Is Commenting a Right?

Commenting is a right only if you believe in free speech. Although a little moderation to keep spam in check may be necessary.

Free speech isn't quelled by removing comments, as people could easily make their own blog and comment then if they so chose. Or, send the poster an email (if contact info is listed). Aren't some blog posts meant to be perhaps a statement, rather than a discussion?

Gabe wrote

Commenting is a right only if you believe in free speech. Although a little moderation to keep spam in check may be necessary.

That implies no obligation on anyone else's part to provide you with a venue for speaking. You want to talk, create your own venue. It's trivially easy these days.

Commenting is a right only if you believe in free speech.

What a load of fetid dingo's kidneys.

Not allowing people to comment does not in any way stifle their free speech. There is no obligation of any blogger to allow others to comment on his or her blog. Not allowing comments means nothing with regards to whether a blogger "believes in free speech."

Commenting is a privalege, not a right. I realize that I am "visiting" when I post, and it is NOT my blog, so I try to keep that in mind.

Being able to attach comments to articles with no moderation or editorial control is something of an anomaly when viewed across all the ways of publishing opinions. It's not as if a newspaper, for example, is under any obligation to publish all letters sent to it.

And in this world of almost free website publishing and almost omniscient Technorati, it's not as if anybody's opinions are being censored.

When I was a waitress, once I received no tip from an otherwise nice couple. I knew my service had been good. Then, I saw a note that said "No tip due to rude host." I was dumbstruck--what did these people think the restaurant's host had to do with my tip and the quality of my service?

From that couple's point of view, you were lumped in with the rest of the employees. By not not tipping you, they were hoping that you would get angry at the host (instead of them) and create a stink.

But I agree that they didn't handle it correctly. They should have asked to talk to a manager directly and explain the host's rudeness. Not only would you still get your tip, but you wouldn't be put in the awkward position of scolding or tattle-telling on a coworker.

HA!

I'm closing responses to this comment, by the way, because y'all suck ass, if I may say that in here. Shelley, get my back!

I'm surprised that this even comes up as an issue. Of course commenting isn't a right, and that has nothing to do with any misguided notion of "free speech." As others have so accurately pointed out, free speech does not imply an obligation on anyone else's part to provide a venue for that comment.

A blog is not a "public space" like, say, a city sidewalk is. It is, in fact, a private space. You no more have a right to comment, than you do to walk into someone's house uninvited and unwanted in order to berate that person.

I'm more troubled by bloggers who don't do any moderation or response to comments than I am to bloggers who lock threads. Bloggers who permit and don't condemn, for example, racist, sexist, or homophobic comments are a lot more troubling than bloggers who delete or condemn those posts.

Anyway, the point is, is it actually cowardly to close comments on a blog?

Yes, if they are closed for content rather than obscenity or some other irrelevancy.

Is it the moderator/author's right?

Yes. Being cowardly is a right.

I had a comment censored from John Lynch's blog. I told him he was all hat and no cattle, because he had established himself to be all hat and no cattle.

My own feeling on it is that preventing someone posting (unless they start to become what one could call a public nuisance and are doing the equivalent of shooting profanity and Fire! in a theatre every few minutes) is a) intellectually dishonest and b) pointless.

First, its intellectually dishonest because we are *supposed* to be better than these sorts of assholes, and you can be damn sure that if they had a blog they would erase, block and ban you faster than thermite can burn through paper mache, for just contradicting them one something with actually provable facts. Its pointless because, if you don't let them pound away at you until even their allies start to realize banning them is justifiable, you only give them an excuse to write about it some place else. And, if you do it immediately, the first post they make, a lot of the people that would have eventually said, "At this points its obvious this guy is an idiot, ban him!", may lend support to the idiot, just on the grounds that you stepped on them before they became an obvious nuisance.

But, in the end, its really only how many bridges you are willing to let them burn, before you cut them loose. Its just, imo, bad form to do it without letting them burn any of them, since, again, we are supposed to be better than these assholes.

"is it actually cowardly to close comments on a blog?"

In a word, "yes."

