard-knocks battle tactics, this says more about the lack of intellectual quality of those positions than anything else.
Moderation Totals:Flamebait=2, Troll=3, Insightful=5, Funny=1, Overrated=2, Total=13
Just needs an "interesting" for a full house.
>First posters, trolls, etc., beware.
Why should they have to worry about anything? It has nothing to do with them.
What the guy did was closer to a cracker-attack or spam-flooding their email.
FirstPosts and trolls are trivial to handle compared to this.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
.. I've ever seen.
:)
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Pretty much it seems like their mantra is 'Everyone has a right to be heard, as long as we agree with you.'
The left is looking more and more like the facist right.
Troll, troll, go away, find a better way to play.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
So... does that mean if you're listed in the phone book, you're not trying to hide yourself, so I can harass you? If you have a license plate on your car, I can get your information from the transporation cabinet and harass you, because you're not obscuring your plate number? If it's illegal to harrass, then it's illegal to harrass, regardless of how easy the victim made it for his attacker, just like it's still a crime to take stuff out of my car regardless of if my doors were locked or not.
The next time you put out something about a
flaming liberal site like Salon, be sure to
attach this adjective to it as well.
*Applause*
Congratulations, Theonomist, on an impressive troll. Not because it wasn't clearly a troll, because it was - it's so far over the line that anyone paying attention can't help but realize it. But that you did it so well that you really did manage to convince a few people that you were serious.
Heck, you even got moderated up as insightful! (probably by one of those people that actually vote for Jesse Helms) You've done well, as now we'll get the chance to meta-moderate out at least one more bad moderator, and perhaps more should other people bite.
You should never have wasted your time trying to troll on E2, when you can do it so much better here, with so much better results, due to the Slashdot crowd.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
I know, I'm feeding a troll, but they're just so cute when they sit up and beg like this.
Anyhoo, here goes:
As long as the Federal stormtroopers can forbid us to pray to our Creator as we choose, we are not free.
Pray to Whoever you want, however you want but not on my dime. Unless you're willing to interupt school two or three times a day so that the little Muslim girl sitting next to your kid can pray to Mecca. Either you have to stop everything for everyone or just draw a line and universally say "Do it on your own time." Simple.
As long as they can forbid the education of our children in a Christian manner, we are not free.
See above. You can educate your child however you choose. You do know, don't you, that you have many other choices than a public school, if they bug you. It's the public's dime, not your private parochial system.
As long as they can ram filth down our throats on the television, we are not free.
Laughable. Did you goof and buy a T.V. without and off switch? Forget to pick up this week's T.V. Guide? Are the Federales camped out in your living room, holding little Johnny down on the couch and forcing him to watch hours of South Park or Ellen? Or are you schluffing off your responsibility to raise your children? I don't understand how folks who are so vocal about the glories of a Free Market system can bitch about the results of the Free Market system. Don't like the shows? Don't watch 'em. Don't let your kids watch 'em. Why are you advocating gov't contrl of a communications medium -- I would have thought folks like you would want to keep especially those free of government regulation...
As long as we are denied the right to police our own communities as we see fit, we are not free.
Are police chiefs, sherrifs, etc. not elected officials in your humble 'berg?
Finally, to sum:
This will again be a free nation only when power is excercised at the local level, for the benefit of the community.
We're back to that whole T.V. thing, again. You don't want what you're advocating here. You want the mandating of your agenda. It's clear. The gov't isn't sending Evil signals into your T.V., corporations are. The gov't isn't stopping you from ignoring them. The gov't isn't stopping your neighbor from watching them. Seems like local control to me?
What's so difficult?
You mean like the guy/gal posting about how BSD is dying all of the time. He/she must have no life.
ok, so you don't like what they say. So What? Does that give anyone the right to try and 'subvert' it. Doesn't everyone have the right of free speech and association? Oh, I guess it's only if you approve?
mark
There's a big difference between the natural rights of a businessman and the natural rights of a business. The first exists, the second is a bastardization of the Constitution that was never intended by the Authors. A business/corporation is a thing and does not have any Constitutional rights.
As for the incident in Seattle, the police purposely stood by while a small minority of trouble makers trashed stores and caused general mayhem. When it reached a sufficent level of violence, the police went in and shut down all protests.
The protests, in general, were not against business (though some were), they were against secret meetings that had (still have) the potential of affecting every man, woman, and child on this planet. I have nothing against these meetings, but I demand they be completely open and televised. I don't trust what tiny crumbs they are spoonfeeding us through the media.
-- Will program for bandwidth
At issue here is that the rules of the forum were not being followed. The United Sates Senate allows filabuster as a strategic tool. The House or Representatives does not. Neither of them allow you to just walk in and participate in the debate. The issue is following the rules of the forum not making court rulings about the s/n ratio in a given place.
_____________
I don't want free as in beer. I just want free beer.
As long as the Federal stormtroopers can force us to allow inferior and disruptive "students" to attend our schools alongside our children -- we are not free
You're not forced to do anything, homeschool.
As long as the Federal stormtroopers can forbid us to pray to our Creator as we choose, we are not free.
Am I free if I am forced to pray to YOUR creator?
As long as they can forbid the education of our children in a Christian manner, we are not free.
Again, homeschool, private school, there are lots of options
As long as they can ram filth down our throats on the television, we are not free.
Turn the stupid thing off
As long as we are denied the right to police our own communities as we see fit, we are not free.
As long as we are policed to conform to others beliefs, are we free?
As long as we are forced to allow undesired outsiders to buy land in our communities, we are not free.
Ask any native american, and they'll tell you that you are an undesirable outsider.
Get involved
It's the 21st Century Do you know what your government is doing
Obvious this guy is fscked up. Posting personal information about FRs employees is going over the top. He is a borderline stalker by going to one employee's house and describing her living room on the message board.
Ask Slashdot - google for stupid people.
Please Dan, take a deep breath; I can see the veins popping out on your neck. Count to 10. As a cowardly and snakelike liberal, I can guarantee that the liberal movement is not in favor of censorship. This guy is not a "liberal"-- he is an "attorney", and some might say, a "lunatic." He is going to be spanked, and life in this great republic will go on. Put your weapons back on the shelf and do us and yourself no harm.
QUOTE
Jim Howard writes:
This is not true. No injunction was won. I agreed to a stipulated injunction as part of a settlement to dismiss all outstanding claims
There was no "decision." There was no "opinion." There was no "judgment." The judge signed off on an out of court agreement between the parties. There is no precedent, there is no finding of liability, there is no admission of wrongdoing, there is no apology. There is only agreement to do what I had already done, which was to lose interest in the site after they had agreed to a million dollar judgment
Why not put my Answer to their Allegations online as well? I enclose it as an attachment.
END QUOTE
I replied to Mr. Aldridge and tried to explain that I can't control what stories slashdot chooses to list, but that I would offer his side of the story here in the comments. I also offered to post a link here in the story comments to the document he sent me, if he wants to put it on the web somewhere.
Jim Howard
The story that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet has been thoroughly debunked by Phil Agre in http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/2000/RRE.Al.Gore. and.the.Inte.html
and
rebutted further later
That meme was a creation of Declan McCullagh, a "reporter" for Wired News who is a fanatical Libertarian so extreme that he managed to have a chapter of a book using him as a poster-boy for Libertarian ideologues If you think I'm just flaming, this aspect of his fabricated story being a Liberatarian hit-piece was extensively discussed in a debunking by Salon
After Declan McCullagh was repeatedly taken to task for his hatchet-job, over more than year, by everyone who was there, from Dave Farber to Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf he finally grudgingly retracted
But people still repeat it, because urban legends never die.
...and not a single comment about the screen name "Paula Jones' Twat"?
C'mon, that was funny.
--
"200 Quatloos on the newcomer!" "300 Quatloos against!"
This, as far as I know (and correct me if I'm wrong), is pretty much settled law. The Vietnam/black armband case gave students equal footing in one instance, but I believe subsequent decisions severely limited those rights again. And rather than being a liberal initiative, I think the limits were imposed by the conservatives on the Burger Court
No disrespect, but get serious. The comparison to school prayer only holds up if schools were mandating that students make out with the same-sex person nearest them. Otherwise, they're not mandating ANYONE'S lifestyle.If these pink triangles advertising a student group and/or meetings, then I see nothing wrong whatsoever; Christian student groups meet in schools all over the place, and AFAIK advertise as well.
That said, personally, I believe the "straight pride" shirt should have been allowed to stay. The kid wearing it was pretty clearly going out of his way to be an asshole, and he succeeded. As if high school isn't tough enough for gay kids, they get something that hopefully helps them feel more comfortable, coming at no one's expense, and some little dickhead has to say "no, you don't belong - get back in the closet." But, he should have the right to be a prick.
-brennan
Normally I would think this is just a troll, but I'm pretty sure that there are actually some people who believe stuff like this is accurate.
-brennan
-brennan
"why not take it to his ISP? He could do a lot less without an ISP to help him harass this site, and going to court would waste resources which could have been saved, but oh well!"
From personal experience, a lot of the most annoying trolls do their damage from public terminals at libraries, etc. And what are you going to do if he's using say EarthLink. Are you really going to send an e-mail to EarthLink and say "somebody who uses you as an ISP but posts here using a Hotmail account is being abusive. Please make him stop"??
And so this is how it ends for you my dear olde adversary. It ends badly.
Your "brilliant" retrospectively contrived Briar Patch "strategy" may have brought an abrupt conclusion to the lawsuit and saved you some bucks, and a few postage stamps, but it's also oiled up the flea-eaten feathers on a certain semi-male peacock and managed to re-rivet Free Republic.Com's leaking hull as well.
Unfortunately for you, no one perceives any brilliance on your part, though we both know it's sorta there, trying to shine in a low-batteries kind of way, hidden in that jammed and dirty closet of obsessive compulsion you call a life.
But in fact, You gave them an injunction against you. And you gave them as close to a win as they could have reasonably hoped for in a court of law had they finally found one. And lastly you gave them equal value for all the money that they wasted in your pursuit---estimated at 75 large. You haven't made yourself look smart TC, you've made them look intimidating, powerful, bold. They've got money to throw around at chumps like you. Chumps who count their stamps.
The injunction is against you T. Chappell. FReeRepublic.Com sued you and they got it. It's real.
There's nothing virtual at all about it. And the world isn't better for it. Your done, they decided when not you, and that's FR's fork stuck in your rump to prove it.
Eschoir, TC Aldridge, committed the worst sin possible. The one sin, the owner of simply cannot handle. He suddenly stopped his years of goofy primetime peformance art and wallowed in a lonely funk on some silly site of his own instead. Paranoia consumed the powers that be...... The out of work lawyer had to be stopped.
