We had a war in the blog over the weekend! So stressful. One of our commenters enraged a few of the other commenters -- I was sort of caught in the middle because I don't moderate the blog. So I received emails asking I change this policy because I didn't understand the seriousness of what was happening.
Here's an example of what I received:
Elizabeth, encouraging hate speech is simply wrong, and as I adhere to the standards and ethics of my profession, it is not in my best interests to continue to participate in a forum where such speech is allowed to continue unchecked.
Your refusal to moderate simply states your acceptance of his propaganda and I cannot morally abide by that. You are fortunate that you've never experienced hate up close and personal as I can tell you from my own life, I have, and it is rather painful and scary.
On the other hand, I also received this perspective:
My friend and I have discussions about this, and he is a firm believer in letting people say what they want so everyone knows who the hateful people/bigots are - he says it is less dangerous than making everyone be quiet and then not knowing the people who secretly hate you because you're gay or whatever. He was firmly in support of no one silencing Marty's comments about fertilising turds. :-)
What do you all think?
I tried to please everyone but ended up with a headache for 24 hours, and a lot to think about. I feel sort of manipulated when people write in demanding that I do this or that too. Oh well, at least I'm learning from the experience.
Finally, here's another opinion from a woman who wrote a book about this very subject:
Free speech is a fundamental human right, an intrinsic good, and a cornerstone of liberal democracies. As a human right it ‘trumps’ mere individual or collective interests; the fact that speech might harm someone or some group’s interests is not of itself sufficient to justify restrictions on it. And since it is an intrinsic good its worth is not fully accounted for in terms of other goods that might be dependent on it, for example, knowledge or quality of life. Further, freedom of speech, and (relatedly) freedom of the press, are necessary conditions for a functioning democracy.
On the other hand, complete freedom of speech to say anything one wants to anyone and under all circumstances is not a morally sustainable option; the right to freedom of speech is not an absolute moral right, and nor is its intrinsic value an absolute value. For example, and as John Stuart Mill famously pointed out, a person does not have a moral right to shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded hall, if that would lead to panic and thereby to serious injury or even loss of life.
Speaking Back: The Free Speech versus Hate Speech Debate by Katharine Gelber
12 comments:
Having been *hors du combat* in the recent pissin' contest---er, debate---to which you refer, I probably shouldn't even comment, but you asked what we thought, so...
I vote not to censor anyone; it's easy enough to simply not read nor respond to something one finds objectionable. If I think a writer is going on (and on and onnnnnn) far beyond the limits of my attention span, or of my tolerance for hot air, I just stop reading. A marvelous system, I find!
Suggestion: don't censor, but perhaps impose a word limit for EVERYONE? This would serve two purposes: first, it would be kinder to readers, and second, it would be excellent editing practice for the writers. If you can't say it on a couple of paragraphs, maybe it belongs somewhere else, not on a blog, which (at least in my view) should more closely mimic a polite conversational model---where each speaker gets a (brief) turn, then listens as others speak. Overlong harangues and filibusters benefit no one.
Having written an overlong response myself, perhaps I proved my own point unintentionally??:):)
...and meant to add:
It's YOUR site, YOU get to be boss, and I say just do what makes you feel best.
Thanks Brenda. I appreciate your input.
Freedom of speech is a right than can never be compromised. Anyone should be allowed to say anything, write anything, no matter how distasteful.
This does not mean, however, that we are obligated to provide hate-filled speakers with a forum to air their views.
A person has the freedom to write a book where he describes a certain ethnic group as lazy and stupid. He brings it to the publisher. The publisher then exercises his right to publish, or not, the book.
This blog is yours. You have the right to publish or not. That's not censorship. That is being responsible.
On the other hand Brenda, it may be that what needs to be said cannot be said in a couple of sentences and a blog is the most appropriate place to say it.
So perhaps we should ask is a comment the best place to make the biggest impact, or should the commenter think about setting up their own site?
Frankly I'm quite surprised that you're willingness to complain about length of contributions and your short attention span - it almost makes me wonder what your other half thinks...
"A person has the freedom to write a book where he describes a certain ethnic group as lazy and stupid. He brings it to the publisher. The publisher then exercises his right to publish, or not, the book.
You have the right to publish or not. That's not censorship. That is being responsible."
This blog is an unmoderated forum for discussion. I don't make decisions about whether something will be published or not. A blog is more like a wall that someone can put grafitti on or a flyer on -- no one decides what can go on it or not -- it's an open space.
