William Saturn: The Last Stop for Free Speech?

William Saturn is a longtime IPR contributor and accredited reporter for Wikinews.

No visitor retains the right to post on IPR. The owner can manage the site as he pleases. But there is no reason IPR cannot attempt to replicate the free and fair society that its owner, contributors, and followers envision.

IPR currently faces a crisis of conscience. Two years ago, it took the unlibertarian step of banning one good faith commenter.  Now, some on the site are calling for the ban of another good faith commenter.  This reaction is a symptom of a much larger disease affecting the entire United States. Rather than forgiving unfortunate comments and disputing ideas on the highest levels of Graham’s hierarchy of disagreement, some opt to silence voices completely; the IPR equivalent of a ban. In argument, these tactics do not win. As Thomas Dewey expressed in a 1948 GOP presidential debate, pushing disputed views underground only allows those views to fester unchallenged.

When it comes to free speech, America is on the wrong track . Though it faced this direction for decades, it accelerated just in the past few weeks. Recently, two contestants from the popular reality series Big Brother lost their real life jobs after making racist and homophobic jokes on air. Similarly, the Food Network fired popular celebrity chef Paula Deen after she revealed under oath that she used the word “nigger” in the 1970s. The companies that fired these individuals had every right to do so as private entities. But these firings were a consequence of external pressure.

Likely a result of media brainwashing, in the United States today, it is worse to make a racist or homophobic comment than to promote violence or even commit actual crimes. It figures the law will soon catch up with this sentiment. One can easily foresee the U.S. government outlawing speech that incites “racial hatred,” as the U.K did in 1986.

I submit that IPR take a stand for free speech. As a symbolic gesture, allow all good faith commenters to discuss their views openly, no matter how racist, homophobic, or wrong they may be. This requires:

Though these steps may be but a soft wind against a diesel locomotive, at least our collective conscience will be clear, and we can celebrate IPR as one of the last stops for free spee

68 thoughts on “William Saturn: The Last Stop for Free Speech?

  1. Deran

    Mr. Saturn, you sir are a bumptious fraud. Your nonsensical proposal is of no value to open discussion. You make a hoopla abt free speech on IPR, when in fact you are only interested in being amused by people like Mr. Grundmann and the reaction of other people to such persons prattle.

    You can propose all manner of hiearchy of argument, but the fact remains, if persons like Mr. Grundmann are allowed to drive away the volunteers that do all the work here (you are not included in this set of people, Mr. Saturn) will be driven away and then IPR will be another useless space on the internet where a few demented individuals call each other names and conduct endless flame wars.

    And I know you don’t like me calling people names, Mr. Saturn, but allow me to reiterate that you sir are a bumptious fraud. Have a good day.

  2. Nicholas Sarwark

    IPR exists to cover third parties and make Mr. Redlich money. It does not exist to give a soapbox to assholes, like some sort of online Speakers’ Corner, though that’s a sometime side effect.

    The more assholes in the comments section, the less effective the site is at covering third parties and making Mr. Redlich money.

  3. William Saturn

    “[I]n fact you are only interested in being amused by people like Mr. Grundmann and the reaction of other people to such persons prattle.”

    I never said that, so it is not a fact as you claim. It is your own speculation, which happens to be mistaken. I can say that in fact, my interest is in free speech and rational discussion.

    “[I]f persons like Mr. Grundmann are allowed to drive away the volunteers that do all the work here…will be driven away.”

    Based on what evidence? Nobody is being forced to read Grundmann’s posts, and I know of nobody driven away by his comments.

    “[A]llow me to reiterate that you sir are a bumptious fraud.”

    Your practice of descending to the lower levels of Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement, only reveals your personal ignorance/inadequacy.

  4. William Saturn

    “IPR exists to cover third parties and make Mr. Redlich money. It does not exist to give a soapbox to assholes.”

    You are correct. But comments do not interfere with the stated purposes of the site. These are extraneous rules concerning comments, and so I favor a libertarian approach.