Say there mbourgon, in all those links to stories on FR did you happen to come across one about the $1 million judgement against them for copyright infringement? Now that's an eyeopener! I'm sure you are all chatting about it incessantly.
Antifreeper? Mouse Warrior? This is pure Disinformation.
Now it's your turn to:
Produce the Evidence! (or forever hold your piece)
If your mission here was to make FR seem weird and full of strange people, then you're mighty good at what you do.
Re: BLB I doubt that any rational person would describe an present FR ptb as bright or shining, and certainly no one would describe a maxed-out donor to the Bradley presidential campaign as a conservative.
Re: Low batteries life. That wasn't a personal attack, that was pure poetry.
Re: High Value Messages. I want you to know that you are one of a select few posters on the net that actually are capable of writing a forum message worth the read. Often demented, but just as often readworthy.
Re: Fighting til the last. If you had you wouldn't look like the chump loOoser you look like now. Next time don't do your own PR spin. You killed yourself. We both know you escaped the noose but only a few others see it that way.
Re: FR got injunctive relief. And it only cost them maybe 75 large to clear the books of you. Of course I cleared you off of Lucianne.Com by inventing the BOP, which cost me nothin'.
Of course, this won't stop the clueless masses here from screeching "censorship!@" D'oh.
-Legion
Both slashdot and freerepublic have championed free speech in the past. But, with any big forum, there are disruptive people. Appropriate to their idiologies, slashdot solved the problem with clever technology (moderators, points, etc.) and Free Republic solved the problem with hoards of angry conservatives :-) Suing over the matter is actually quite out of character for freepers because they don't like trial lawyers and dislike lawsuits.
Anyways, I can't believe that joker pleaded the 5th in a civil suit. WTF is up with that?
Bravo! Thank you for such well-stated, succinct views!
Irony = 0%
Now, if I understand you properly, you then argue that the only people who have any rights are the ones who agree with you. Anyone who disagrees with you lacks honor, does not work hard, is not self-sufficient... in short, can be labeled easily with the term "liberal," and, by your lights, can be safely considered an "un-person."
And then you follow that up with claims of tolerance? Either this is irony of the finest sort, for which you are to be commended, or you actually believe this....
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
The estimated cost of this lawsuit keeps growing. Let's call it a million and really make it impressive!
Frivolous lawsuits get thrown out of court. This was no frivolous lawsuit.
Eschoir had registered more than 50 seperate screen names which he used to post profanity, insults and personal information about Free Republic posters and the owner of the site.
He also posted that he had peeked in the windows of a users living room. Her claim is that he described it to a T.
Eschoir, as he is known on FR and elsewhere, propogated information about various screen name/password combinations to other ex-members in an effort to perpetually harrass the site.
Any claim by TCA that he would have gladly stopped this 2-year campaign of harrasmant, by the simple mailing of a cease and desist letter should result in a calamity of laughter by those who have witnessed his assault.
He's a petulant child. His goal was to get attention for himself. He got it. In some sick way, I'm sure he truly believes he prevailed.
Live by the sword, die by the swword. Lucianne's customers breathed a deep sigh of relief when she gave you the old BOP.
FR was created by a cantankerous Perl programmer from Fresno named Jim Robinson. The genesis for Free Republic was the old White Water discussion on Prodigy. Jim got so fed-up with the censorship occurring on the Prodigy boards that he decided to try his luck on the wire and without a net.
Robinson wrote the code, slapped it onto a PC running linux and invited many of the old Prodigy crowd to come along.
The site turned out to be a tremendous success. For those who were tired of the same old regurgitated news and analysis or being shouted down because they were {gasp} conservative, Free Republic proved to be a sort of safe haven for conservative ideas.
And frankly, the software kicks ass over any forum software I've seen with one caveat. All replies are refreshed in-line. This makes it a tremendous bandwidth hog, but it is so much easier for the user to interact, that perhaps it's worth it.
I registered in August of 1998 and found some of the npolitical analysis to be quite good. Clinton seemed to be causing the same sort of distrust among conservatives as did Reagan in the 80's. FR was a place where anyone (even Libertarian whack jobs such as myself) could post an article.
Yes, it is true that Liberals who show up will get shouted down in much the same fashion as Libertarians and conservatives get shouted down at liberal sites. (and there is even a small but nasty contingency of anti-libertarian trolls at FR)
Yes, it is true that there are some FR posters there who are openly racist or anti-homosexual bigots.
That is far from the norm and Robinson makes his best effort to keep the place "clean." I haven't seen him in a while, but there was a "Green" liberal from up in Eugene who posted at FR regularly and was afforded a remarkable amount of respect given his political background.
Politeness and honesty can gain anyone respect at Free Republic. The liberal columnist Chris Hitchens was particularly loved at FR due to his absolute disdain for Clinton.
At any rate, Aldridge (Eschoir) was one of the most vile, attention-grabbing, cretins ever to post at FR. He would post articles with obsenities in the title, personal information about other posters and went so far as to post a description of the interior of a prominent poster's living room in an apparent attempt to intimidate her.
Eschoir was not a friendly person at all. He is certainly an intelligent man. Since I myself, am no big fan of the GOP and their politics, I found some of what he posted to be quite hillarious.
However, he crossed the line of common decency and has, for the past 2 1/2 years, made his mission in life the harrasment of FR. He has recruited other banned and anonymous cowards into engaging in his game. And to be sure, his vitriol was met in kind by certain FR posters including thepublishing of his photo, office address and phone number (he is an attorney). Once banned, Eschoir returned under no less thatn 50 sperate aliases in an attempt to badger and harras pasters. His favorite pastime appeared to be to ridicule Jim Robinson, who is confined to a wheel chair, by calling him "RimJob" and repeatedly attacking him via any one of his myriad of screen names.
In 1999, Freeper activism had gained the site some modicum of respect (as much as can be expected for conservative activists) and they organized a march on Washington called the March for Justice. If you can find yourself a copy of the CSPAN coverage of this event, you might just notice a man hanging on the stage, attempting to shout down Alan Keyes. Fact is, that the Freepers (and there were a few thousand at the event) tolerated Eschoir even in that most embarrasing moment.
He has finally received the bounty he deserves. He is enjoined from ever posting at FR in the future or else face a contempt of court charge.
The injunction was agreed upon by both parties and is not a judicial precedent nor do I believe was that the intent. Eschoir has claimed in response to the /. article that a mere letter would have motivated him to cease. I hate to use a propaganda technique here, but any rational person, having witnessed Eschoir's harrasment campaign, could not possibly believe such an assertion.
Regardless of my differences in opinion with most of the freepers, I am proud to call myself a freeper. The site rocks. It's one of the most happening sites for diverse political information you will ever find on the Internet.
Rick Fisk aka Demidog
Then are gays that wear "Gay Pride" shirts assholes too? Or are they just proud of their lifestyle? It works both ways.
Something tells me if he wandered around with a shirt labeled "white pride" he would have gotten his ass kicked in short order. Then again, I see 'gay pride' and 'black pride' and 'white pride' and 'straight pride' as being pretty damned silly. Being gay is nothing to be proud of. Being straight is nothing to be proud of. They just are. Take pride in actual accomplishments.
That's a pretty inflammatory accusation. I'm going to have to ask you for some evidence of this "brutal military dictatorship". Otherwise, you'll have to agree this sounds way too paranoid to be true.
Ahhh, come on, BVis, he was just freestyle bullshitting. :) I thought it was kindof funny. Until he mentioned Y2K, I thought he was ranting about Al Gore being elected.
If FreeRepublic allowed for anonymous users than how the heck is this trespassing? Or did FreeRepub just make an exception to the rule and say "Well everyone else can be anonymous, just not X"?
Freerepublic doesn't allow users to log on anonymously, that's the point. The server is private property, so Jim Rob can let anyone he wants on there, and if an offending user keeps on coming back, and harassing the people on the board, he will get charged with trespassing.
He who knows not, and knows he knows not is a wise man
A private server disallowing people to post on its message board is NOT trampling anyone's freedom of speach. It's as if you owned a bar, and someone kept on making trouble in your bar, you would kick him out, and keep him out, and use the law if necessary.
Many of the articles on the site border on disgraceful racism
WTF does this mean? That because someone posts an article that you *think* (note the key word, as liberals tend to think most anything is racist) is racist, the whole site is bad?
There are many black and asian people on that board for your information.
BTW, they don't "clamp down on those who think differently" as I often go there, and post opposing view points, there is the occasional idiot, but there are those everywhere.
He who knows not, and knows he knows not is a wise man
The site is not a "republic" and never claimed to be, so the site can restrict as much as it wants, and still have a valid name. The name refers to our republic.
He who knows not, and knows he knows not is a wise man
Good for them I say.
they've called him a 'lawyer'.
As long as you limit yourself to correcting the spelling (yes, I am not a native English speaking person), we can happily co-exist. (with you - in glass house). Cheers.
From the Declaration of Independance:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
From the constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It's clear that the document you are using for your argument is the Declaration of Independence, because it refers to Creator-granted inalienable rights. It doesn't, however, found anything. It breaks away from the British Empire.
The preamble from the constution uses very different language. God doesn't even get a mention. It's stated pretty clearly that the document is created for the benefit of the People of the United States, which even at the time included a healthy amount of Non-Christians. Considering that God doesn't seem to have a SSN, a mailing address, a residence, or any paid tax returns, we can conclude that God is not a US Citizen. Thus, the constitution is not written for him. I'm sure that they'd be willing to throw in an "equal rights for deities" clause, but since we can't even figure out where God lives, we have no idea which Senator represents him, and thus no place to start.
As for patriotism: here's a clue. You're not one. Your blind attack on the larger half of US Citizens (liberals and/or non-cristians) indicates that your actions have a lot more to do with the destruction rather than the preservation of the US. Jesus Christ was a nice guy. You are a dick. Thank you for playing.
I feel for the troll. Someone smack my hand.
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
north.coaster
From your vote in the Presidential election last year, you and I seem diametrically opposed politically. That said, I agree 100% with what you have posted above. (Well, okay, maybe not the assholes part; not that you said they are, just that they might be.) Well put, and Bravo!
If Aldridge can start his own competing web site--which he can--and if he can put on it his views--which he can--then his freedom of speech has not been infringed. Free Republic set up their own web site, and tried to post their own views. Aldridge made every effort he could to stop them. Thus, Free Republic's free speech rights were violated by Aldridge.
