[shove_it]

Coming to a Free Republic near you?

[Ouchthatonehurt]

Haha!...
I’ve long imagined standing before the bench in a TwightlightZone-esque court room as my FreeRepublic posts are read aloud to an obscured jury of my overlords.
I try therefore, to make some of them humorous so that I might have brief periods of levity in an otherwise dower situation.

Hi Overlords!
-Ouch

[Democrat_media]

democrats hate freedom of speech

democrats don’t want the truth getting out

many news paper sites are already censoring “climate deniers” comments.

they will use the government to censor the internet

[Louis Foxwell]

Anne Bernhardt and I use our real names. For her its a gutsy decision. For me not so much.

[rlmorel]

"...one thing has remained consistently problematic: comments posted under articles or blogs (or “below the line” in internet-speak)..."

Well. We now acknowledge THAT is a problem, while we are on that slippery slope, we could re-word that to get to the heart of the matter:

"...one thing has remained consistently problematic: comments spoken or thought by people in discourse with others..."

Or to boil it down further:

"...one thing has remained consistently problematic: the private thoughts one is thinking, or is suspected of thinking..."

[Terry L Smith]

People can only be cowed, if they are not of the mind to stand up for what they believe.

The uncowed, will always have attempts to make them look dangerous, insane, and not to be listened to. It has been done in the past, it is being attempted, even by those that have been elected to represent all the Americans in their respective districts.

On this weekend, we have to remember that Americans DIED so that WE THE LIVING can go on living as free men, in the greatest country on the face of the Earth!!!

[Riflema]

Maybe it's time for some maturity in the Interwebs - why not behave as a regular dead tree publisher would (as in, letters to the Editor), and be held reponsible for libel just as they would? Yes, it would be called "chilling" etc., and yes, it would be challenging technically, but then again, do we need everyone, everywhere being able to publish every one of their knee-jerk responses to anything, anytime?

I know, this puts me in the old farts league, but what's wrong with putting the brakes on the world once in a while?

Regarding Freedom of Speech, remember please that the best defense in libel action is truth, and the opinions (NOT statements of fact) are free and always have been.

[kearnyirish2]

“one thing has remained consistently problematic: comments posted under articles or blogs (or “below the line” in internet-speak).”

Problematic, just like the concept of secret ballots...

[Organic Panic]

Obama is covered by giving the UN the keys to tge internet. He will stand back shrugging his shoulders, “it isn’t my fault.”

Besides if you oppose anonymity you hate children and are racist.

[virgil283]

Thanks S.I....what extent this extraordinary freedom will be allowed to remain....A smoke shop was raided recently and part of the Feds warrant cited the web sites the suspect had visited, indeed how long?

[Jack Hammer]

Our modern pols HATE the first amendment, and would happily do away with it at the slightest opportunity.

Now, it seems, they have that opportunity.

[Political Junkie Too]

A simple way around all of this is to file as a candidate for some upcoming election.

Campaign speech can contain pretty much anything, and be considered protected by the courts.

In the 1970s, I remember a candidate who swore in an ad just to get the ad talked about on national TV.

People like Alan Grayson say despicable things in their campaign ads.

Therefore, for a nominal fee in advance of some upcoming local election, file as a candidate and flame away on the internet.

-PJ