  5. Jill Pyeatt

    For anyone who would like to read what it’s like to discuss things with Dr. Grundmann, I would like to recommend this delightful thread.

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/03/libertarian-party-vs-constitution-party-an-analysis/

    In my opinion, many people offered him ample opportunity to discuss things in a mature, responsible manner. Instead, he took the opportunity to make huge leaps in judgement based on a phrase or statement someone made. In short, he does not discuss things, so around the first week of April I gave up and just started ignoring him.

  6. Thomas L. Knapp

    WS @ 4,

    I think you misunderstand what “a libertarian approach” entails.

    Libertarians support freedom of speech. That does not mean we think that every web site owner must give a microphone to every speaker who wants one.

    I am sure that you support my right to say anything I want.

    I’m not so sure you’d agree I have a right to say it from your front porch. Especially if I’m loud and drunk and it’s 2 in the morning.

  7. Richard Winger

    There seems to be confusion in this thread. As I read the post itself, it seems to be talking about whether certain people should be able to leave comments. But then the thread uses words that seems to be about whether those individuals should be allowed to create blog posts on IPR.

  8. William Saturn

    Ignoring is probably the best practice when someone is constantly throwing insults around. Like Knapp said in another thread, sometimes its better to let one defeat himself.

    We see this from Deran @1. I will defend (and have defended) Deran’s ability to post. However, I believe he is defeating himself, and so that is what I point out to him. If he goes on and on and on, I’ll just ignore him.

  9. William Saturn

    @7

    Yes. I made a mistake @3 in writing “Nobody is being forced to read Grundmann’s posts…”

    That should read, “Nobody is being forced to read Grundmann’s comments…”

  10. William Saturn

    @6

    I don’t believe your front porch analogy fits here because a front porch is not a place people are generally invited to for discussion. Furthermore, the front porch is far more limited in size than a website.

  11. Steven Wilson

    @4

    You state that comments don’t interfere with the purpose of the site.

    How is it that you believe in freedom of speech when you just told everyone what the purpose of this site was for?

    Listen, I appreciate your passion, but you have no clue as to the Libertarian approach to speech nor do you comprehend the economics of a website.

    Warren is not going to compromise the site and its revenue for a principle of speech that is AB– USED by two or three idiots.

    When a black panther or Nazi speaks from the front steps of a City hall after filing for a public action certificate, then that person is using freedom of speech.

    Going to 3M corporate HQ and complaining about hiring minorities while they were in a private meeting is not freedom of speech. It is trespassing. Which is what those two idiots you are defending have done and illustrated a pattern or history of recidivism.

    The founders set a construct for speech. It is not absolute. You are trivializing the act because of the construct you are manipulating.

    This site is private property. We enter as customers of our own free will. When customers speak, listen to them or go broke.

  12. William Saturn

    “Warren is not going to compromise the site and its revenue for a principle of speech that is AB– USED by two or three idiots.”

    Again, do you have any statistics to back this assertion? Did revenue suddenly increase after Milnes was banned?

    “Going to 3M corporate HQ and complaining about hiring minorities while they were in a private meeting is not freedom of speech”

    Does IPR not invite individuals to comment? Above, I clearly see it state, LEAVE A COMMENT. I did not know IPR was only a private meeting of a chosen few.

  13. NewFederalist

    What about Ogle? I see you clearly want Milnes restored to posting rights but not Ogle? Despite the fact that he spammed lots of threads with his fantasy parliament stuff you still support his ouster? Please explain.

  14. Bill Y.

    For someone who so strongly proclaims to believe in free speech, it’s strange to me that William Saturn himself is such an enigma. What party do you belong to? What part of the country? There’s nothing when I google you and your Facebook page is scant.

    You say you’ve contributed to IPR for a long time, but, honestly, I don’t remember seeing your name as posting articles until very recently. Your comments have been scarce, too. Will you fill in the gap in posting articles if Jill decides to stop coming here?