Chris Beckenbach
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Indeed, Free Republic's posters often fall in the categories you mentioned. But you forgot one: xenophobic.
I'm French, and I've spent a few days on Free Republic. I naively wanted to contribute, bring a different perspective, and learn from other contributors. What the hell was I thinking?
I'm used to francophobia among conservative Americans. I should even say that I consider it's somehow part of the game. But I have never seen such a radical, unanimous and absolute hostility against my country and my people: "surrender monkeys", "vichy whores", "elitist snob", "deluded stalinist", etc... The majority of Free Republic's poster have developped an anti-French systematic rhetoric, compared to which the antisemitic ideas in Europe at the beginning of the 20th century are almost angelic. Put aside British tabloids, I've never seen this anywhere else.
So, well, I gave up.
There are NO protectionist measures nor quotas on TV or cinema in France, contrary to a myth popular in Washington. Check for yourself. Second, the Simpsons are very popular in France.
Wow, look at all those aliases they are claiming he used... looks like he is becoming a scapegoat for this company to blame all of their problem.
----------
do { Work(); PayTaxes(); Eat(); Sleep(); } while (alive)
----------
while (alive) { Work(); PayTaxes(); Eat(); Sleep(); }
Bool
Here we have incontrovertable proof of the fact that the only citizen in Thonomist's world is Thonomist theyself.
I can see the case now: "Slashdot vs. Anonymous Coward(s)"...
Somebody, anybody PLEASE mod that message up as a troll. That guy ought to watch out the daylight doesn't turn him to stone...
I didn't think eyeballs could vomit!
Hacker: A criminal who breaks into computer systems
"Information wants to be paid"
Actually, I'm surprised it's not more common. I attended a trial a few years ago - a civil case - where one of the key witnesses had already plea bargained a criminal charge a couple of years before that. I think he got 6 months in return for testimony. Now, a couple of years later, there's a related civil trial going on and the guy doesn't have immunity. So to protect himself against potential further criminal charges for actions not involved in his plea bargain, he took the 5th on a multitude of questions from both the plaintiff and the defendant's attorneys.
I know, it's a little confusing, but the bottom line is no matter what sort of trial it is, you don't generally want to admit to certain things that can land you behind bars.
You have described communism. (Exception: China loves the birth control part so much that forced abortion is required after the first child).
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
It is free - you are free to join the discussion and converse on any topic. The problem is when someone gets downright disruptive and refuses to be polite or leave, at which point it's perfectly reasonable to have the disruptor removed from the privately-owned premises. It's akin to someone standing in front of your home screaming libel & obscenitites 24/7 - they do have freedom of speech, yet it's reasonable to have the cops drag him away for disturbing the peace, and have a judge issue a restraining order.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Anonymity ends when someone figures out who you are anyway.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
No, trolling/flaimbait is when you post something just to upset people for your own amusement, whether or not you believe what you said. The issue isn't the belief, the issue is doing something just to annoy people.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
First, there's a difference between not liking what someone says and not liking a disruptor. FreeRepublic's beef with the defendant isn't the content of his speech per se, it's that he's speaking in a highly disruptive manner for the sole purpose of annoying and interfering with the speech of others.
Second, FreeRepublic (and Slashdot as well) is a PRIVATE forum. They have the right to be inconsistent.
Lawsuits are needed to address the first situation; "enlightened, reasoned argument" is needed to address the second.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Take a break from your conservative talk
radio there buddy. You shouldn't let
conservatives define what liberalism is
any more than you should let liberals define
what conservatism is.
> We have earned our rights. The liberals have earned nothing
I doubt you've earned shit there, freedom fighter
Anonymous posts are filtered.
It looks to me that he basically spent all his time posting trolls, flames, and whatnot on their site, and from the wording of the accusations, perhaps hacked the site as well. You know, the kind of stuff that goes on every day here ;)
I'd be curious to know if any of the trolls around here ever assisted him. Apparently he was recruiting help at various times...
in their allegations against Aldrige. Ironic, nu? See if you can find the slur.
First it was +2 Informative. Then it was +1 Flamebait. Make up your minds! +5 Informative Flamebait should do.
I think part of it also is that they don't want the other sites to lose ad revenue.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Puh-lease. It's just conservative banter. You don't have to agree, but don't go race-baiting, for heaven's sake.
Get a life.
"... are hereby prohibited from directly or indirectly registering screen names and/or posting messages on Free Republic?s web site without the express written consent of Free Republic?s owner or operator; and it is further"
Free Republic doesn't sound very 'free' to me.
I hope they don't run their nancy butts to a lawyer and get an injunction against me for being critical.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Not alot of Kubrick fans i see....
Sheesh - hard crowd.
and the other way around too. I've seen liberals "distort the truth" to get their way. I would like to see Aldridge's side of things, but I don't think FR should be required to do it for him.
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
It's actually a fun board to read, provided you (a) don't get offended too easily (some of the viewpoints can be a bit out there, even for me), (b) know your own mind, and (c) have a ton of free time.
Yes, FR can be a bit out there at times, but so can Slashdot. Think of it as an ultra-conservative Slashdot. They post links to stories, (and *cough* usually include the entire story, so you don't need to go read the article then come back to FR in order to comment on it) the stories are typically stuff you won't find on other news sites (it's fun and pointless trying to find Conservative stories on most news sites), and it is an eyeopener. Go take a look.
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
will they sue CmdrTaco?
sulli
RTFJ.
However I would doubt that this is necessary at this point, as I find moderation perfectly sufficient to keep them out of users' hair.
(Not trying to start a moderation good/bad thread... just noting that /. seems to do better in this regard.)
sulli
RTFJ.
So, if someone forgets to lock his car door when he pops into 7-11, his car is "public domain" and it's his loss if a punk "borrows" it for a joyride and smashes it up? According you your logic, since everyone can access the car, everyone can do whatever they want with it. Sure it was stupid to leave the door unlocked, but IT IS STILL ILLEGAL.
Another thought comes to mind. Maybe nobody should list their phone numbers--after all, that DOES make your phone number public domain. I guess that gives everyone the RIGHT to make threatening or lewd phone calls at 3 a.m. to anyone they please--at least by your logic.
This isn't an issue about the content of the site--it could be communistrepublic.org for all I care. Ideally, everyone should be entitled to have their opinion heard, including Aldridge. However, Aldridge went FAR BEYOND free expression and a few troll and flamebait posts. He deliberately and persistently abused his privleges with the intent of hampering someone else's freedom of expression. If he holds strong opinions he could have posted more reasonable counter-arguments within the terms of service. He could have set up an "alternative" site and widely advertised the URL. Whatever his opinion, there are ways of expressing it without harassing others.
This isn't "abstract BS". With rights come responsibility. This is a case of someone acting irresponsibly with the intent of taking away the rights of another.
neo-liberals have many scapegoats the bible belt and the south are geographic entities that they like to rant about almost exclusively when identifying the source of the political oppositon.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
It appears that they do have a clue.
WTFWJD
Regardless of whether you agree with New Republic's politics, this comment makes some extreme leaps in logic, such as extending one person to equate to "liberals" in general. The author then goes on to attack liberals in a completely childish and sensational manner ("cowardly and snakelike"? "screwing up our country"? "sodomy"?).
Moderators, regardless of whether this comment makes you want to go shoot off your gun for the Republic, it ain't insightful.
Feel free to bring the neighbors!
LFS. Have you built your system today?
p.s. I'll be selling raffle tickets on who gets to throw the switch 1/2 hour before he gets 'juiced'.
LFS. Have you built your system today?
This to me shows the overwhelming hypocricy of the liberal movement. I have no doubt that those attacking this site were liberals, doubtless believing themselves to be on some righteous crusade. Typically, however, the liberals show themselves to favor censorship when it suits them, - that is to censor opposing views.
They claim to be tolerant, but in fact they are only tolerant of opinions that match with their own - those that agree, for instance, that sodomy is aceeptable behavior, or that we should countenance massive criminal activity because the poor dears were mistreated as children.
As ever, we find the true face of the liberal revealed - cowardly and snakelike, favoring censorship, but doing so by malevolent underhand means - attempting to flood people promulgating their legitimate views with much garbage. I really think it's time that these people were exposed for the cowards they are. We have tolerated liberalism in all its manifest guises - its tolerance of petty and not so petty criminals, its insistence on screwing up our country - for many years now. Never have we attempted any such underhand tactics against them.
It appears clear that these liberals will stop at nothing in the pursuit of their own agenda - posting obscene messages, and so on, and even "targeting Free Republic's founder, Jim Robinson" in pursuance of "his stated goal of chasing Free Republic off the Internet". I have seen enough. I have tolerated their supposedly well-meaning activities, but I will not accept these kind of attacks.
.... its easy with AOL!
were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
Rock on. C-Span is my new channel of record.
This is so much cooler than National Public Radio. Even their new "morning zoo" format isn't this cool.
Damn straight. Although that one was so obvious I think he might have been trolling. But sense when do conservatives have a sense of humor?
If you're going to be so condescending, at least get the details right. Your interpretation is about a century out of date at this point.
what exactly does the have to do with Free Republic?
--
Daniel J. Kelly
I think your reaction evinces a certain insecurity/defensiveness among Green Party supporters, though.
Also, (for all intents & purposes) the Supreme Court elected Bush, 5-4.
If he has port 80 open with a webserver the owner of freerepublic has put the site into the public domain. Basically their lawsuit is a pile of abstract BS meant to harass someone expressing themselves freely.
How, exactly was he disruptive? Did he post too many posts about a naked, petrified Natalie Portman with grits? Did all their base actually are belong to him? What did he do, to have the web site take him to court?
By the way what I gather from another post ("Many of the articles on the site border on disgraceful racism, and many of our readers were fond of stirring this up.") and the articles themselves, they too seem to have posted inflamatory views on some political matters, then how is it that they have a right to do so and we don't?
There's always sufficient, but not always at the right place nor for the right folks.
So can /. be sued when a site gets /.ed?
Let's get drunk and delete production data!
Many of the articles on the site border on disgraceful racism, and many of our readers were fond of stirring this up. Fortunately, we also have a despicable crapflooder element at geekizoid, and they are fond of going to sites and posting political slogans that the locals may find offensive. Brave fighters and seekers of truth, such as the WIPO troll, descended upon freerepublic and spread a message of political truth - the message of liberal democracy untainted by capitalism. By posting goatse.cx links they were able to subvert the prevalent political message and perhaps make people start to think for themselves.
One day though, Free Republic started to harass one of our users. We upped our campaign and managed to get them to lift their threats.
The thing about Free Republic is that they have a Southern American right wing attitude. To them, you are either a master, or a slave. You are either with them, or against them.
