So I was turned on to an editorial on RedState from DKos which called Cindy Sheehan a media whore. So I registered an account and tried to defend her, saying that she has lost a son fighting for our country, and if nothing else, it is extremely disrespectful to personally attack her after her sacrifice. I did not bring any sort of red/blue partisan politics into it; I simply argued for decency and civility between people. What happened? My account's posting privileges were banned. Apparently if you don't toe the party line on RedState.org, right down to the sickening talking points on calling Cindy Sheehan a traitor to her son and to her nation, you aren't welcome to speak at all. More below the fold.
So I looked into RedState.org's posting rules, and get this.
Banning for ideological reasons will take place only in the cases of fundamentally anti-American ideologies. Nazis, Islamists, Communists and racists are unwelcome at redstate.org. Any other person of basic good sense and goodwill, regardless of party, is welcome to participate and hopefully come around to the ideals of Republicanism.
So apparently being Islamic is now a fundamentally anti-American ideology? I guess they really do follow the talking points about "you're either with us or you're against us". But wait, it gets better. Apparently they thought there was a loophole with their rules, because it still allowed people with viewpoints they did not agree with to post, so then they updated their policy.
A little clarification is in order. Pursuant to the mission statement, this site is explicitly meant to serve as a conservative and Republican community. Postings, comments, etc., contrary to this purpose fall under the rubric of "disruptive behavior" and will result in banning. You may or may not get a warning -- it depends on how harried the moderators are. If you are coming from a non-conservative, non-Republican context, you are still welcome here, but you must respect the site's stated purpose.
The posting rules benefit everyone. By promoting civility even in disagreement, they help the site avoid the pitfalls of notorious dens of iniquity like Democratic Underground and every unmoderated Usenet thread that has ever existed.
Apparently they are happy to live in their little world where any alternate viewpoints are banned outright from being expressed. I especially dislike their view on unmoderated Usenet threads, because I have found Usenet to be the one place on the Internet without censorship by, say, a forum staff. It is the one place where you can say whatever you want and debate with people who can do the same. I sure as hell don't see the point of RedState.org; if you're not going to allow discussion, why even bother having it be a "group blog"? Why have comments at all? The vast majority of the comments to the aforementioned Cindy Sheehan editorial were just various permutations of the Republican talking points.