  15. Bill Y.

    Why should she stay if she get disrespected by a loon like grunman? He should have been banned months ago.

  16. Bill Y.

    But, if she does we can have a Good Old Boys Club here, since she’s about the last female to come around here.

  17. William Saturn

    I never claimed to be a longtime contributor. I’ve contributed since December 2011, but I’ve been a reader since the beginning of the site.

  18. William Saturn

    @11

    Are you a libertarian? Because you seem to be suggesting things work better when regulated heavily?

  19. RedPhillips

    To me there is a difference between people whose comments many consider offensive or silly or whatever and people who thread hijack, obsess on a certain subject, etc. And different still from people who deliberately troll to disrupt things just for the sport of it. The first group, IMO, deserve a lot of leeway. The second some but less. The third even less.

    We have had this discussion at my own blog. Each poster can police their own posts, but in general we basically allow all comments to stand. To me, banning someone or deleting a comment feels weak. Like it is an admission of intellectual fear to debate. At the least you could be accused of that. As someone who prides myself on my intellectual fiestiness, being accused of being fearful to debate is about the worst thing you could accuse me of. As best as I can recall, we have banned one poster permanently because of his repeated thread jacking and calls for violence, and we are perpetually on the verge of banning another.

    With regard to the people in question, Grundmann’s nemesis in California, with his constant Rainman like repetition of arcana, was always more annoying to me than Grundmann. I don’t know Milnes as well, but with the two mentioned above and maybe even Milnes, I don’t think what we were witnessing was necessarily maliciousness. I suspect it reflects … how to put this gently … a certain lack of mental flexability such that nuance is hard to grapple with and thus rote is resorted to naturally. I AM NOT suggesting that these folks are unintelligent. Just that they have a hard time expressing themselves in writing in a way that relates well to other people. On some blogs and forums I have been on I have heard such people referred to as spergs. (You figure it out. Anyone watching The Bridge on FX?) That term is overused as a term of derision, but it is perhaps not always inaccurate. This should be kept in mind when judging the posts and actions of some people.

    And FTR, I always thought Ogle was a spoof, but I have been assured by some people that he is not, but I remain unconvinced.

  20. NewFederalist

    William @21… I agree that James Ogle just spammed his fantasy parliament stuff without regard to the topic of the discussion. To a lesser degree Robert Milnes did the same with regard to his PLAS obsession but he proved at least capable to carry on discussions without mentioning PLAS. He did say unkind things about paulie on several occasions but he felt that paulie had derided him with LOLs. I do not recall Milnes being nearly as nasty as Grundmann has been to Jill. Unlike Ogle I believe both Milnes and Grundmann are suffering from mental illness. Milnes admits as much with his clinical depression. Unlike my perception of your position, I would not tolerate constant berating personal comments against other posters. Issue a warning or two… yes. Tolerate it forever… no. Using your own website as “proof” of the validity of your position is nonsense. Where do we disagree?

  21. William Saturn

    Personal attacks should be ignored. If they become defamatory, then they should be deleted. I do not believe Grundmann’s posts are defamatory. He attacks different people on IPR for what those people have expressed.

    “Using your own website as “proof” of the validity of your position is nonsense.”

    Where did I do that?

  22. Steven Wilson

    @20

    I am not going to continue to argue economics with someone who ignores customers. I have had clients like that and they tell me media plans and marketing strategies.

    When customers complain, like people here did about Milnes and Ogle, then you react due to the obligation of being a provider of a service in the market device. When customers speak, you listen or die. Period.

    The people who frequent this site had mentioned again and again that Milnes tainting threads with Plas and Ogles with the US parlimentary mental games had been enough.

    1. a customer behavior had been noted as causing a problem for other customers.

    2. both posters were warned about their behavior

    3. both posters refused to obey common courtesy and protocol

    Unwritten rules of conduct are not so difficult. You go to a restaurant to eat, you go to an arena to watch a sports event. You come to this site to read about third party politics.