It does not surprise me that they have ignored freedom of speech like this, and started to clamp down on those who think differently.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
There is no
I love Slashdot.
Given that caveat, I'll continue.
Many posts will (likely) never get rated more than a 1.
Many readers read at ratings of 3 and higher.
Slashdot has a wonderful way of culling out the stuff that (basiclly) no one wants to see anyway. And they call this merrit based censorship a good thing. Posts get rated up or down, not based upon official policy, but based upon those who read the post, and their whim.
Whim based censorship.
Oh sure, we can pontificate on how the average rater is level headed and equitable. But in the end, stuff that doesn't agree with the typical average slashdot reader, stands a slim chance of being seen.
So rather than kicking people off your posting board, you simply hide their post through moderation. So the person is shouting down a hole, no one hears, and no one cares.
A handy way to avoid messing around in legal battles, but far more cruel in the end.
So lets get off the high horse about censorship.
Above comment is personal opinion. Poster is not a spokesperson.
First off, let me state quite clearly I haven't ever read FR, having just been there for the first time today. I spent about 30 minutes looking over the site and areas it has.
/.? Granted the general anti-conservative (or anything Republican) bent of the /. staff pervades, perhaps its to serve as a warning to some of the screwballs here?
/. with messages calling the operators trash, making bogus claims about their actions, promoting windows over everything else, and generally spaming the servers with trash just to make a point.
Regardless of their content, no individual has the right to slander a site. Apparently that is all that is real to the whole story, the guy basically took out his little tirade versus the eveeel "conservative" site and just invented whatever hyperbole he needed at the time.
Pleading the 5th in a civil suit is beyond belief, but alas its what happens when the ultra-left get pressed to act on facts instead of emotion. (this works just as well versus some of the ultra-right - but they are not as prevalent as some might think)
So why is this story on
The first rule of "freedom of speech" is that it does not give you freedom to slander, let alone freedom to violate anothers rights. It would no different than having someone constantly spam
Freedom of speech is very important, but you cannot have it without responsibility, and that is what this gentleman forgot. Its a very important ideal, even if you don't like the message.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Oh my goodness...A liberal crying racism...what's the world coming to? Could you please define the word racism, and please look it up in a dictionary published before the 1960's when English was spoken properly. Perhaps you meant prejudice, or biased.
Where's the stereotype? I simply stated that it wasn't new for me to hear the word racism coming from a liberal. I've never heard a conservative use the term "racism." You might have, I don't know. What's so wrong with stereotypes anyway? We usually use them (we all do, so don't lie) because they are somewhat accurate. For example, I usually think of landscappers as hispanic, because those are the only landscappers that I usually see. Is that racism, or biased, or prejudice. There is a difference and I think that I'm just biased in that respect. Sorry, just am. I believe your statement was nothing more than a red haring because you did not have much of an argument.
As I stated before, look up the word racism. It is not synonymous with prejudice and biased. I know a lot of so called "Uncle Toms" and they are just hard working americans trying to escape from the "African American" culture which breeds ignorance.
Look up the word racism in a dictionary published before the 1960's when english was spoken properly, you idiot.
Notice that I didn't state the "African American" people, but the culture. How is that racist. You are an idiot and that is obvious. Whitey? Is there an air of hypocrisy here or what?
I love it when stupid liberals cry out when "right-wingers" stereotype others, and then they turn around and do the same thing themselves. Did your daddy tell you this information or did you watch it in "Mississippi Burning?" I bet you've never even been to the south except southern California. I'm from Atlanta and if you don't like us here, than we won't be heart broken if you never visit.
I'm an antiwar.com reader from way back.
I am also a left winger who appreciates reading news and views from those I disagree with
-perdida
Goat sex free since 2001
I voted for Ralph Nader last year. Draw your conclusions on my personal inclinations from that. This being said, there are two big stupidities being promulgated by the comments on this story. The first is that this action represents an attack on free speech. For those who bothered to actually read what Mr. Aldridge had done, even allowing for a certain hyperbole in the recounting it represents a litany on every form of nasty and reprehensible on-line behavior imaginable. This guy spammed, trolled, talked twenty varieties of trash, faked user accounts to contravene site rules, and least forgivably released personal information on other users as a method of attacking their viewpoints. I don't need this kind of cowardly weasel representing an alternative viewpoint to the right wing. But more to the point, he broke all the rules on a private site and they took an appropriate action to stop him. Note this opinion does not necessarily preclude the reality that those responsible for the FR are a bunch of ultra-conservative assholes. Point the second: the idea that this can somehow be correlated to some statement about the "left wing" in general is ridiculous. Mr. Aldridge is one (obviously troubled) person, and anyone with a brain will acknowledge that there are crazies on both sides of the right-wing/left-wing spectrum, and that there are also those not-quite-so-crazies who will nonetheless defend the irrational actions of their fellows on the irrational basis that a wrong comitted against a wrong is somehow right. Nevertheless, those who seek a real understanding of the ways of this world have a grasp on the fact that knocking down a straw man does not an strong argument make. This is the problem with self-identifying with a worldview where there are only two possible identities: you end up getting lumped in with a lot of crazies, kooks, and bums. In a system where only half the people bother to participate in self-governance, and that half is allowing itself to be split neatly in two by intractable points of ideology, smart people on both sides of the imaginary (and largely handed to us by monied interests) line need to start seeking common ground and arguing issues basd on their merits, not anecdotal bullshit like this.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Beware goatse.cx-style link above.
Guess I should have known better than to click on a link posted by an AC.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Buddy, look around. It's been more than 200 years since anyone in this country earned the rights you claim to have won for yourself by virtue of your political beliefs.
As I understand it the core tenet of conservatism is the freedom to live one's life free from governmental interference. Being told to defend a nation or a Constitution you may or may not believe in seems to be the antithesis of this concept.
If you're a true believer Conservative as you claim to be, I'm confused as to why you aren't repudiating the court's granting of the injunction, as it interferes with one of the core freedoms in your precious Constitution. Oh, wait, that's right, the free speech in question was Liberal and we can't have those leftie freaks saying whatever they want, now can we?
That being said, I agree that the FR had the right to seek legal relief from this pattern of abuse. As a dyed-in-the-wool New England liberal, I chafe at the restriction of free speech in this case, but my bleeding heart stops short of telling someone they MUST allow whoever they want access to their web site, simply because it's on the Net. My position here is "My system, my rules. You don't like it, don't load the page."
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Actually, no, I don't. I probably should.
And why was this modded down off-topic? Posting a warning of an (IMHO) deceptive inappropriate link is off-topic?
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
"Goyim" is the plural. I'm no linguist,
:)
I think you're right about that. My bad.
Federal stormtroopers burned an entire congregation in Waco, Texas, eight years ago.
Yes. Yes they did. There is quite a bit that doesn't make sense about what happened in Waco. I'd be more inclined to give the fibbies the benefit of the doubt than I think you would, but your point is definitely valid here. The only thing that I feel I can say about that is the system isn't perfect. A hollow comment, I know. And the whole incident is definitely cause for alarm and closer oversight into the FBI's activities; which one could argue has occurred ad continues to occur.
It's a fact. Their religion was considered "unacceptable" and they were exterminated.
However, I have to take issue here. There's a big difference between a raid gone horribly wrong and an extermination. I'm sure you can argue that there was no accident involved, that the raid was conducted on a pretense with the sole intent to murder every man woman and child in the compound, but I have a hard time believing that. Maybe I'm just too naive.
Just a year ago, we narrowly escaped imposition of a brutal military dictatorship which would have outlawed Christianity entirely. This is no joke. Secret documents were leaked and have found their way into the patriotic resistance underground. This material has been widely disseminated. No one is fooled.
That's a pretty inflammatory accusation. I'm going to have to ask you for some evidence of this "brutal military dictatorship". Otherwise, you'll have to agree this sounds way too paranoid to be true.
You've missed the point. It is insane and unjust that I am subject to the same laws as a citizen of Massachusetts. Let them have their laws -- but let me have mine.
I think you'd agree there are certian elements of "common law" that can apply regardless of jurisdiction. Eg murder, theft, assault, etc etc. You're using a pretty broad brush here. And speaking as a citizen of Massachusetts, I'd agree we have some pretty dumb laws
This is called "freedom": We all get to live as we choose.
So if I choose to smoke marijuana, have 4 wives, and sleep with 13 year old girls, I should be able to do that? Unlikely. We get to live as the majority chooses.
Irrelevant. I choose not to live alongside certain people. They affect my property values and my quality of life.
Are your rights to not have your property values go down more important than their rights to live where they choose? If you don't respond to any of my other questions, please answer this one, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around your logic here.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
That is correct. We have devoted our "lives, liberties, and sacred honor" to limiting the power of the central government. This will again be a free nation only when power is excercised at the local level, for the benefit of the community.
And yet you applaud the central government's actions to remove this person from Free Republic's forums. I don't follow your logic.
As long as the Federal stormtroopers can force us to allow inferior and disruptive "students" to attend our schools alongside our children -- we are not free.
Who is to judge what an "inferior student" is? You? Me? The Gov.. oh, nevermind. I'm all for expelling violent students, but until every family can afford to send their children to private schools, public education remains a right for every citizen. That being said, IMHO secondary schools in this country should be flunking every third student for failure to pass the required curriculum. Not because they're different or disabled, but because they're lazy. There is a difference.
As long as the Federal stormtroopers can forbid us to pray to our Creator as we choose, we are not free.
Last I checked, "Federal stormtroopers" weren't raiding churches, temples, synagogues(sp, I'm an ignorant goyim) etc. Perhaps you're referring to school prayer? I would point you again to the Constitution you hold so dear, which guarantees the separation of church and state. Public prayer has no place in the public schools. If your child wants to pray silently they are certianly able to do that. Allowing public prayer during a government sponsored program is a tacit endorsement of one religon, with the implication that the government doesn't endorse the others. Sure, this seems extreme, but what happens when Susie, whose parents are Pagan, wants to pray to the Goddess? Not so simple when you're talking about anything other than "Christianity".
As long as they can forbid the education of our children in a Christian manner, we are not free.
Last time I checked there were any number of excellent faith-based schools operating freely within the borders of the U.S. The government doesn't seem to be too concerned about it.
As long as they can ram filth down our throats on the television, we are not free.
You are free. Free to turn the TV off if you don't like what you see. Free to write to that program's advertisers and protest the content. And you're also free to choose any number of additional options for entertainment.
As long as we are denied the right to police our own communities as we see fit, we are not free.
