We have a Death, "scenario", not a threat etc. If that was reported it would have been pulled, but it really is more a bad joke than anything else.
The, "Dog in the Manger", comment was not presented that way but as Homosexuals are dogs, a completely different meaning. That was no accident.
The last is the worst. O'Reilly said "I Hate Blacks". Where is it? Racist statements are the most inflamatory.
Moderators cannot pull non-existant posts.
O'Reilly's entire report was a deliberate act of malignant dishonesty. It is a defamatory and nasty hatchet job.
Somebody has posted the phrase "I Hate Blacks" on Free Republic.
It was part of the HEADLINE of an ARTICLE published in "San Francisco Gate.com" (SFGate.com) entitled:
Asian paper's "I Hate Blacks" column assailed
Freepers then went on to blast the author of said newspaper column as "an idiot racist".
It seems that Bill O'Reilly had his "Dan Rather Moment" with "All the News that is Fit to Fake".
I totally agree. Is it actionable?
“O’Reilly’s entire report was a deliberate act of malignant dishonesty. It is a defamatory and nasty hatchet job.”
You nailed it! Pure and simple!
Sorry if this has already been mentioned. I'm not all the way through the thread.
I just went to the HuffPo link someone posted.
In all fairness, there was some pretty vile stuff posted about homosexuals.
I think it is not good for the site to post stuff like that, no matter how you feel about homosexuality (I do not support it).
Unfortunately, it is real easy to smear the site when people are not prudent in what they post. Left-wing fascists can and do root this stuff out and paint FR as what it is not.
Who is this bozo Steve Young anyway?
AMEN
O'Reilly's suggestion that FR requires "professional moderation" is a direct attack on the freedom of we-the-people to discuss politics, and neither more nor less. But as the case of O'Reilly's "hate blacks" fraud shows, improving FR's moderation is not at all the point. I can't imagine Free Republic remaining Free Republic if the moderators were to undertake to routinely censor things as tepid as that.
Is it, or is it not, true that FR successfully brought this exact issue to court against a local California governmental agency which presumed to call FR a "hate site?" I would think that if that is correct, a letter to that effect from FR to O'Reilly, mildly asking for an apology, would be in order. Such a letter might begin by noting that Mark Twain used to lump incongruous things together for humorous effect, but that if lumping FR in with Daily Kos was an attempt at humor it was perhaps the lamest joke since Bill Clinton promised an ethical administration.
If O'Reilly were to persist in that absurd "hate site" characterization, FR would ultimately be forced to sue. If so, it should ask only for its legal costs - and for advertising time to point out that FreeRepublic is edited for a conservative audience, including families with children, and children sometimes participate. FR therefore discourages the posting of even mild profanity, let alone things which are truly offensive. It is an adult - not an adolescent but an adult - site.
O’Reilly had to find a “right-wing hate site”, and we were nominated. End of made up story.
Our success has made us a target.
Thanks to all mods.