    Each thread is a product of itself and all comments are privately posted but publicly displayed. This is pre existing. I know this post will be on this thread.

    Both Ogle and Milnes knew that other people would read their comments on a thread which had nothing to do with that thread topic.

    William, I don’t think you will ever understand economics or sales. I am not saying you are ignorant, but your stubborn obedience to freedom of speech rules are just lame. You are fighting for the sake of fighting.

    Both Ogle and Milnes AB– USED common courtesy and unwritten rules of conduct.

    The end.

  23. William Saturn

    @2526

    Let’s fix the language disconnect.

    We are not customers. We are not buying goods. I am a contributor. You are a reader.

    Nobody has provided any evidence that Milnes or Grundmann have caused revenues to go down for the site. Your assertion depends on this assumption, which may or may not be true.

    “causing a problem”

    Readers have no duty to read what others post. Nobody is “causing a problem.”

  24. Jill Pyeatt

    I’d like to fix the language disconnect.

    WS @ 27: Grundmann IS causing a problem for me. You’re being disenguous when you say that nobody is causing a problem.

    He does indeed have the right to Free Speech, but he is not immune from reactions to that free speech. You disagree with me that he should be banned. I get that. But Don Grundmann’s right to free speech IS causing a problem for me. I am sick of being slandered and insulted.

    It is also my right to react the way I choose.

    The people that think Grundmann’s behavior is okay are not on the receiving end of his constant insults.

  25. johnO

    Dr. Grundmann has a problem. I think, not sure, if his problems are with women?

  26. NewFederalist

    I am not sure where you got the quotes you attributed to me, William. They were not mine.

  27. William Saturn

    My apologies NF, I meant @26.

    @28

    They’re petty personal attacks that reflect worse on him than you. While the Nazi troll was making unsubstantiated accusations about Paulie, I haven’t seen any such factual statements from Grundmann. It’s all his opinions.

  28. wredlich

    @2: “IPR exists to cover third parties and make Mr. Redlich money.”

    Money? No. We probably lose money on the site. I don’t keep track. It doesn’t cost that much to run, and we don’t make much revenue either. Sometimes I think about just ditching the ads completely. There’s some notion of it having an investment value.

    It’s really more of an interest in supporting third-parties and independent candidates. And maybe it serves as a soapbox for me though I haven’t been doing much about that.

  29. wredlich

    From the post: “Two years ago, [IPR] took the unlibertarian step of banning one good faith commenter. Now, some on the site are calling for the ban of another good faith commenter.”

    The site is not libertarian. It so happens that many of those involved are libertarian, but the site embraces other third parties and independents.

    Saturn’s use of the term “good faith commenter” is an interesting choice. One issue is whether the people in question are commenting in good faith.

    But the larger issue is something different. I am not the government. IPR has no monopoly control over its users. There are other places for users to go if they find IPR unpleasant.

    I view IPR as a community. It mostly runs itself and I try to stay hands-off as much as possible. There are a few members of the community who consistently add tremendous value. Their opinions carry commensurate weight in my “management” decisions.

    Most of the community is composed of people who read articles and perhaps comment with varying regularity in a generally inoffensive manner. These people are also quite important. Without them, IPR is nothing.

    Then there are a few people who rarely add anything of value and often offend people. It is my belief that these few tend to drive people away from IPR. In other words, they damage the community. If I were more assertive, these people would be banned and do far more to prevent trolling.

    Here’s what’s funny – People complain about Paulie when he’s the main one holding me back. So far I think he’s been correct. The community has demonstrated a greater tolerance than I can muster.

  30. wredlich

    @Red 22: “To me there is a difference between people whose comments many consider offensive or silly or whatever and people who thread hijack, obsess on a certain subject, etc. And different still from people who deliberately troll to disrupt things just for the sport of it. The first group, IMO, deserve a lot of leeway. The second some but less. The third even less.”

    Yes, exactly.