If you've got a problem with the way the laws are written, write your duly elected representative. If he/she decides that your opinions and views are worthy of legislation, and the majority of voters agree with them, then the law will be passed. If they don't, it won't. That's the way the system works.
As long as we are forced to allow undesired outsiders to buy land in our communities, we are not free.
Their money's just as green as yours is.
I note that you use Karl Marx's term "antithesis" to make your argument.
It may surprise you to know I've never read Marx. "Antithesis" was the appropriate word for what I was attempting to express, the opposite of another idea, or "thesis".
Leftist UN internationalism is anathema to a free man. The liberals are nibbling away at our national sovereignty, piece by piece, and UN "police actions" are the thin end of the wedge.
Ok, now you're critically off topic. This started out as a debate over a troll being removed from a message board. Somehow it's evolved into the "UN-Liberal-Fascist Stormtrooper" conspiracy. Time to change the tinfoil in your hat, there, Sparky.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
If FreeRepublic allowed for anonymous users than how the heck is this trespassing? Or did FreeRepub just make an exception to the rule and say "Well everyone else can be anonymous, just not X"?
Thats one the problems a company should address with a diclaimer in order to not fall into the legal handlings of someone claiming dire crimes against them. People should know, when your on the Internet, especially exchanging during a forum, your not going to find that everyone is Sally fucking Jo Homemaker with etiquette. The problem I see, is that not much was done by those who had their information posted, to hide their information in the first place. Don't they know what privacy is, or was it until someone bitched about it, they turned and said, "Oh my maybe I should not have made my login name maryjosuefrom21mainstreetbirminghamalabama@somesh
The problems with the Internet and legal related issues, is that many of the laws are so broad, theres no way to detail what exactly constitutes a crime. Anyone can say whatever and people will eat it up like cereal because their clueless and assume "it must be so"
I think I'm gonna sue Slashdot if anyone clinks this link. Since by getting slashdotted afterwards, its Slashdot's fault for allowing this to happen.
360 degrees of Karma
There's a big difference between "create" and "invent." If I design a circuit board, and some originality is involved (not usually 8-), then I invented something. Meanwhile, on one line on the factory floor, about a dozen people and $2M in machines creates 800 circuit boards an hour...
Gore does have a habit of overstatement -- I guess he's trying to prove he really is a politician rather than a Mr. Rogers impersonator. 8-) But it's well attested that he really was the first Congressman to understand that the Arpanet could be more than a chat line for goverment scientists. And unless you are a knee-jerk conservative, I doubt that you can look up the whole story and then claim that Gore's overstatements are worse than every other politicians.
There were some really good reasons to vote against Gore, but the hoopla about "inventing the internet" certainly wasn't one.
The fundamental allegation is that after Aldridge's Freep log-in was blocked for egregiously violating their acceptable use policy, he used multiple e-mail accounts to get more than 50 log-ins under various names, and continued posting in violation of the AUP. Much as I dislike them, if there is any truth to that, they are in the right and Aldridge is wrong. It's a private web site. They have to right to kick you out if they want to. You don't have the right to sneak back in disguise.
One problem here is that we have a URL to the freepers' allegations, but nothing about Aldridge's response. Now and then I've noticed a conservative to twist the truth, or even to (gasp!) lie. (For instance, Gore never said he "invented" the internet.) Obviously Aldridge didn't convince the judge, but maybe the judge is a conservative Republican too...
Semantic problem:
. ht m
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3a70c1b007e0
Each time Aldridge re-registers, he agrees to abide by the User Agreement. Aldridge then proceeds to violate the User Agreement by posting lewd and obnoxious messages.
It's pretty clear that he does not agree to abide by the "User Agreement". He merely clicks a button near a statement that he either doesn't read or reads and disagrees with. The button might even say something like "I Agree". Silly button.
--Blair
"we would have no freedom of religion"-- instead we have a regime that tries to impose "freedom from religion."
"our children would be indoctrinated into christianity at a very young age"-- instead we have our children indoctrinated into the cult of Gaia (among other left-wing cults).
"There would be no freedom of speech" -- Instead we have freedom from speech, speech that is deemed to be "hurtful", "hateful", "harassing", "offensive", "distateful", "racist", among others.
"Anything and everything that had anything to do with sex would be banned." Instead we are forced to everything and anything we find distateful, lest we be labeled "homophobe" or "sexist".
"It would be illegal to be gay." See previous.
"The war on drugs would have turned our country into a military state and the constitution all be suspended." Last I heard, the so-called War on Drugs is ongoing, and the left has done little or nothing to stop it, let along roll back all the civil liberties violations.
"99% of the wealth would belong to 1% of the population..." And who are you to decide what is the proper distribution?
"...and the rest of us wouild be working for 50 cents an hour in sweat shops." Instead we get to send 50% our our labors to the gov't. We aren't even three-fifths of a person anymore.
"Women would be second class citizens." If you listen to the left, they still are.
"Not only would abortion would be illegal, so would any form of birth control." This is an ignorance of history that could only be produced by a US public school eduation followed by university degree and law school. Abortion was well on its way to being legalized quietly and with the full consent of the governed (except in backward places like Lousiana and Utah) until the leftists got impatient and imposed their will though unelected judges.
"To extend the rights of free men to conservatives is to institute a [sic] immoral military state." Substitute for conservative any of the following and it will be obvious -- "black", "homosexual", "woman", "disabled person", "christian", "jew", "moslem," "left-handed". -- You are a bigot.
I had heard of this case before - him spamming free republic and harassing individuals (he apparently was posting their addresses, phone #s, etc. He acted like a complete script kiddie and got what was coming!
The right to free speech doesn't include the right to walk into someone else's house and plaster the walls with pictures of someone's distended rear. People who moderate and run forums have every right to kick out people they don't like, and I'm cool with pretty much any way they devise to do it, including ways involving judges. It's their pad, not mine.
Anotherpundit.com
Free Republic probably has close on to as many posters as Slashdot does. Just like the only unifying factor here is that people tend to like computers, the only unifying factor there is people tend to lean to the right. Which means you get all kinds. Some religious hard cases. A *lot* of libertarians. Some anarchists. Some anarcho-capitalists. Some lockians. Some fundamentalists. /. by just one thread picked to look especially bad? Thought so.
would you like people judging
------------
Anotherpundit.com
Try following the link and reading it, he wans't kicked out for posting liberal opinions or just being annoying. You'll find more freedom of speech being exercised on Free Republic than what you might be able to bear.
I can't stand facists, anyone who would discriminate against someone without a face is the lowest of the low. Thumbs down on facism.
Excellent...
This is not a Sig.
I guess that we don't have to wait for Germany to start a political info war, we can do it to ourselves. On a bright note, at least they are doing something to stop a no good spamming troll. Free speech must be protected, but I don't think that vandalism counts.
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
Rights are not earned. Read the Declaration of Independence - it says clearly that mankind is endowed with certain unalienable rights. When you say "We have earned our rights", you imply we had to undergo some rite of passage to obtain them. On the contrary; they are given to us. We are born with them, as all human beings are (whether or not some governments happen to recognize them - it's a basic tenet of our belief system as Americans). Don't lose sight of the fact that rights are unearned. Privileges may be earned, but not our basic freedoms. Human rights are (or ought to be) guaranteed constants in the equation.
$mail="tufwfuveps@nbjk.dpn";$mail=~y/b-z/a-z/;pri
Now if only we could find an "outstanding research team" to figure out who that bloody goatse.cx posting bastard is.
--
By rejecting the holy and spiritual basis for our Constitution, you reject the Constitution as well.
So what you are saying is you want to get rid of Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech. It sounds alot like you want to suspend the Constitution, that does not sound like a patriot to me. That sounds like a Facist.
By all reasonable standards, you are not a patriot, nor even a citizen -- yet you demand the same rights and privileges as men who believe in the constitution.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
We have earned our rights. The liberals have earned nothing.
You are wrong, if it were not for liberals fighting for freedom, we would have no freedom of religion, our children would be indoctrinated into christianity at very young age by forced prayer in school. There would be no freedom of speech, anything and everything that had anything to do with sex would be banned. It would illegal to be gay. The war on drugs would have turned our country into a military state and the constitution all but suspended. 99% of all the wealth would belong to 1% of the population and the rest of us would be working for 50 cents an hour in sweat shops. Women would be second class citizens, not only would abortion be illegal, so would any form of birth control.
To extend the rights of free men to conservatives is to institute a immoral military state. I, for one, refuse to do so.
Yes this is flamebait and I am a troll, please moderate accordingly.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
Sweet! This precedent will make it easier to implement a permanent bans of troublemakers and site pests. Weblogs are almost always private property, and the people who post on them are guests.
First posters, trolls, etc., beware.
When the going gets tough, the liberals hide under the bed until the conservatives handle the situation. Our War of Independence was fought by armed free men, and don't you forget it.
The wealth of our nation -- which you enjoy -- was created by free men, not by liberals. The freedoms which you enjoy were created by free men, not by liberals.
A hard-working, moral man can do just about anything, and in the United States we've have done just about anything -- with one exception: We've allowed ourselves to be enslaved by the parasitic liberals. We've allowed them to sap our substance with their taxes, their welfare beaurocracy, and their lawyers. We are being nibbled to death by mice, whining, cowardly mice with beards and sandals. When a man can take your property, you are -- in principle -- his slave. This situation is intolerable and will long not be permitted to endure.
"Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive" -- hey, that's me!
Last I checked, "Federal stormtroopers" weren't raiding churches, temples, synagogues(sp, I'm an ignorant goyim) etc.
"Goyim" is the plural. I'm no linguist, but my understandiing is that "-im" generally indicates the masculine plural in Hebrew (as with "cherubim", "seraphim", "sephardim", etc. ad inf. -- the feminine plural tends to be "-ot", as in "mikvot" etc. Don't forget that exceptions to the "rule" are legion, as in any natural language). I think the singular is "goy", but I'm not sure. Actually, for all I know, the word may be Yiddish, which (AFAIK) is a dialect of German with a lot of Hebrew thrown in.
Um, anyhow, back to the stormtroopers.
Federal stormtroopers burned an entire congregation in Waco, Texas, eight years ago.It's a fact. Their religion was considered "unacceptable" and they were exterminated.
The FBI monitors and harasses many churches whose views are considered "politically incorrect". Just a year ago, we narrowly escaped imposition of a brutal military dictatorship which would have outlawed Christianity entirely. This is no joke. Secret documents were leaked and have found their way into the patriotic resistance underground. This material has been widely disseminated. No one is fooled.
