|
Free Republic is an American Internet forum and activist site for conservatives.
Origins
Free Republic was founded in 1996 by Jim Robinson of California. Members would copy articles from other news sources and then the community would discuss them. The group first started to gain popularity during the President Clinton impeachment controversy when protests and write-in campaigns were organized. The group also played a role in the controversy over the disputed presidential election of 2000 where it again organized protests, including the creation of "Sore/Loserman" signs — an allusion to Vice-President Al Gore and Senator Joe Lieberman. The group has also played a role in organizing demonstrations supporting the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. The site is funded by donations requested of its members, often by a banner-type graphic on the site.
Board users
There is no membership structure, or regional chiefs. Users of Free Republic ("Freepers") organize local gatherings on the various message boards. There is a member directory, but like most internet forums, nearly everyone has a pseudonym and few people divulge their true identity in their online profiles. All members are afforded a mail service that allows them to send, receive and store private messages to each other. Many also inform other members about certain interest areas on "ping lists," lists of users interested in a certain subject that are alerted to ongoing discussions on that topic.
Discussion
Comments on Free Republic consist mostly of one or two sentence-long ad hominem insults about liberal political figures, institutions, ideology, and liberals in general, with some posts of longer length and substance.
The Free Republic community is largely united on certain political staples of the conservative movement, including being against gun control and abortion, having a strong dislike for President Bill and Senator Hillary Clinton, being against the formation of a Palestinian state, and being against affirmative action and gay marriage. [1] (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1083207/posts?page=36#36)
On some issues, however, the Free Republic membership is somewhat more divided. Three main groups can be observed on the forum: neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, and libertarians, with neoconservative opinion being represented in the large majority of posts. Divisive issues include evolution, free trade, and the legalization of soft drugs.
Free Republic does not seek to be a board that represents all political viewpoints: it is a meeting point for those to the right of the political center in America, and articles posted which contain unwelcome (usually liberal) views are customarily ridiculed and tagged with the words BARF ALERT after the headline, a feature meant to warn the reader in advance of an opinion running counter to the prevailing perspective of the site's intended audience. Freepers are often called to vote en masse in off-site online polls, and there is a daily prayer for Bush. The moderators often remove or ban posters who criticize Israel, the Iraq or Afghanistan war, etc., from its discussion boards. Material that criticizes the administration of George W. Bush is typically not permitted, and posts which do are quickly censored and the member banned. Some topics may be broached by members who have belonged for a longer period of time to the forum, but are forbidden to newcomers.
Although Free Republic has an official policy of not permitting racism, some posts allegedly show it. Examples include calling Palestinian children "bombs still growing" (a reference to suicide bombing), racial references in the song parody Crying (Frying Abu-Jamal) [2] (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a377afda025c2.htm), and frequent references to the French as "weasels" [3] (http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-vetscor/896711/replies?comment=14); however, many posters receive suspensions or even bans for posting material considered racist.
Manipulating polls
The manipulation of online polls by Free Republic has not been without controversy. The pracitice involves making a post directing members to vote en masse in an online poll, particularly those on television network or newspaper websites, with the intended goal of significantly effecting the final outcome. Known as "freeping" a poll, the practice is not unique to Free Republic, and as the practice has become well known even liberal websites have been known to direct their members to "freep" a poll.
Free Republic in the national spotlight
In August 2004, Jerome Corsi, co-author of the controversial and influential book Unfit for Command, apologized in the national media for racist and homophobic comments, as well as slurs against liberal political figures, that he made on Free Republic. The posts were discovered and made public by Media Matters for America, a liberal website. Subsequently, John O'Neil, the book's other co-author, attempted to distance himself from Corsi and attempted to downplay Corsi's involvement in the writing of the book.
In September 2004, one Freeper ("Buckhead") was the first to question the authenticity of certain memos pertaining to George W. Bush's service in the national guard aired on CBS. This story quickly catapulted Free Republic into the national spotlight, and while CBS initially maintained that the memos were authentic, it later said that it could not verify the authenticity of the documents.
Lawsuit and settlement
Because it has been a practice of its users to copy and paste copyrighted news stories in their entirety to its discussion boards, Free Republic was sued by The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. (Reuters and The Wall Street Journal were part of the original consortium threatening legal action, but they dropped out before the lawsuit was filed.) Many members view the lawsuit as an unsuccessful conspiracy by a "liberal media" to stifle the organization; founder Robinson referred to the suit as "a life and death struggle with elements of the socialist propaganda machine."
In a negotiated settlement, Free Republic agreed to remove the posted articles, and paid these two newspapers $5,000 each. Neither party was awarded any damages, legal fees or costs. Today, other publishers, such as Condé Nast, have joined The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times in objecting to the posting of entire copyrighted articles. Users now post excerpts from such publishers (as allowed by fair use), and the site filters submissions against a watchlist of "banned" sources, by request of their webmaster or as a result of the lawsuit, as a precaution against future lawsuits.
External links
|