Whether it is a violation of the first amendment is an entirely separate issue (I don't believe it is, any more than it is for the writer of an editorial to pick and choose which responses to the editorial get printed in the letters tro the editor section ), but it is cowardly to close down comments so that you will not have to endure criticism.

Like editorial writers, columnists, radio annoouncers, TV talk show hosts, and all others who express opinions for public consumption, a blog author should be prepared to take criticism for their posts or look for something else to do.

The argument "X deleted my comment, so closing comments is cowardly" doesn't contribute anything here, as we don't know if your comment was abusive or not. Or if your just pissed that he did it, and that shaped your opinion.

There's a difference between being willing to take criticism and being forced to take it. As mentioned (I really like the 'blog as house' analogy), a blog is private intellectual property. Are homeowners cowardly for not allowing all manner of people into their homes? No, because many people cannot be trusted so behave in a manner that is respectful of that person's house. Those people are (hopefully) rare, but sometimes they spoil the houseparty for everyone else. Some blog owners would rather blare the music, and let people listen to it "outside," rather than have to deal with the a-holes that might trash their house otherwise. Some good friends get shut out in the mix, and thats unfortunate, but no one's forced to listen to the music. They can just keep on walking, as it were.

Is commenting a right?

In most of the world, freedom of the press (or internet) is not a right.

How many commercial websites have a "special area where people can bitch about our goods&services" page? Freedom of expression (for those of you who have it) means that you can set up your own blog to bitch about stuff you don't like.

In the blogosphere, there is not even an expectation of reality, let alone fairness. For all we know, Shelley is a 63 year-old truck driver from Tulsa, and Dr. Charles is a 12-year-old protegy from Algeria. With blogs, you get what you pay for, so if you don't like it, ask for your money back. ;)

"a blog is private intellectual property."

I am familiar with the concept of intellectual property, which means something very specific in a legal sense (eg, copyrights, patents, etc), but not with "private intellectual property".

Newspaper columns, radio and TV editorials and nearly everything else that is written and spoken in public (and the internet is certainly "in public") is actually covered by intellectual property law (eg, copyright). Intellectual property is certainly fair game for criticism, as a reading of the copyright law will show: the law allows brief quotes of copyrighted written material specifically for the purpose of facilitating such criticism.

But I am confused as to how "intellectual property" law relates to the following

"Are homeowners cowardly for not allowing all manner of people into their homes?"

Perhaps "private intellectual property" is something different from "intellectual property"?

Wasn't talking about legal sense of the word in the slightest. I'm pretty sure the law hasn't caught up with how to consider blogs yet (other than perhaps employee policies etc). I'm no lawyer, so I wouldnt know how to broach that topic. I was using the word for its descriptive purposes, so try to put "blog" in some kind of context. Maybe "what is a blog" needs its own thread.....

"I'm pretty sure the law hasn't caught up with how to consider blogs yet"

That there may not yet have been a lot of legal cases regarding blogs (which may or may not be the case) does not mean that the relevant intellectual property laws do not already cover blogs.

"Intellectual property" is a very general term that covers a very broad array of material: written, spoken, artistic, architectural, photographic, graphic -- yes, even pornographic.

Except in the case of classified and otherwise secret material (which was never intended for public consumption, at any rate), all of the material referred to above is subject to public criticism, with certain constraints spelled out by the laws (libel and slander laws, for example).

L: None of which matters in the slightest. The writing in a blog is intellectual property, and is covered under such laws. That doesn't permit any asshat who comes across the site to throw up whatever idiotic, insulting, or offensive comment s/he wants. Turning comments off does not prevent someone from commenting on a particular blog, any more than the fact that the average television show doesn't permit viewers to call in and get their complaints or criticisms on the air. If someone should have a problem with a piece of media that doesn't allow criticism directly, that person has every right to complain in any number of other ways.
He can call his friends and say "You won't believe how stupid this blog/article/show is."
He can write an opinion article in any number of journals/papers/magazines criticizing the point.
He can e-mail the author in many cases, with his criticism.
He can start his own blog and link back to the article or mention the show in his complaints.

