Tag Archive: banning

Banning firstamend07

In the end, we’d just had it with his nonsense.

It took firstamend07 only a handful of hours to figure out he no longer had access to Blue Jersey. That is how used to his free access here he was. This morning, the predicted  outrage in an email to our contact@ address (from an anonymous email with the name none none):

“I guess free speech is not part of the “rules”

Can’t understand “why my moderate viewpoint was so despised on your site”

[I’ve] “bowed to the masses” banning him

The “liberal community” has a “problem with open discussion”

Somebody call the wahmbulance!

In Blue Jersey’s entire 9-year span, we’ve had to ban only a handful of users. We hate banning, and probably let this particular user go on for far too long. For that, I apologize to the rest of you. Some got a facefull of his personal insults disagreeing with him. Some scrolled past whatever he wrote – all in one-sentence paragraphs – because it was all the same. Apologies.

Let’s get a couple of things straight, as they seem to elude firstamend07:

TOS: FA07 was banned for (multiple) TOS violations (and multiple warnings), including repeated hijack of threads and insulting other users. The insults? “A-hole.” “Insane.” “Crazy.”  My favorite? “Armchair,” by which I think he meant armchair quarterback. Or something.

Free speech, censorship:  Let’s breeze past the absurdity of a person who’s had 7 years/thousands of published comments/hundreds of diaries at a site he contributes no resources or labor to complaining his free speech has been violated. In fact, he still leaves here with all the First Amendment rights accorded him as an American; perhaps a book on civics would be useful to explain the difference between free speech and no, you can’t insult people here.

Shill: We don’t know if firstamend07 is a paid shill of the Norcross machine. We only know he behaved here like he was. He always dropped back to a defensive posture at that suggestion, claiming he’s merely a “moderate” in a “big-tent party”. Clever, but dishonest. Firstamend07 never mentioned Steve Fulop until the papers declared him a viable candidate for Governor against Steve Sweeney – then lickety-split, the flood of diaries/comments/thread hijacks full of poorly-supported, overwrought accusations of corruption and failure of Fulop. Lather, rinse, repeat, when Phil Murphy’s name circulated. As we head toward the inevitable what’s-next, the convo here will be clearer without concern somebody’s been sent in to rile up the “lefty bloggers”.

Those armchairs.  

Should Blue Jersey Ban Right Wing Trolls

Unfortunately,  it’s clear that BJ has some posters who are repeatedly making posts advocating far-right anti-progressive positions.  These posts receive a lot of attention and responses from BJ readers.  But the original posters don’t seem interested in dialogue or discussion, but just posting propaganda in support of their cause.  That their posts often contain misleading facts and uncalled for accusations worsens the situation.

If the progressive cause were doing well, I wouldn’t care.  But we’re not doing well and are being attacked and getting beaten by the Republicans and some DINOs.   We can’t afford to spend precious resources of time responding to these distracting posts.  (And not to respond on our progressive site gives these posts legitimacy).  

Personally, I think these aren’t isolated individuals but they are either volunteers or paid workers on behalf of groups that seek to wound the effectiveness of BJ.  Regardless, I think BJ would benefit by limiting ( whether through a ban or a limit on posts) “distracting” posters.   The progressive community has to be able to focus on building our cause.  If we are continuously putting out the small fires that the non-progressive arsonists keep setting, how will accomplish our goals?