If Y2K disruption had not been kept under control by the wisdom and forsight of American business and the patriot community, we would now be under martial law and public worship would be a crime punishable by death or 're-education'.
If you've got a problem with the way the laws are written, write your duly elected representative.
You've missed the point. It is insane and unjust that I am subject to the same laws as a citizen of Massachusetts. Let them have their laws -- but let me have mine. This is called "freedom": We all get to live as we choose.
[me]: As long as we are forced to allow undesired outsiders to buy land in our communities, we are not free.
[you]: Their money's just as green as yours is.
Irrelevant. I choose not to live alongside certain people. They affect my property values and my quality of life. Federal interference in the housing market directly violates my Constitutional right to freedom of association.
"Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive" -- hey, that's me!
Sorry, but you gave away the whole game right there, Jack.
In addition to their innumerable violations of property rights and their devotion to furthering the cause of Federal power abuse, the Army Corps of Engineers has had some bright ideas (rammed down the throats of an uncooperative public) like introducing Kudzu in the South.
We all know how that ended up, right? It's been worse than the rabbits in Australia.
The Kudzu epidemic is a deliberate act of biological warfare against the people of the United States. It's no accident that it was done in the South, the only remaining Christian area east of the Mississippi.
"Biological warfare" can have only one goal -- one described by another "scare word":
Genocide.
"Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive" -- hey, that's me!
We on the left will call off our Kudzu and our nazi skinheads . . .
It's tempting, but of course you're lying. I make it a point never to strike a bargin with a dishonorable enemy.
. . . the developers ripping whole square miles of trees out of the ground in North Georgia.
Let's look at the facts, shall we? At present rates of use, the United States has enough trees to last for thirty-five thousand years.
Thirty-five thousand years. Yet you would cripple the economy and bring about mass starvation just to satisfy your sentimental "feelings" about "the nice fluffy trees". Waaaaitaminute -- "mass starvation". Oh, yes, there it is, there it is indeed.
Crippling the economy fits right in with your genocidal agenda, doesn't it?
So let's cut the nonsense and try to stay on topic, shall we? If you can come up with a better explanation for the Kudzu than biological warfare, I'd love to hear it -- but you can't, because my conclusion is inescapable. This is the same government which has butchered so many Christian citizens merely for holding fast to their most sacred beliefs and inalienable rights. This is the government that was building massive crematoria eighteen months ago, to handle the influx of bodies from their projected Y2K operations.
Biological warfare is the inevitable next step.
"Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive" -- hey, that's me!
Lincoln was indeed a member of a party called "Republican". That was about 140 years ago, which is what we call "a long time". By the way, Lincoln was as staunchly opposed to integration as he was to slavery.
The South was so pissed off at Lincoln that they solidly supported the party called "Democratic" for a full century.
Until Brown v. State Board of Education in (IIRC) 1954, nobody in national politics in the US was seriously opposed to segregation.
When people in the Federal government did start getting serious about enforcing the law, it was liberal Democrats like JFK and LBJ who made it happen. As a result, Southern conservatives started fleeing the Democratic party (some big names being Helms, Thurmond, and Wallace). The States' Rights Party was one result. George Wallace was the last powerful right-wing Democrat, and he's long gone, boy. He was part of the old guard, nothing to do with those who are in the party now.
Meanwhile, conservatives in general, then as always, were firmly opposed to integration. Some of them wore little donkeys on their lapels, and some wore little elephants: So what? It's got nothing to do with me.
Nixon finally settled the matter with the "Southern Strategy": Win the reactionary elements of the formerly Democratic South by appealing to isolationism and bigotry.
It worked. The GOP doesn't own the South the way the Demos used to, but they're doing okay.
Your argument is a meaningless word game. If I want to find out what modern Republicans believe, I don't go ask a man who died in 1865. No, I go observe a modern Republican. How's that for a bizarre notion? If you want to learn about a thing, observe it. If I want to learn about my dog, I observe him. I don't observe the neighbors' dog ("Well, shit, they're both named Spot, so they must be the same!"), and I don't look up famous dogs named Spot in Who's Who.
All this "Lincoln was a Republican" thing is just spin. Propaganda. Meaningless bullshit. It tells us nothing about the thoughts or actions of anybody now living -- with the sole exception of the fools who yammer about it. It tells us one thing about them: They're either dishonest, lazy, or not very bright.
"Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive" -- hey, that's me!
"Cussards and reprobates" indeed! I couldn't have said it better myself. Indeed, indeed, let them retreat into their weird fantasies of "moons" and "native Americans", let them destroy themselves . . .
And of course you are correct: Slashdot will be renewed. And the time is fast approaching.
"Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive" -- hey, that's me!
As I understand it the core tenet of conservatism is the freedom to live one's life free from governmental interference.
That is correct. We have devoted our "lives, liberties, and sacred honor" to limiting the power of the central government. This will again be a free nation only when power is excercised at the local level, for the benefit of the community.
As long as the Federal stormtroopers can force us to allow inferior and disruptive "students" to attend our schools alongside our children -- we are not free.
As long as the Federal stormtroopers can forbid us to pray to our Creator as we choose, we are not free.
As long as they can forbid the education of our children in a Christian manner, we are not free.
As long as they can ram filth down our throats on the television, we are not free.
As long as we are denied the right to police our own communities as we see fit, we are not free.
As long as we are forced to allow undesired outsiders to buy land in our communities, we are not free.
Being told to defend a nation or a Constitution you may or may not believe in seems to be the antithesis of this concept.
I note that you use Karl Marx's term "antithesis" to make your argument. Predictable. In any case, you are correct: We firmly and unequivocally reject all attempts to force us to fight and die for other nations. Leftist UN internationalism is anathema to a free man. The liberals are nibbling away at our national sovereignty, piece by piece, and UN "police actions" are the thin end of the wedge.
It is intolerable that free American men should be conscripted into the service of foreign and barbaric governments.
"Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive" -- hey, that's me!
" . . .inalienable rights are endowed by our creator . . ."
No, we are endowed with inalienable rights by our Creator. But you were at least trying to quote the Declaration, so I'll take the thought for the deed and let it slide.
The problem here is that you and the rest of the liberals do not acknowledge your Creator. So how then can you appeal to Him for these rights? You can't. By rejecting the holy and spiritual basis for our Constitution, you reject the Constitution as well. Where does that leave you? Nowhere. By all reasonable standards, you are not a patriot, nor even a citizen -- yet you demand the same rights and privileges as men who fought and died for them.
You want "natural rights"? Here's a Natural Law instead: There Ain't No Such Thing As a Free Lunch
"Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive" -- hey, that's me!
when the rebels fought the men who kept them under their thumb in the revolutionary war, that was heroic.
but when the rebels fought the men who kept them under their thumb in Seattle, that's a bunch of long haired freaks.
You are correct on the first one, but in the second you drift off into absurd propaganda. Those so-called "long-haired freaks" (in fact, most of them were skinheads, the liberals' racist shock-troops) were not being kept under anyone's thumb. They were "protesting" against freedom. They were there to oppose the natural rights and liberties of business enterprises. They were fighting against the creation of wealth. They were fighting against the right to private property and freedom of association.
The dogmatic anti-prosperity/anti-freedom ideology of the Left is hardly comparable to the noble principles set forth by our Founding Fathers.
Your entire argument is meaningless gibberish. Reasoning by analogy is a bad idea: The results are rarely valid, and even then only by accident.
"Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive" -- hey, that's me!
It's sad, but true: Statistics don't lie.
"Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive" -- hey, that's me!
I wasn't trying to quote anything.
Be that as it may, "endowing" a "right" with anything (you didn't specify what) is a waste of energy. I mean, like, that's not what "endow" means, dude.
Are you saying that God plays partisan politics?
God prefers those who keep His Law. If one party does so, and the other does not, why then quite naturally God will tend to prefer the members of the former to those of the latter.
That's an obvious truth, but it doesn't have much to do with "partisan politics" as you understand it: God's not sitting up there saying, "My team, right or wrong!" He's saying, "My team, because the only way to be on it is to be right in the first place." See the difference?
This has nothing to do with "diversity", "tolerance", or "broad-mindedness": Those slogans are all red herrings. Would you be "tolerant" of somebody who bombed your city? No. Some things are just plain wrong.
By what right do YOU decide who is and isn't a patriot, much less even a citizen?
Simple common sense. Imagine you're running a business. Imagine that one of your employees sets your office on fire. Would you consider that person a good and loyal servant, or a dangerous nut? Would you give him a raise, or fire him? You'd fire him. You'd get rid of the dumb bastard, because even if he believes that he is right, he is still a dangerous lunatic. So it is with the liberals: They are devoted to destroying the foundations of our nation. We have a right to act in self-defense, whether you like it or not.
"Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive" -- hey, that's me!
I remember when Swirve had someone like this in their forums. This person spent 8 hours a day + for weeks spamming messages off of the forums, encouraging other people to do the same thing, getting upwards of a 100 different log ins, and constantly posting messages attacking the mods and creator of the game. This person literally spent so much time stirring up trouble that I believe they actually changed the way their forums worked to help get rid of her. Getting rid of people like this isn't stifling free speech, it's a service to everyone else who uses the boards....
Archfiend - Brass Knuckles Webzine
Mr. Howard doesn't know what he is writing about. I am Chappell Aldridge, the defendant in the abovereferenced lawsuit. There was no decision by the Eastern District. There is no precedent. There was a frivilous lawsuit, one which consumed an estimated $75,000 in legal fees from Free Republic. I am out the $150 removal fee to take the case from Fairfax County Virginia to Federal Court (the Free Republic Crack research team neglected to discover that I was not a Virginia resident) and about eight dollars in postage. I made a little more than that in donations, so I am a little ahead on the deal. FR originally sued me in January 2001 for - well, they sued me for unsolicited bulk email with perdiem damages that all totaled came to $27 million dollars. Plus costs and attorney fees. I had retired from posting information on the website in October 2000, when they stipulated to a million dollar judgment against them by the Los Angeles Times/Washington Post. I was successful in a "Briar Patch" strategy, making the failure of Brian Buckley (Counsel for Free Republic) to get an injunction as he promised his Freepers on February 8th the monomaniacal focus of his efforts. In return for dropping all of the accusations against me, all causes of action that were or could have been, I agreed to ask the court for an injunction against me. No injunction was won. I asked the court to enter an injunction. No injunction COULD HAVE BEEN WON, as it would have been a prior restraint of speech, and would be unconstitutional. Of course parties may agree and contract to forgo their constitutional privileges. I was already done with FR. The trick was to get them done with me. If anyone is interested I will post the answer I submitted to the court. But no Injunction was won. I gave them the injunction in return for dropping the case and all requests for damages and attorney fees and costs. They sucked up an estimated $75,000 in legal fees to get something they could have gotten with a certified letter. And I say, Go Free REpublic, Go! That is a great way to spend conservative money. Invest in Gold and Jim Robinson.
