How Free is Free Republic

kuro5hin.org ^ | Mon Dec 29th, 2003 at 09:53:55 PM EST | felixrayman

[visagoth]

I didn't find this posted here on FR - so here we go.....

	How Free is Free Republic? By felixrayman Mon Dec 29th, 2003 at 09:53:55 PM EST
	Free Republic is an online story and discussion site similar to Kuro5hin.org, but with an explicitly conservative bias. The site proclaims itself to be "an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web." Intrigued, I proceeded to offer some comments to stories there, addressing some factual errors and dissenting with some conservative views. The result was a quick lesson in the right-wing view of free expression. The experiment left an open question - where do you go on the web to engage conservatives in open debate? Where is the right-wing version of k5?

One article on the Free Republic site entitled "Dean Finally Shoots Self Somewhere Other Than Own Foot" attacks Howard Dean for his statement that "The capture of Saddam has not made America safer". The poster of the article goes on to claim, "If any of the Left is paying attention, Dean has just officially proven the he is DEFINITELY clueless when it comes to foreign policy. Another in a long line of RATS that just doesn't get it". My reply that "Actually it's pretty obvious that the capture of Saddam hasn't made the world safer - international airline flights had to be cancelled a few days ago due to threats of terrorism and in Iraq the last few days have been as bloody for coalition forces as the days before Saddam's capture" was removed by a moderator within a few minutes. A comment posted to another Free Republic story, "Howard Dean: The Mayor of Milwaukee", in an attempt to belittle Howard Dean's fiscal record claimed that the budget of one county in Illinois was larger than the budget of the state of Vermont. It claimed the budget of the County of DuPage, near Chicago, to be $1.6 billion, and that the budget for the entire state of Vermont was $73 million. After a quick google search, I found this assertion to be incorrect. The reply I posted 'The "$73 million" figure you quote is for the Vermont Municipal Employees' Retirement System, not the entire Vermont budget. Vermont's budget calls for 1.8 billion in state spending with another billion in federal spending', was removed within a few minutes. The Free Republic claims in its help section that, "While Free Republic is not edited or censored, it does reserve the right to remove any postings that are considered inappropriate. Examples of inappropriate posts are those that are off-subject or contain advertising, pornography, obscene material, racist material, Nazi (or other hate group) material, materials promoting violence, threats or illegal acts, etc". It would be interesting to know under which category my replies were considered to fall. For another example, a response to the story "You Might be a Leftist If . . ." read, in part "The only meaningful difference is between those who believe in the original intent interpretation of the Constitution and those who do not. Those who believe in the Constitution believe in individual liberty. Those who ignore or rewrite the Constitution do not believe in individual liberty. This is the only difference which matters. " I responded to this poster with the comment "Individual liberty? Didn't the constitution as written specifically allow for the continuation of slavery as an American institution"? Within minutes, the post was removed by a moderator. In addition, after this third reply, my ability to post comments on the site was revoked. So obviously, the Free Republic is not free, except in the sense that the German Democratic Republic was democratic, or the sense that supporting the PATRIOT Act is patriotic. Web site operators certainly have a right to set whatever rules they choose for their users. And a quick test showed that there are sites with a left-wing bias that are just as cowardly as Free Republic when it comes to allowing an actual debate. The question remains, are there any sites with a conservative bias that allow such debate?

Full discussion: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/12/27/173837/60

---

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - 2001 Kuro5hin.org Inc.

[Modernman]

I haven't been here long, but I've seen a lot of folks claiming to be conservatives who do nothing but denounce our President, thus in effect proclaiming their support for Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton.

Disagreeing with the President does not equal supporting Dean or Hillary. Conservatives are not supposed to be slavish followers of the party line. When the president screws up, people should call him on it.

I don't trust any government enough to give it immunity from criticism.

[IronJack]

Read the mission statement on the home page. Nowhere does it say that FR welcomes any and all opinions. It clearly states that it champions CONSERVATIVE causes.

The management of Free Republic owes you exactly nothing, including tolerance. Every one of us here posts by the grace of the owners and their appointed agents.

[fourhorsemen]

Disagreeing with the President does not equal supporting Dean or Hillary. Conservatives are not supposed to be slavish followers of the party line. When the president screws up, people should call him on it.

I agree, and I've been critical of the President's decision to negotiate with terrorists (e.g. Khaddafi). But where I would argue that people go over the line is when they proclaim that they aren't going to vote for him, or they will vote 3rd party, in effect casting a vote for Howard Dean.

[Modernman]

The management of Free Republic owes you exactly nothing, including tolerance.

The management is not that dumb. If they felt that they owed the posters nothing, the number of posters would soon dry up, as would the donations that keep FR going.

FReepers have the most important power when it comes to this site: we can vote with our (electronic) feet and with our wallets. The management has to respect the wishes of the posters, or else this site would turn into a virtual ghost town. Jim Rob and company seem to get that, even though you don't seem to.

[IronJack]

The management has to respect the wishes of the posters

Hogwash. The management doesn't have to respect diddly. This is a private venture, and one Jim runs for his own purposes, namely those stated explicitly on the home page. That simple English is what YOU don't seem to get.

I've seen my share of bloodbaths around here when people start dictating policy to the ownership. But feel free to add your name to the roll of martyrs who have demanded their imagined "rights." It might be good for a chuckle or two before you hie off to Zotland.

[Modernman]

Hogwash. The management doesn't have to respect diddly. This is a private venture, and one Jim runs for his own purposes, namely those stated explicitly on the home page. That simple English is what YOU don't seem to get.

