Some people have joked that journalists have a tendency to always present "alternative viewpoints" even when the sides are not symmetrical in their cogency or credibility, e.g., "Earth is a sphere, views differ." That being said, this article about the controversy over blogging etiquette, and specifically the Kathy Sierra controversy really pisses me off because of this passage:
That may sound obvious, but many Internet veterans believe that blogs are part of a larger public sphere, and that deleting a visitor's comment amounts to an assault on their right to free speech. It is too early to gauge support for the proposal, but some online commentators are resisting.
What the hell does "many Inernet veterans" mean? Are you a veteran if you've been posting on USENET for 20 years, or if you've had a website since 2000? Is many greater than 10, or greater than 10,000? Excuse me, but analogizing deleting comments (which I do a lot of myself) on a personal weblog with "an assault on their right to free speech" totally trivializes what free speech is all about. I know that the writer probably doesn't believe this, but presenting the sentiments of morons without context makes them partly guilty of being moronic. Many people (that is, me) who are veterans of journalism (I've got 4 things in print) feel that The New York Times engages in censorship when it doesn't publish every letter to the editor from me. How do you like them apples?
Note: I reserve the right to delete any comments and re-edit them however I please for this post.
- Log in to post comments
Next thing we know you'll be asking us to be civil, courteous, and to engage in substantial conversation. You'll deny us our right to be vindictive, engage in feuds and flame wars, and use the sort of reasoning and rhetoric once found only in fringe publications and on the backside of fences. If you keep this up we may see a return to the basic civility that once stifled invective and enforced gentility upon the public in my day. You cad.
I say anybody, wingnut or moonbat, who wishes to use the sort of vocabulary and phrasing that makes it easy to swap out subject and action according to the target of the rant (Bush fils or evolution for example), then who are you to be sensible and require thought on the part of your commentors?
then who are you to be sensible and require thought on the part of your commentors?
i am that i am.
The emboldened quote is ambiguous. In addition to the unquantified parts razib discussed, it also rants about "... their right to free speech."
Um, who's right? Who is that "their" referring to? The bloggers or the commenters? (I'll ignore here that not all places in the world recognise such a right.)
The bloggers can act as editors. (razib's point.)
The commenters--deleted, edited, or not--can start their own blogs. Or go somewhere else, with an editing policy more to the commenter's liking. And there say whatever they want about the original blog(ger). (Here I'll ignore the censorship that some sites/servers/ISPs engage in.)
And the people who do not have Internet access? Or are illiterate (at least in the language(s) being used)? It seems to me those are the people who are having problems with their rights...
if you read the whole article it seems pretty clear that this last section was just "tacked on" for balance. it's stupid. yes, there are people who are absolutists about free speech on their blogs and make it a policy to never delete anything. i suppose there are individuals out there who might construe it as an assault on free speech to delete comments by readers of their weblog who threaten to ass rape their children. but these people are outliers. there is a blogger who complains that the new rules are making him feel like it's "iran." ever heard of hyperbole? the main issue are the jack-asses who leave one-off insulting/threatening/abusive comments on weblogs like they're dropping bags filled with hot shit on your front step. everyone has a right, which i will defend vociferously, to tolerate hot bags of shit on their front steps. but that doesn't mean that this has to be normative. over at radio open source there was a problem with a commenter who was insulting/verbally abusive to others, and one regular refused to sanction censorship of this person because of "free speech," even though any counter-response resulted in threads devolving into acrimony. the individual who defended free speech expressed "shock" that they were having to defend the principle. needless to say the person was an idiot. truly, you do have a right to fart, but people have a right to ask you to control your ass when you're in their house.
Razib, you could have made your point (I know you have the vocabulary) without resorting to scatological metaphors. But then, this IS your blog and you can s--t, f--t or perform any other bodily function of your choice in public here at your pleasure and our discomfort. But as you said, you didn't force us to tolerate any of it against our wishes.
The censorship issue is a red herring and a smug little "feel good" posture. I agree with you completely. Especially, if the commenter is anonymous or is using a false identity, he/she has forfeited the right to "free speech" to begin with. Your comment about editorial screening of letters to newspapers is apt. This is a big storm in a very small tea cup. No one HAS to read a blog and no blogger HAS to allow anyone to foul up their forum. An out and out offensive remark, especially if it is irrelevant, deserves deletion. A comment verging on offensive but not quite there, can be allowed to stand with warning. That's quite fair. As for censorship in the MSM, it is laughable to argue that it is not there. They select their guests, control the time allotted to each and direct the direction of the discussion. None of which is possible on the blog. Many years ago, a guest on Ted Koppel's Nightline peppered her opinion with four letter words. Koppel warned her. She did it again. He cut her off.
I read the NY Times article and wondered if those using the free speech argument have ever read NY Times columnist Stanley Fish's "Free Speech Folies." You have the right to say whatever you want, but that does not mean everyone (or anyone) must listen to your opinion or give you a forum to air your opinion. Someone's right to free speech is only violated when all possible outlets for his/her speech are closed or to speak will reuslt in jail, death, etc. The blogger who made the Iran comment really needs a reality check. If he were placed in Iran right now, his ability to blog would probably be the least of his worries.
Razib's comment: truly, you do have a right to fart, but people have a right to ask you to control your ass when you're in their house.
Exactly.
Delete me!
Go ahead. I dare you!
"you do have a right to fart, but people have a right to ask you to control your ass when you're in their house."
I always thought that there was an involuntary aspect tp farts!
"I am that I am"
Tat twam asi - from the upanishads
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi
I yam what I yam - Popeye.
vic, I suspect it's a function of age - my grandmother was a God-fearing church-going Presbyterian and a pillar of society, but I swear every time she coughed she farted involuntarily. She also played a lot of golf - maybe it's involuntary in golfers. Or Presbyterians.
This is really a no brainer - the very existence of the Internet where anyone who wants to can create their own Blog destroys the freedom of speech argument. I admire Babel's Dawn (throws in quick plug for a personal favourite) for his forbearance on this, but I would defend his right to delete abusive stuff if he chose, and for mine he's more tolerant than he needs to be.
Razid,
To put it another way, "Work in progress."
Hah! You're all bluster.
:)