There was an out of court settlement of all claims. One of the terms of settlement was an agreed (stipulated) injunction. You could ask a judge to sign a stipulated injunction that orders water to flow uphill, and if it is stipulated, he would sign it.
Get a clue. This is all spin of an out of court settlement.
That is fine with me. May Brian Buckley, "founder and President of FR" be the new bright shining face of internet conservatism - FOREVER. Go Brian Go!
Unfortunately for you, no one perceives any brilliance on your part,
Perhaps you can't believe in such a thing, but I wasn't litigating to be percieved as brilliant by mouse-warriors like yourself. My litigation strategy was designed to get my butt out of the way of a well funded and deranged machine of personal destruction without personal cost. I succeeded.
though we both know it's sorta there, trying to shine in a low-batteries kind of way, hidden in that jammed and dirty closet of obsessive compulsion you call a life.
They must allow personal attacks here.
But in fact, You gave them an injunction against you. And you gave them as close to a win as they could have reasonably hoped for in a court of law had they finally found one.
I agree that an injunction simply was not available in a Court of Law as a prior restraint of speech. But the case was designed to bankrupt me and ruin me. Settling ended any possibility of that.
And lastly you gave them equal value for all the money that they wasted in your pursuit---estimated at 75 large.
You put a high value on my messages.
You haven't made yourself look smart TC, you've made them look intimidating, powerful, bold. They've got money to throw around at chumps like you. Chumps who count their stamps.
So I would have looked smarter paying 75 large myself, and fighting till the last dog died? I missed getting your contribution to that fight, mousie, but your check must be in the mail still.
The injunction is against you T. Chappell. FReeRepublic.Com sued you and they got it. It's real. There's nothing virtual at all about it. And the world isn't better for it. Your done, they decided when not you, and that's FR's fork stuck in your rump to prove it.
Please don't throw me in the briar patch, Brer Fox!
Re: BLB I doubt that any rational person would describe an present FR ptb as bright or shining, and certainly no one would describe a maxed-out donor to the Bradley presidential campaign as a conservative.
Which is why I want them to be the public face of internet conservatism. Geaux Connie (Can't Understand Normal Thinking) Hair!
Re: Low batteries life. That wasn't a personal attack, that was pure poetry.
Don't quit your day job.
Re: High Value Messages. I want you to know that you are one of a select few posters on the net that actually are capable of writing a forum message worth the read. Often demented, but just as often readworthy.
Ta.
Re: Fighting til the last. If you had you wouldn't look like the chump loOoser you look like now. Next time don't do your own PR spin. You killed yourself. We both know you escaped the noose but only a few others see it that way.
I really don't care what the masses think. They think that the linked thread to a motion for injunction in Fairfax County Circuit Court that was never heard and which the W&S lawyers were pleading was "moot" so that the perjury that was included therein would not be counted against them is proof that a motion for an injunction in Federal Court was heard and ruled upon. Hopla!
Re: FR got injunctive relief. And it only cost them maybe 75 large to clear the books of you. Of course I cleared you off of Lucianne.Com by inventing the BOP, which cost me nothin'.
And you get great credit for that. Of course, you are not a lazy thieving moderator. You actually worked to police the area. Believe me, there is no better way to deal with a potential disruptor than to do as you did to this one, to delete the words he spent so much time on, or to [horrors] rewrite them under his name. You didn't have to do that twice.
But Jim Robinson is too lazy to moderate his own site. It is only this year that he has begun deleteing individual messages, as opposed to leaving the messages and banning the poster. Sure it is more work, but he is supposed to be making $240,000 dollars a year for his 24-7 work on the net. He doesn't post any messages anymore unless Linda Tripp is in the news, what else has he got to do except read the FReepmail?
Like an octopus spewing clouds of ink, is old Rick "Breach of Contract is a Tort" Fisk clearing things up.
FR was created by a cantankerous Perl programmer from Fresno named Jim Robinson. The genesis for Free Republic was the old White Water discussion on Prodigy. Jim got so fed-up with the censorship occurring on the Prodigy boards that he decided to try his luck on the wire and without a net.
Rick the hagiographer and lickspittle wasn't there, so he is recycling mythology. The "censorship" that he alludes to is the refusal of Jim Il Sung to accede to the requests of Prodigy manangement and cease and desist posting other peoples copyright material without permission. For constant and flagrant copyright abuse, Jim Faginson was banned. Thanks to the legal advice of Brian Buckley, Jim Rob'emsome has parlayed that banning into a million dollar judgment against him personally.
Robinson wrote the code, slapped it onto a PC running linux and invited many of the old Prodigy crowd to come along.
Now I am not a geekazoid, but apparently the code he wrote is a prodigious consumer of bandwidth, "a bandwidth hog" as Rick puts it later in this very thread, "like a lion on a wildebeest" one of his greatest admirers has described it as.
The site turned out to be a tremendous success.
The site provided chat room features, but the chat was saved on the server for all times. At first the cost associated with that expense was bourne by others - James Golden's ISP at first, and then a sweetheart deal for below cost unmeasured service with another ISP. When the ISP dumped the money loOsing contract, and FReepers had to pay market prices for the chat that they had become accustomed to, the fundraisers began in earnest. Bandwith costs are supposed to be $12,000 a month. FOR CHAT!!!
For those who were tired of the same old regurgitated news and analysis or being shouted down because they were {gasp} conservative, Free Republic proved to be a sort of safe haven for conservative ideas.
"For those who were tired of venturing onto the websites of copyright holders to get the same old regurgitated news, they could get the same old stories clipped from their home URLs and posted on FR."
". . . and "analysis" or being shouted down because they were {gasp} Birchers, Contrail conspiracists, militia supporters Y2K millenialists, or Bush as a cokehead felon Commie CIA drug runner, Free Republic proved to be a sort of safe haven for conservative ideas that Jim Robinson temporarily agreed with."
And frankly, the software kicks ass over any forum software I've seen with one caveat. All replies are refreshed in-line. This makes it a tremendous bandwidth hog, but it is so much easier for the user to interact, that perhaps it's worth it.
PERHAPS IT'S WORTH IT. A ringing endorsement. Just don't expect "Parasite" Rick to make any contribution to pay for the bandwidth hogging.
Even a dedicated lonely lickspittle like Rick admits that the software is a wastful mess.
I registered in August of 1998 and found some of the npolitical analysis to be quite good.
Rick was big into stockpiling Spam and black trash cans for the Y2K disaster, so the "analysis" was right up his intellectual alley.
Clinton seemed to be causing the same sort of distrust among conservatives as did Reagan in the 80's.
If you can figure out what Rick means by the previous sentence, you are doing better than I, and FR is the place for you to be.
FR was a place where anyone (even Libertarian whack jobs such as myself) could post an article.
Because the moderation was so lax.
Yes, it is true that Liberals who show up will get shouted down in much the same fashion as Libertarians and conservatives get shouted down at liberal sites. (and there is even a small but nasty contingency of anti-libertarian trolls at FR) Yes, it is true that there are some FR posters there who are openly racist or anti-homosexual bigots. That is far from the norm and Robinson makes his best effort
That is the problem. His "best effort" seems to have him working to moderate the site about four hours a day. Does he get an "A for effort" from the conservatives even though he fails to keep out the bigots and Presidential assassination threateners? How touchy-feely liberal!
to keep the place "clean." I haven't seen him in a while, but there was a "Green" liberal from up in Eugene who posted at FR regularly and was afforded a remarkable amount of respect given his political background.
Politeness and honesty can gain anyone respect at Free Republic.
Simply not true, as the legions of banned polite posters will attest to, or would if they had not been banned without warning and/or explanation.
The liberal columnist Chris Hitchens was particularly loved at FR due to his absolute disdain for Clinton.
Relevance? He has never posted on FR.
At any rate, Aldridge (Eschoir) was one of the most vile, attention-grabbing, cretins ever to post at FR.
Ahhh, Eschoir's true sin revealed. He grabbed attention! He wrested it away from the more deserving under recognized posters, like, uhhh, Demidog, who, now, in order to curry favor with Brian Buckley and Connie Hair, is on a mission to spread the party-line disinformation and lies about eschoir, as exemplified by what follows this:
He would post articles with obsenities in the title,
I wonder if obsentities are like obscenities? Anywhy he doesn't bother to even lie and produce references, much less links to URLs
personal information about other posters
hey, my personal information was posted starting in 1997. I don't have a right to fight fire with fire? A freeper posted that he was following my WIFE around.
and went so far as to post a description of the interior of a prominent poster's living room in an apparent attempt to intimidate her.
A prominent hysterical lie.
In an effort to investigate a local address that Alan Keyes was funnelling money to in internet FEC fillings anonymously, I walked by the address. It turned out to be a town house, and I reported what could be observed by a person walking by on the sidewalk. It didn't appear to be an Keyes Campaign office, as the light from a big screen tv set was coming out the window. I reported what was coming out of the aging town house. I had no knowledge, thanks to Alan Keyes failure to report names on his FEC filings, that the site was a residence, much less who lived there. Connie ("Can't Understand Normal Thinking") parlayed that into a charge that I had "described the interior of her house to a tee" and has been squawking "stalker! stalker!" ever since.
Eschoir was not a friendly person at all.
As you can see from the smiling pictures Connie took at the spurtz bar on July 25, 1999, of me with Hank and Jolly, the cute chick who has subsequently cut off all ties with FR, not friendly at all.
He is certainly an intelligent man. Since I myself, am no big fan of the GOP and their politics, I found some of what he posted to be quite hillarious.
However, he crossed the line of common decency
Any documentation?
I thought not.
and has, for the past 2 1/2 years, made his mission in life the harrasment of FR.
I submitted a declaration that was admitted into evidence in the LAT/WP v. FR suit.
He has recruited other banned and anonymous cowards into engaging in his game.
simply mythologizing. The Anti-Freepers hate me as much as they hate Connie.
And to be sure, his vitriol was met in kind by certain FR posters including thepublishing of his photo, office address and phone number (he is an attorney). Once banned, Eschoir returned under no less thatn 50 sperate aliases in an attempt to badger and harras pasters. His favorite pastime appeared to be to ridicule Jim Robinson, who is confined to a wheel chair, by calling him "RimJob" and repeatedly attacking him via any one of his myriad of screen names.