A publisher is in charge of a commercial enterprise and makes decisions on a commercial basis.
Also if someone takes a book to a publisher who decides not to print it, the writer doesn't scream 'you're censoring me'!
The analogy doesn't hold.
What does and does not constitute hate speech is highly subjective; the events of the weekend prove it.
Had I written about Chrisitanity there would have been no such backlash, had I quoted new testament scriptures that supported actions against our moral framework that would have been a-okay.
But I did not do that, I quoted the Bayblonian Talumd directly and offered links to two opposing sites- one maintained by a Christian, the other by a Rabbi, where the quotations I posted are discussed.
For this I am said to be hateful, a nazi and anti-Semite. Israel maintains an army of bloggers who attack anyone who is against the war in Irag, as reported here on the Jewish site Harretz. If you do not support the war you are an anti-Zionist and anti-Semite. http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056648.html
I reserve the right to express freely the plain truth that every accusation made against Christians regarding hate and racism is true of Jews as well. Decide for yourself, read the discussions and comments on this Rabbi's site and read this one first: http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2010/01/tehillim-for-haiti.html
The Rabbi generously explains that while there is a family of humanity, there is a closer family of Jews and naturally Jews should treat other Jews better than they treat the rest of humanity. You will not once see the Rabbi refer to non-jews as men; the word "man" is reserved for Jews and he explains the why of that too.
So don't tell me I am engaging in hate speech when I am simply bearing a message that we have become so used to any criticism of Israel being branded as hateful that you on here cannot even look at reflect upon the very words being publically uttered by Jews which show what they really think.
I do not hate Jews. I suspect that like most of us most of them are fed up with the whole business of religion and wish it would just go away. You can see on the Rabbi's site that there are a small number of voices that protest what the Rabbi and others on there are saying, calling for more moderation.
If you really care about world peace you will open your eyes to what is freely available for you to see and know.
Also, don't forget how much time would be required to moderate a blog as active as this one - time Elizabeth doesn't have.
And how interesting a forum would it be if the Blogmistress only allowed free speech with which she agrees? Or should she delete stuff with which she strongly disagrees? Or *very* strongly disagrees? Ot delete it when it crosses the line into hate speech? And who decides where that line is?
The only practical criterion is what's legal. If it's libelous, or incites to a criminal act, or is in some other way unlawful, it has to be deleted. Everything else pretty much has to be allowed, however distasteful.
You can't please everyone. Nor should you try.
Please, take a look at this, making war sexy:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053561.html
Remember that it is your blog, and you may allow or refuse anyone you like to comment. It's like your living room - it is not a public place.
One downside to allowing anyone to comment is that the "crazies" may take over the blog and drive your friends away. There are several blogs/forums that I no longer visit because of the tone of the comments is so offensive.
I've noticed that most public comments places eventually become like this, so I rarely read them. It happened to our local newspaper. At first, it was an exciting way for the community to discuss issues and events. But now, it's totally taken over by the "crazies" and no one else comments or even reads the comments.
The ability to censor is why I prefer private blogs. Not to censor for opinions or points of view - but for hate, viciousness, etc.
Ah hev bin follerin yer blob and read ever werd publshed on it. I hev to git out my old dickshunary a lot when some of them smart folks git to writin but I hope you won't never quit exspeshally I like seein your picture with them cute eyelashes honey lamb.
Casey Ann, I dont agree with your evaluation that the Democrat blog has been taken over by crazies. About half the commentors on their espouse liberal or Democratic dogman and the other half espouse conservative or Republican dogma with neither set having a very good understanding of what they are identifying with.
You say hate and viciousness should be censored, but your view is a somewhat elitist Natchez socialite point of view (I realize you are a transplant). This elitism you express, superiority over the masses, is in itself, in my view, a kind of vicious hatefulness. Many times on that paper I have seen people argue furiously and after they've said all they have had to say reconcile on some common ground with their adversaries. This is how communication should work, that is what makes it communication. All of us have some points of view we just accepted because when we were exposed to them we were not old enough or discriminating enough to reject them. Sometimes it takes a little silliness and aggressive posturing to break through those logjams of habit.
I enjoy reading the comments in the Democrat and am so glad the Natchez hoi poloi does not rule it; those people would have the rest of Natchez working for three dollars a day in their yards if they could.
Natchez progressives do take the cake, like the Main St. shop owner who told my little Mexican friend that she should not come into this lady's shop with her black girlfriends from school because "that is just not done".
Post a Comment