  31. wredlich

    And to show my good faith on the point about money, I just deleted the Amazon ad for my book that was in the left column.

    Okay, I really deleted it because it wasn’t working. But this conversation motivated me to get it done.

  32. Han Shot First

    >No ban for good faith commenter Don Grundmann – though some consider his views homophobic, if this is truly wrong, one should easily be able to counter his views with rational argumentation.

    It’s not his homophobic views, it’s his unprovoked ad hominem attacks and harassment.

  33. Andy

    The only reasons I could see for banning anyone would be if they frequently post off topic spam (like ads for porn sites, viagra, dating sites, etc…), or if they make false criminal accusations about people. I don’t think that Don Grundmann has done anything like this, so I see no legitimate reason to ban him. I may not agree with everything he says, but I’ll defend his right to speak.

  34. Andy

    A few years ago I started a Yahoo Group called Libertarians for 911 Truth. The group has a strong free speech policy. The only posts I’ve taken down have been off topic spam, and I’ve never banned anyone from posting.

    Here’s a link to the group:

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertariansfor911Truth/

    Part of what makes IPR great is the free form discussion. Banning Don Grundmann would take away from that. I haven’t seen him posting off topic spam or falsely accusing people of crimes, plus he posts under his real name which is a plus. Banning him would detract from the site in my opinion.

  35. Bill Y.

    I’ve really taken this thing about Saturn’s identity as a challenge. i spent an hour looking into who he is and where he came from. I found very little. And then I remembered how everyone how rude and argumentative Brian Holtz was, enought that some people accused him of working for someone to deliberately destroy the site. Within a week or two of being accused of that, /Brian has essentially disappeared, but now William has come forward. He knows that if Milnes comes back, Paulie is out. Mrs. Pyeatt has said that if Grund persists, she’s out. Who else runs IPR? With all due respect to Mr. Lesiak, we’re going to trust the site to a 17 year old.

    Third Party Watch went down shortly after it was sold. RIP IPR.

  36. Bill Y.

    Along those lines, I recall that Holtz showed up shortly after Cohen left IPR. I see a pattern.

  37. Han Shot First

    Hold on just a second — William Saturn, the champion of the First Amendment, is coming out against censorship after previously censoring publicly listed email addresses?

    His opposition to banning Grundmann plus his “upcoming editorial” about his site is very fishy.

  38. Jill Pyeatt

    William believes in censorship as much as the rest of us, as long as he is the one offended. Other people being offended–not so much.

  39. Catholic Trotskyist

    Great editorial William. Agree absolutely. Deran is a good person but his comments are un-called-for. Bill Y, are you saying that Saturn is Holtz? Highly doubt that.

  40. William Saturn

    Whether I am offended doesn’t make any difference to whether someone should be banned or their comments deleted.

    Personally, I have never been offended on IPR. In my earlier internet days (mostly on Wikipedia), I was often offended, but I’ve grown thick skin since then.

    On here, I have deleted comments not because I was offended by them but because the comments were defamatory. I deleted one comment that linked to a pornographic website because minors use IPR. I’ve placed copious amounts of SPAM into the SPAM folder. None of these items ever offended me.

    What we are not discussing above is very telling.

    Why are we not discussing the true issue here, which is at the center of third party politics; the sweeping of alternative voices under the rug to maintain the status quo?

    Why are we not discussing what is going on in this country, where it is worse to call someone a nigger than to cause actual physical harm to another?

    What will you do when the government criminalizes “hate speech” because it offends people?

    What will you do when the government broadens the concept of “hate speech” to silence any peep of dissent?

    I hope it’s not the same as in this discussion thread.

  41. William Saturn

    @44

    Thanks CT. Whenever you are ready to make your big announcement, send it to me and I’ll post it as an article.

  42. Thomas L. Knapp

    In the past, I’ve suggested using a third-party commenting system that incorporates voting (thumbs up/down) and allows unpopular comments to be “hidden” (they only display if the reader wants to see them).