Sigh. Let me try to explain this using simple words. Free Republic is much like a corporation selling a product or service. There is no rule or law telling the company what kind of product it must sell. There is no law telling the company that it needs to listen to the wishes of its customers. Ford is free to sell a Model T Ford, in black only, if it so wished. However, Ford's customers are free to go buy from Toyota, instead.

Still with me? Okay- Free Republic is not a democracy, granted. However, it is clear that the owners do not have the resources to keep this site running without we the FReepers and our donations. In addition, if there were no FReepers because the administration had zotted or alienated everyone, this whole endeavour would be kind of pointless.

Where does that leave the owners? They have to walk a tight rope between getting rid of disruptors and trolls, on the one hand, and being responsive enough to the demands of the FReeper community so that people don't leave this site en masse, on the other. They seem to do that job pretty well, since they seem to get the point I'm making here- none of us "need" Free Republic. There are other conservative websites out there. We could all go post elsewhere. However, FR does a very good job of adapting itself to the needs of its constituency.

I've seen my share of bloodbaths around here when people start dictating policy to the ownership.

You miss the point, again. One FReeper cannot change policy around here. If enough people are unhappy though, the owners have to listen to their concerns- not because of any law or rule, but for the same reason Ford has to listen to car buyers. No customers= no Ford. No Freepers= no FR.

The owners here seem to understand these issues, even though you may not.

[IronJack]

Your error lies in assuming that this site must continue, or that, like Henry Ford, Jim Robinson stands to profit if it does or suffer if it does not. Neither of those is true. Free Republic is NOTHING like a corporation selling a product or service. Jim has said many times in the past that if FR folds, it folds and he moves on to other things. He has also said that if the site does not make enough to support itself, he will shut it down.

Those two realities utterly destroy your argument, since the site can now be a unilateral extension of Jim Robinson's values and either survive or fail on its own merits, irrespective of the marketplace. While a failure may be a plebiscite on those values, it does not cause Jim Robinson any hardship. Neither does the site's continuation carry any benefit, especially if it runs counter to Jim's own beliefs.

Save your laments for yourself. It is YOUR comprehension that is coming up sadly short.

[Modernman]

Your error lies in assuming that this site must continue

I don't assume that at all- FR need not continue any more than Ford needs to continue to sell cars. If FR folds, something else will pop up.

Free Republic is NOTHING like a corporation selling a product or service

Why not? An idea or ideology is no different than a car or washing machine- if you can't get enough people to buy it, it's a failure. If Jim Rob can't get enough people to agree with his viewpoints to such an extent that they're willing to donate to FR, his viewpoints and this site are a failure.

While a failure may be a plebiscite on those values, it does not cause Jim Robinson any hardship

Ummm.... so, why does he bother with this site, then? If FR serves no purpose to JR, whether material, spiritual or intellectual, why spend so much effort on it?

Neither does the site's continuation carry any benefit, especially if it runs counter to Jim's own beliefs.

This statement makes no sense. Why would anyone put so much effort into something like this if itheld no benefit to them?

No, I think you miss the symbiotic nature of FR and the Freeper community. Neither can survive as an entity without the other.

[IronJack]

If FR folds, something else will pop up.

Precisely. Which is why Jim needn't accommodate anything he doesn't choose to accommodate. If his service can be procured elsewhere, this site is free to be what HE wants it to be. And the people who attend this site can be here because they agree with that, or they can seek their services elsewhere. Again, Jim has made that perfectly clear over the years.

An idea or ideology is no different than a car or washing machine- if you can't get enough people to buy it, it's a failure.

Jim is not "selling" an ideology. It is assumed that those who visit this site already "own" that ideology. That's the point you can't seem to grasp.

If Jim Rob can't get enough people to agree with his viewpoints to such an extent that they're willing to donate to FR, his viewpoints and this site are a failure.

See above. As Jim has said many times, Free Republic is not his life. If this site can't sustain itself, it folds. That doesn't mean that conservatism or Jim's values are failures, just that there wasn't enough money to support the site. Jim's life goes on.

why does he bother with this site, then? If FR serves no purpose to JR, whether material, spiritual or intellectual, why spend so much effort on it?

I didn't say there was no purpose, just that Jim derives no benefit from the site. By "benefit," I meant profit. Surely you can appreciate the paradox implicit in sacrificing one's ideological soul to sustain a web site that advances one's ideology. If the reward to Jim lies in advancing conservatism, how can he justify maintaining a web site that defeats his purpose?

Why would anyone put so much effort into something like this if it held no benefit to them?

By benefit, I meant profit. You were the one who drew a parallel with a corporation. Absent the profit motive, your analogy falls apart.

I think you miss the symbiotic nature of FR and the Freeper community. Neither can survive as an entity without the other.

The relationship is symbiotic, but FR existed before there was a FReeper community, at least as you know it.

The ultimate test of this argument will be which of us is around in (another) five years.

[jagrmeister]

I post both on FR and DU. I post on DU to create trouble but I haven't been banned (and have hundreds of posts). But I have observed that they censor far more there than FR. In the Election forum, they lock a LOT of the threads for being "incivil". Normal posters- not even trolls- routinely get posts pulled because someone thought it was too critical. There is no such as Free Speech on DU, and while both DU and FR bar trolls, even liberal posters on DU have frustration with the incessant censorship.

[FirstPrinciple]

I agree with you. However, I have been attacked more than once in this forum for questioning the policies of Bush. I don't mind being attacked, but an equally sharp tone generally draws responses, otherwise known as flame war. While my posts criticizing Bush were never removed, I couldn't reply my opponents with the same veracity as they attacked me. Should there be a level of decorum for everyone?