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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
" (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??
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.
---
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.
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
In fact, the GOP didn't go really hardcore right wing until the Great Depression.
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
----
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
. 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.
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
"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.
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.
--
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
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.
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.
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.
-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"??
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?
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.
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)
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.
I can see the case now: "Slashdot vs. Anonymous Coward(s)"...
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
They said his actions were "beyond the pale" which is a racial slur used to refer to the Irish. The Pale was a defensive perimeter around Dublin when the English occupied the city. To be "beyond the pale" came to mean uncivilized and barbaric and was synonymous with "wild Irish," one of the slurs the English used.
And of course, there's vandal.
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.
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.
It appears that they do have a clue.
WTFWJD
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
"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!