BTW, I took down MailCongress.org because I was getting attention only from right-wing advocacy groups. As a blue-blooded Democrat I couldn't bring myself to do that even if they were willing to pay. It came down over a year ago.
It never ceases to amaze me how often people are against free speech when they don't agree with the speaker.
In political debate, all sides are sometimes guilty of various kinds of bad behavior, but it's usually lefties who have this particular problem. For example:
Think homosexuality is wrong? You're guilty of Hate Speech!
Think affirmative action isn't a good thing? You're guilty of Racism!
Approve of your town's Christmas celebration? You're Intolerant of Other Religions!
Regardless of your politics, name calling and ad hominem attacks like these do not inspire confidence in the strength of their originators' positions.
I'm not saying you're not within your rights to close down your service if you disagree with how it's being used, but it's interesting that your instinctive reaction to a message you don't agree with is to suppress it.
This isn't a free speech issue. By taking down MailCongress I was in no way preventing people from sending mail to their congress person. This is matter of choosing who I was doing business with.
> it's interesting that your instinctive reaction to a message
> you don't agree with is to suppress it.
I think you need to explain why not providing a communications tool to someone you disagree with is equivalent to actively suppressing that person's free-speech rights, otherwise we might just assume you're just trying to deliberately turn this discussion into name-calling.