    It recently occurred to me that there’s another solution, one which I partially implemented at a site I ran many years ago:

    1) Keep comments as they are, to include whatever ban policies IPR’s owner/staff want; but

    2) Create a subdomain — thunderdome.independentpoliticalreport.com or whatever — and install forum software on that subdomain;

    3) Insert an auto-link script in the WordPress posting mechanism so that every post has a link at the bottom, next to “comment,” to the effect of “click here for less moderated discussion at IPR Thunderdome.”

    I don’t remember how I did that at the old site, but it was some kind of link language that turned each post into a forum topic, with the same title as the post, on the forum software.

    That would leave IPR’s main comment section for those who want a more sedate experience, and Thunderdome for those who like to troll, flame, kibitz, etc.

    Just an idea.

    As a side note, using Disqus or IntenseDebate, even if they can’t be made to do the “hide unpopular comments” thing, would at least give us “nesting” so that:

    a) readers don’t have to look up comment numbers to reply, they just hit “reply” under the comment they want to reply to (and when comment numbers change due to moderation it doesn’t mess everything up); and

    b) side conversations would nest into their own threads instead of being interspersed inside the more general thread.

  43. Unity

    The one small problem with this idea Thomas, is that your proposal helps perpetuate the two-party system since thumbs up/down is a plurality winner-takes-all system.

    You’re only about 100 years behind the times and you’ll get no reward for failure but it’s the thought that counts. 😉

  44. Darryl W. Perry

    @28 “I see no legitimate reason to ban him [Don Grundmann]. I may not agree with everything he says, but I’ll defend his right to speak.”

    I don’t know of anyone who has said that under penalty of death Don Grundmann is not allowed to speak. There are several people who have suggested he be banned from commenting on this site, which is just 1 of the millions of sites on the internet.
    Assuming Grundmann is banned, he would still be able to post his hate-filled diatribes on many other websites, including his own.

  45. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp // Jul 25, 2013 at 8:00 am

    In the past, I’ve suggested using a third-party commenting system that incorporates voting (thumbs up/down) and allows unpopular comments to be ‘hidden’ (they only display if the reader wants to see them).”

    If somebody doesn’t want to read a post they can simply scroll past it. This is a pretty easy thing to do.

  46. Andy

    ‘Darryl W. Perry // Jul 25, 2013 at 12:57 pm

    @28 ‘I see no legitimate reason to ban him [Don Grundmann]. I may not agree with everything he says, but I’ll defend his right to speak.’

    I don’t know of anyone who has said that under penalty of death Don Grundmann is not allowed to speak. There are several people who have suggested he be banned from commenting on this site, which is just 1 of the millions of sites on the internet.
    Assuming Grundmann is banned, he would still be able to post his hate-filled diatribes on many other websites, including his own.”

    I already know that Grundmann would not be put to death or jailed or anything like that. This should go without saying.

    My point was that part of what makes IPR a great site is the free form discussion. The only reasons I could see to ban somebody would be if they post off topic spam (like ads for porn sites, Viagra, dating sites, gambling sites, etc…), or if they falsely accuse individuals of crimes. Don posts under his real name, and he posts his political views. Just because some people may not agree with some of his views it is no reason to ban him. I think that banning Don Grundmann would set a very bad precedent for this site.

    Remember Third Party Watch? That was the site that some of the long time posters here used to “hang out” at before Independent Political Report came along. What killed off Third Party Watch was that it was purchased by a Bob Barr crony and they started censoring posts that were critical of Bob Barr, and/or were on topics that Barr and his cronies did not want to be discussed. The censorship at Third Party Watch lead to the creation of IPR, and most of the regulars who were on Third Party Watch left that site and came to IPR, and then Third Party Watch ended up collapsing. There’s a lesson that should be learned from that.

  47. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    Yes, that is my preferred solution as well. Although moving to a system like disqus would make it a bit easier by creating nested sub-threads instead of having e.g. off-topic material interspersed through everything else.

