What’re the chances?

I’d have liked it better if you’d received an apology from ol’ Gene. He should send you flowers, at least.

Censorship is when you stop people from speaking freely. That isn’t what happened here. This guy is free to post under his own name either on FreeRepublic or in the comments sections of any of the sites we know he has visited (including this one). What he isn’t free to do is post anonymously under the umbrella of a wider organisation who he claims to represent when they have decided that he doesn’t.

It’s straightforwardly not censorship. There’s no grey area here.

“Far be for me to tell an ostensibly private organization how they should conduct their business,”

The operative word, however, is “ostensibly.” An organization called the REPUBLICAN Liberty Congress is not going to get much of a pass from me — they are in league with the State, if not 100% part of it.

I agree with your example (again, as long as one suspends one’s knowledge of how big business and government are partners (fascism)), but there is a fine line between legal censorship and censorship per se. The attitude of suppression is still there.

If a spokesman for Coca-cola (to pull an example out of the air) came out in an official press conference and told the world that he drank Pepsi and thought Coke was inferior they would rescind his employment and prevent hm speaking on their behalf within seconds and it wouldn’t be censorship.

With statements like the following quotes from RLC members, dontcha just know they LOVE liberty:

“Now that the matter is resolved and the offender has been restrained …”, Bill Westmiller, RLC National Chairman

“His posting privileges have recently been suspended …” Aaron Biterman, Secretary, RLC

“On behalf of RLC-IL let me offer my apologies for the former postings on our website, they have been removed…. Once I was alerted to what was going on I removed the material.” W. Guy Finley, Co-Coordinator, Republican Liberty Caucus – Ilinois

“I’m told we’d shut them down if the national organization had control of the domain….” Chris Farris

Far be for me to tell an ostensibly private organization how they should conduct their business, but to me it appears that censorship, redaction and restricting free speech are not congruous with freedom.

I have come close to being banned here, but to his great credit, Radley Balko tolerates a very broad spectrum of comment. And in fairness to the above parties, when attacks are personal or ad hominem, the line between censorship and civility is blurry. Still, I can’t help but think of Holmes’ opinion that the remedy for free speech is more free speech.

Or as Patton said, “I love it when the Germans shoot at me. Then I know where they are.”

Facts not in evidence.

It would be like the Tyrone posts at Marginal Revolution, minus the funny.

*twitch twitch*

Was it this “puma” character, or are there more nutcases over there?