Intellectual property is certainly fair game for criticism, as a reading of the copyright law will show: the law allows brief quotes of copyrighted written material specifically for the purpose of facilitating such criticism.

It should be noted, however, that the law does not require the producers of the intellectual property to allow the criticism as part of the original article. That is, the producers of a bad television show are hardly required to include poor reviews of their show as part of the show.

The question is a general one- is it cowardly to moderate comments on a blog?

It can be- but that doesn't mean that it necessarily is. If the only reason one is closing comments is to create an echo-chamber? Sure, that absolutely stinks of cowardice.
If the reason is because a post is pulling a particularly high number of blatantly offensive comments? Perhaps not so much.

Roy said:
It can be- but that doesn't mean that it necessarily is. If the only reason one is closing comments is to create an echo-chamber? Sure, that absolutely stinks of cowardice.
If the reason is because a post is pulling a particularly high number of blatantly offensive comments? Perhaps not so much."

If the problem is "offensive" comments -- obscene, attacking other commenters, etc -- there is a simple way of dealing with it on the part of the blog owner: delete the offending comments, diemvowell them, etc.

Of course, that carries with it the chance that the blog owner/moderator will be called a censor, but one has to have some courage in that regard.

But when it comes down to it, there is only one reason a blog owner could have for shutting down all comments : he/she does not like where most of the comments are going and fears being accused of censorhsip if he/she only deletes the offending ones.

That's cowardice in my book.

Incidentally, there is nothing mandating that a blog owner allow comments at all (any time), so the argument that people can criticize the blog elsewherre is misplaced.

What we are talking about here is the case where comments were originally allowed and THEN disallowed in response to the posted comments.

I don't believe it is cowardly to disallow all comments from the beginning, just to allow them and then shut them down.

But when it comes down to it, there is only one reason a blog owner could have for shutting down all comments : he/she does not like where most of the comments are going and fears being accused of censorhsip if he/she only deletes the offending ones.

That's cowardice in my book.

Ah, well, I'm glad that your omnipotence allows you to discern the motivations and fears of people you've never met, based solely on their choice to close comments. God knows that it couldn't possibly be that someone might shut off commenting, not because of fear out of being labeled a censor, but because the annoyance at having to moderate a thread becomes so great that s/he decides it's easier just to turn comments off for a little while.

I don't believe it is cowardly to disallow all comments from the beginning, just to allow them and then shut them down.

Well, I'll give you two examples where it isn't, from my own experience. Or, I might be a coward.

1)When I went to China, I was travelling a lot and unable to check comments regularly. Unbeknownst to me, my China travel posts got infested with some racist anti-China bigots who hijacked my post into an ill-informed and abusive rant about China's policies. I wasn't able to moderate comments well enough while traveling so i shut down the comments on those posts. My regular, sane readers did a fine job of defending me and my family but they shouldn't have to. At that point, shutting down comments was the only way to killthe attention-seeking trollery that was taking place. No blogger should have to put up with personal abuse.

2)Many times, older posts become targets for massive amounts of spam. These older posts are not attracting any "real" comments anymore, and are around for archive purposes. However spam bots like to pick these posts up, and hit them with lots of comments about natural male enhancement or texas holdem.

"I wasn't able to moderate comments well enough while traveling so i shut down the comments on those posts."

Perhaps if you knew that you would not be able to moderate the comments, you might have prevented comments from the beginning.

"Many times, older posts become targets for massive amounts of spam."

Point taken. I was wrong to say that there are never legtimate cases for shutting down comments once they have been opened. I agree that this is one of them.

One could also address the latter that by having a policy that says comments will be allowed for a given time and then closed, kind of like public comment period on Environmental Assessments.

This is one of those subjects that really has no right answer and we could argue about it until the cows come home and it would not make one bit of difference.

The answer to this is really quite simple: hell no, I don't have to let anyone comment on my blog if I don't want them to comment. And anyone who thinks that has anything to do with free speech is an idiot, as was the DailyKos diarist who threw the little temper tantrum at Dr. Charles. You have every right to take a shit, but I don't have to let you do it on my carpet.