Have you kept up with their articles for the past year and read the comments by their devoted readers? Andrew Breitbart is spinning in his grave somewhere because he detested Trump. Rumor has it that Trump paid the senior editor off to shill for him. We Constitutionalists affectionately refer to the site as TrumpBarF. We like the satire site at www.trumpbart.com though.

In other circles BB is referred to as TrumpBart now. If you say anything remotely anti-Trump on BB, you will be banned. Its a badge of honor on some of the more conservative sites... which BB used to be.

The service has rolled downhill since Mr. B. died. This is the last straw. I'll just drop them and I hope everyone else does also. Man O man that really gets my goat -- and my goat's kids.

Ed agrees with db & aj. :)

Yes, I support the free market solution over violating anyones Constitutional rights.

The image you posted looks like a message following an attempt to post based on a prior decision to block comments, not the content of your attempted post. Is that the only evidence of "banned from all sites"?

The comments on articles there are managed by the http://disqus.com comment system, with options for logging in through disqus, facebook, etc. The disqus comments are embedded in the breitbart page to look like it's at breitbart. The blocking of users and removal of comments, however, are managed by the website using disqus, in this case breitbart. That is typically done by some 'moderator' associated with the site, who may or may not know what he is doing, in response to someone else's complaint flagging some previous post. They don't tell you that they have blocked your posts or why; you find out later when you try to post. It doesn't mean that editors at breitbart have banned you.

You can easily open a new account either at Breitbart or through disqus, but if the message you posted here is all there is to it, you should not assume that the blocking was a breitbart editorial decision. Contact someone there with a reasonable request for correction. But first look back through your comment history to see if there was some post that could have triggered a complaint.

Congratulations on getting ban from Brietbart!

We all do.

Asking government to do something would be a slippery slope. But boycott activity, or equivalently promoting a competitor, is simply other people exercising the same right that the original banner did. They don't have to trade with me; I don't have to trade with them either.

Somewhat related: I just found out about a new competitor with Twitter. http://sealion.club/ -- But DO NOT MENTION this URL on either Twitter or Breitbart or you will get "shadowbanned" there (that is, it'll look to you like your account still works, but your posts will be made invisible to everyone but you).

The Constitution can only be saved via the Amendment Process. see; www.TheSocietyProject.org

What constitutes unfair banning? Who decides what is/isn't fair on a private server?

Slippery slope.

I unsubscribed from Breitbart after AB's death. It is just too superficial. What would you expect with Hillary and the Constitution, shredding? In any case, my fear is she support implementing UN Agenda 21/2030 and that is just way too bad to even consider he as an aption.

Love it, AJAshinoff,
I was raised hearing "sticks and stones..."
Much of what is wrong with the world today... people can't handle the truth, or opposing views and want to censor... poor babies.
Regards,
O.A.

It's not an either or situation with regard to my principals, American principals. I stand with the constitution more than ever now. The Hillsdale lectures were a real wake up call after having to listen to the anti constitutionalist all my life...I knew they were wrong...now I have a defence.

I can only hope that Pence will school him and keep him on the straight and narrow.

The first sentence is true, but that shouldn't end the discussion. If a service engages in unfair banning, we can and should raise a stink about it elsewhere and possibly threaten it with a boycott -- just as Breitbart itself (as represented by Milo Yiannopoulos) is now doing against Twitter for banning him.

Always remember that we, the marketplace, collectively decide which outlets are "mainstream" and we can change that determination.

And Breitbart is not mainstream. They could become so, but only if they behave better than this.

Beg to differ, this group is an excellent resource for a variety of topics. While it may not number in the millions it does offer contemplative discussion that stays, for the most part, civil.

The lesser of two bad choices is still a bad choice. Tempted to watch it all burn...without assurances, which I've yet to hear from DT, the Constitution is no more safe, revered or hallowed with DT than HC (and they were buds up until each wanted the POTUS).

huh.

db says-great statement!

That reminds me about what I saw flipping through a mail order catalog a couple of weeks ago.
Shillary's face is transitionally replacing (still for sale) Obozo's face on rolls of novelty toilet paper now.
Same company also offers TP for Trumpet haters. Never let a candidate go to wa$te.

Ok To be fair ...I hear the print on Hillary's toilet paper carries the words "We the People of the United States... When in the course of Human events..."

Why do you make fun of Trump? Would you rather have Hillary as President?

Unqualified for what? To read? Are readers here somehow more qualified than others? Is that what you mean? If we made membership in the Gulch mandatory would millions of people suddenly be smarter?

AJ was speaking to millions whom frequent Breitbart. Even if they are unqualified, if he put his cases well, some might have responded.

I find nothing elite about this group. The proportion of brilliant people to fools here seems to me approximately the same as in the general population.

Breitbart has gone south and it's a shame, a damn shame.
Is it true that trumpet owns or funds breitbart now?

I believe it was this..

"This may come as a shock to some BUT Twitter is a privately owned company, they can allow or disallow whatever they wish on their service. If you can't get this concept I ask you visit an on-line law library and lookup who freedom of speech protects against (hint, Government). If this reality sickens you don't use twitter (or any-other social networking site because they can all do the same)."

I guess you are speaking to millions of unqualified individuals. good luck with that :)

19K.

I rest my case.