Simply untrue. The "attacking" referenced occurred when RimJob used to come late at night to the AntiFreepers website (where I had been recruited), and I would bait him into making statements against legal interest, knowing that the LAT lawyers were monitoring the site. At the time he didn't know about my Declaration. He clammed up once he realized that his words were being monitored. Bob J never learned.
In 1999, Freeper activism had gained the site some modicum of respect (as much as can be expected for conservative activists) and they organized a march on Washington called the March for Justice.
That would be 1998 in Freeper math.
If you can find yourself a copy of the CSPAN coverage of this event, you would be way ahead of the FReepers, who have been promised "professional-quality videotapes" of the event for THREE YEARS! you might just notice a man hanging on the stage, on stage? That is new addition to my mythology attempting to shout down Alan Keyes. what was amusing was the efforts by security (led by the Ignoble Rodger Hunter) to drown me out when I heckled during Keyes's pauses. They surrounded me and would roar cheers in concert to drown me out. It got to where all I had to do was raise my arms, and they would holler and yahoo NO MATTER IF KEYES WAS SPEAKING OR NOT. I was like a disruption conductor.
Fact is, that the Freepers (and there were a few thousand at the event) tolerated Eschoir even in that most embarrasing moment.
I was there October 31 1998, I counted less than a thousand. And remember, this was the high water mark of FR's influence. Next thing was the '98 election, bye bye Newtie, bye bye Robbie, and hello hastert.
He has finally received the bounty he deserves. He is enjoined from ever posting at FR in the future or else face a contempt of court charge.
Please don't throw me in the briar patch, Brer Rick!
The injunction was agreed upon by both parties and is not a judicial precedent nor do I believe was that the intent.
The intent was to cause me legal expenses and get a million dollar judgment against me to pay for the LAT/WP stipulated damages for intentional copyright infringement.
They seem to have forgotten all about that part of the lawsuit. They are claiming to have done their own version of the Briar Patch strategy. "Please don't allow us to drop all our claims for money, Mr. Aldridge!"
HA!
Eschoir has claimed in response to the /. article that a mere letter would have motivated him to cease.
I had ceased maintaining FreeRepublic DeathWatch YAHOO club in October 2000 when Brian announced that he had agreed to a million dollar judgment in the LAT case.
I hate to use a propaganda technique here, but any rational person, having witnessed Eschoir's harrasment campaign, could not possibly believe such an assertion.
So it was worth $75,000 not to TRY to send a certified letter, or contact my ISP?
Regardless of my differences in opinion with most of the freepers, I am proud to call myself a freeper BECAUSE THERE IS NO PLACE ELSE I CAN GO The site rocks. It's one of the most happening sites for diverse political information you will ever find on the Internet.
It is certainly the most expensive chat on the internet.
Here is the inside skinny. I am not deranged, I have never been institutionalized ("Not once, not even one time"). I have never participated in any organized campaign to destroy FR. I have poked my share of fun.
I used to post on FR in '97-'99. I was banned in July 99. I submitted a declaration at the request of the LAT lawyers on the matter in August '99. I have occasionally in the interim accepted the offer to reregister publically posted on FR, and posted updates on the lawsuit (especially when things started going sour and they stopped self-reporting).
Back in October, Brian Buckley announced on FR that he had successfully negotiated a million dollar judgment against his client. I closed down my internet activities, including posting any information on the lawsuit. (I may have come back on in December to announce that, contrary to his oft repeated mantra that once the judgment was entered, he would file FRs appeal the NEXT DAY, Brian Buckley waited as long as legally possible to file the appeal, maybe, but I don't remember.)
In January, the Anti-Freepers, who had banned me ruthlessly, were keening in their mouse-warrior site
http://pub11.ezboard.com/ftothecontrarynewsofthe we ird
Later splinter site:
http://pub41.ezboard.com/faferswithanattitu de36385 frm1
about how much they wish they could respond to the lunacy on FR. I had some screen names I had registered (I found that even though it was still possible for me to register, I had nothing to say on FR when I could post. It was played out.).
I posted the screen name and password on TTC to show that they were mouse warriors and would not post even when they could. I was proven correct. Nobody took advantage of the screen name.
Point being, in early January you couldn't GIVE away screen names. No market for it.
On January 5, I am served with a Virginia lawsuit, the part which is now forgotten, which demands $950,000 damages plus perdiem damages which could rise to $27 million, plus attorney fees and costs. It also asked for an injunction.
Freeper President and Pizzamaker Bob Johnson came to my YAHOO clubsite and crowed that I was going to have to pay the Million Dollar Judgment Brian had gotten against FR.
I responded on Monday the 8th with discovery requests, including requests for member lists and financial. I also offered to settle with an agreement not to post enforced by the court like a divorce decree enforces child support agreed in a Property Settlement Agreement. They declined.
On or about Jan 17th, they served the Motion for Emergency Injunction, that is posted on the internet (the original copy announcing the now forgotten lawsuit is conveniently deleted from the FR site).
Since their crack research team had neglected to attend to my personal information posted on their website since 1997, they didn't realize that I was not a Virginia Resident. That gave me the ability to remove to federal court and short circuit their motion for Emergency Injunction. (The motion was declared "moot" by their lawyers. Now they are saying that is what they wanted all along.)
Removing to Fed Court started the timer running on discovery. According to the Fed Rules, I had until March 15 to file objections to interrogatories, and April 4 to file answers to interrogatories.
Anyone who has been involved in civil litigation knows that in objections, you put everything including the kitchen sink, and let the other side bring a motion to overrule the objections.
The anonymous trolls are saying that I pled the fifth amendment to a judge. What I did was include, among invocations of attorney-client, attorney-work product and spousal immunities, the immunnity against self incrimination.
The cause of action was based in part on alleged violations of Virginia Criminal law, because they reached out and accused me of sending FR (which doesn't even have an email addy) unsolicited bulk commercial electronic mail. This put a civil suit which purported to be breach of contract into the criminal realm, and enabled me to threaten to use 5th amendment immunity.
From the uproar that this caused, and the almost immediate offer to settle that ensued, it makes me think that the tactic was more effective than I had ever believed it would be.
But I must emphasize, that no hearing was held, no questions were ever refused to be answered, and answers weren't due for weeks, when the privilege was referenced in objections to discovery.
The Breach of Contract count brings up another troll argument that has been oft made, but not seriously addressed.
"FR is JR's PRIVATE PROPERTY" has been repeated ad nauseam. But he purports to contract with users.
My house is my private property, too. But if I contract to sublet portions of it, then kick out the subtenants on a whim (because after all it is my private property) and keep their furniture, true conservatives would think that impermissible.
But that point of view is based on the sanctity contract. Jim Robinson MAKES HIS LIVING stealing property that is by contract other person's intellectual property.
The user agreement is no contract. Jim Robinson doesn't follow his own "guidelines" (notice they aren't referred to as "terms of contract") because he wouldn't be able to ban people at will for their political beliefs.
So in sum, conservative Jim Robinson doesn't believe in contract, nor in free speech, nor in the benefit of resolving problems without resorting to the "nanny state" government legal apparatus, nor in requiring his anonymous cowards to tell the truth.
Hey, internet maven, the management here has offered to provide a link to my side of the story if I can find a website to link to. How bout you provide the bandwidth, and I provide the content. I will even give you the police report to which Connie Hair attached a copy of a post of mine from the Crapper wherein I quoted the John Cleese "That's the sort of philistine pig ignorance . . . " rant from "The Architect Sketch" to show why she was justified to be in fear of my derangement.
Consider this: all I had to do was seek to discover their financial records, and they dropped all claim for monetary damages, so as to try and shield their shadowy money world from public scrutiny.
Likewise they acted to protect their client list.
So from now on, anyone who is sued by FreeRepublic.com knows with confidence that FR will drop the lawsuit if threatened by an audit.
Since the injunction was part of a universal settlement, and not from a judge-rendered decision, there is no precedent that FR can use in any other lawsuits. And since the injunction only has what vestigial teeth it may be perceived to have in actions against those acting in concert with me, those doing exactly the same acts of multiple authorization but not acting in concert with me have no reason to feel threatened by the reach of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
I tried for three years to get any of the Mouse Warriors to act in concert with me and had NO SUCCESS. There just isn't anyone capable of acting in concert with anyone out there.
This very thread contains the evidence of the relative insignificance of FreeRepublic.com - Here we have a legal dispute of constitutional and internet precedent setting significance in direct proportion to the importance of Free Republic on the national scene. The discussion dies after the first day. Not even Dan Moldea is interested in this story. The Washington Post and LA Times can't be bothered to print a story. I contacted the Southern Poverty Law Center, and they weren't interested. Contributions to both the TCA legal defense fund and the Free Republic legal defense fund are miniscule. Although thanks to contributions I did come out ahead in terms of expenses versus income, it was not enough to make much of a difference in the household bottom line. The lawsuit was for domestic consumption, to keep the freepers cowed and in line. The Freepers, not unlike the East Germans during the Cold War, being shielded from truthful updates on the way their money is being spent, are impressed by the spin and Brian Buckley protects his hegemony. Nobody bothers to ask, if Eschoir had done all the things he had been accused of doing, i.e., plead the fifth, posted on FR in February, posted filth, stalked Connie Hair, and trespassed, why Brian Buckley relented, and didn't even ask for damages or costs or attorney's fees. The lawsuit was essentially costly jamming of Radio Free Republic. Bottom line: nobody really cares that much about the expensive right-wing whacko chat room FreeRepublic.com. The lesson to be learned by potential freedom-fighting defendants: Free Republic, like any bully, is a coward when challenged. They will do anything not to have their financials revealed in discovery. Therefore any lawsuit based on complaints of damages done to Free Republic will be withdrawn (and probably not filed in the first place, thanks to my actions in this lawsuit). Free Republic may rely upon the intimidation factor (as long as it is funded and can employ white-shoe firms like Winston & Strawn) to keep people from speaking up. But when the true story behind this lawsuit is know, no one will fear the empty threats of suits for monetary damages from FreeRepublic.com, for Free Republic will never allow the scrutiny of the books necessary to prove their monetary damages, and will fold like a cardboard suitcase when resisted. As they did with me.
Correction 1: Those were event participants who were responding to you by their own volition. The *official* security and I were just watching. When I was asked what to do about your rude disruptions, I told them you're entitled to your 1st Amendment rights just as they are.
"I was there October 31 1998, I counted less than a thousand."
Correction 2: Since you were at ground level, I suspect your count was limited by a close proximity perspective. From the stage, overlooking the entire grounds, I counted approximately 2500...as did others.