  48. Unity

    One of the problems with plurality voting is that it creates a winner-takes-all psychology which encourages mean, egotistical, dictator types.

    Since dictator types they can quickly take a vote and the winners can discard everyone but those at the top (usually the ones who are running the election) and plurality elections are first-past-the-post, this usually elects the rude promoters because they are the first one to get past the post.

    I’ve seen this used many times by people to humiliate others and those doing the humiliating are rather psychopathic and enjoy torturing others.

    If you simply reject advanced voting (PR) as “imaginary” while casting plurality voting as “real” then you’re damaging the promise of democracy.

    A “vote” IS somewhat abstract to most people. But if you cast the vote into a 20-ton slab of concrete then a vote becomes concrete and can fall on people and hurt them. I wouldn’t call votes “imaginary” because that’s false. Votes are real and can be made concrete.

    Proportionalists need to make sure elections are done right, that’s exactly what we do.

    Everyone is different. And proportional representation (PR) is about 100% representation. Even number 101 is on the team and every person should be included in the conversation whenever possible.

    There is a problem when a political thinking or psychological inertia encourages people to be rude, censoring, degrading, etc.

    To think that liberty means it’s OK to be rude to people, that it’s OK to exclude people, is a total falsehood. And plurality elections perpetuate those falsehoods.

    It’s not OK to be rude to people and rudeness is unacceptable.

    Humor however, is found when a rude person is continually rude to a cool/nice person. That is funny. It’s always tragically funny when someone likes another person who is rude, rejects them and doesn’t reciprocate with manners.

    I look forward to the new alliance between the Boston Tea, Environmentalist and Pot Parties.

    Honorable Tiffany Briscoe has been nominated as chair of the BTP and although there are five others also nominated, we are now able to continue with her as part of a team and we welcome all people of all parties, independents, all voters and non voters.

    We’re not going back to plurality elections, we’re using advanced inclusion elections. Full representation. We’re going to be kind to rude people and we and the BTP are going to be successful.

    Hope you like it!

    We welcome everyone and nominations are open through the first week of August:
    http://www.usparliament.org/btp.php

  49. Andy

    “Darryl W. Perry // Jul 25, 2013 at 3:41 pm

    Andy… you keep using the word ‘censor’ when referring to a website banning someone… it doesn’t mean what you think it means!”

    How about censor without the force of law, or silencing speech?

  50. Darryl W. Perry

    “How about censor without the force of law, or silencing speech?”

    Still not censorship… the word you’re looking for is either banned or blocked, not censored!

  51. Warren Redlich

    I’m considering a site redesign (this theme is old and no longer supported). When/if we do that we will look at a new comment system.

    However, changing the comment system makes me nervous. The grass is always greener.

  52. Warren Redlich

    @Andy 53 ” Don posts under his real name, and he posts his political views.”

    That’s a charitable interpretation. You leave out the personal attacks that border on defamation.

    He is not banned yet. He is on the edge. If he sticks to political views and avoids personal attacks, he will be fine.

  53. Warren Redlich

    @Andy 53 ” What killed off Third Party Watch was that it was purchased by a Bob Barr crony and they started censoring posts that were critical of Bob Barr, and/or were on topics that Barr and his cronies did not want to be discussed.”

    Not gonna happen. If I had that attitude I would have suppressed an awful lot of stories already – anything with the taint of Roger Stone or Tom Stevens, for example.

  54. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    @60

    I really like the site redesign idea! Also, for the comments section, it would be awesome to install comment ratings. I must admit that whatever you do, I’ll be supportive – at first I didn’t like the idea of moving the recent comments up to the top on the sidebar, but since then I’ve realized that it was an excellent decision.

  55. paulie

    The article was posted before the theme change, so at that time there were comment numbers. Now there are not, but they are trying to figure out how to get them in the new theme. I am no longer an admin, so I can’t help them try to figure it out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *