Monday, October 02, 2006

Nitpicking Update

I seem to have gotten myself banned as a troll on Atrios's site.

I posted comments that Holden Caulfield disagreed with, got labelled a troll and now I'm filtered under my actual name.

For the record, I didn't insult anyone. But I wasn't exactly toeing the party line.

In the past, I've noted that it's normally Republican Blogs that practice censorship and require registrations before posting. Now it seems I've found the limits on a Democratic Blog.

But I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, so it's not really my playground anyway. It belongs to Democrats. And so I'll respect their position on this matter.

After all, my free speech ends, where yours begins. I've practiced censorship here, as is my right, and it would be hypocritical of me to cry about getting slapped on someone else's site.

Regardless, Duncan has a good thing going there. Holden Caulfield writes some very good stuff. Both sites are worth reading and keeping up with.

I'll continue to read both of them. They have important things to say, and Holden especially, says them well.

5 Comments:

At 5:31 PM, Blogger farmgirl said...

'After all, my free speech ends, where yours begins"

No. Your free speech does not end where another's begins. Your free speech is just as important as any other person's, lives alongside anyone else's, and should be viewed as such - it certainly does not preclude your exercising control over your own blog.

You are free to speak as you wish. There is no one stopping you except yourself.

"Censorship" has nothing to do with private blogs. Censorship only applies when exercised by governing bodies - intended to influence the greater society. Your little personal discharges do not qualify, sorry.

-formerly Puma/Sarah

 
At 9:47 AM, Blogger Weaseldog said...

I really don't understand your comment.

Are you saying that when spammers post ads for low interest mortgages here, I don't have the right to delete them, because I have no rights on my blog?

I feel that bloggers have every right to block whomever they want, for any reason, or for no reason.

So I saw no problem with getting blocked on another blog. I believe they should have the right to do so.

I can't think of a reason why this shouldn't be so.

Why shouldn't a blogger have this right?

 
At 9:53 AM, Blogger Weaseldog said...

As to censorship and the government, there's a fuzzy line being drawn.

We know Bush has the Federal Government paying right wing pundits to push the Republican Party's Agenda. This money is used to attack folks that have dissenting views and to discredit them in public.

It's probable that even NetVocates and their trolls are financed by the Federal Government under this program.

If Federal dollars are used in the private sector to stifle free speech and dissent, then is this also censorship, or does it cease to be censorship when a private contractor does it for the government?

 
At 5:33 PM, Blogger farmgirl said...

No, I think I didn't make myself clear. I was saying that you need not change anything you say, no matter where you say it. Sure, someone else can ban you from their blog, but saying "my free speech ends where theirs begins" is a bit over the top, don't you think? Getting banned is one thing. Capitulating afterwards and saying you didn't have the right to infringe upon their free speech is silly.
I was saying that no one's free speech takes precedence over anyone else's.
-Sarah

 
At 6:16 PM, Blogger Weaseldog said...

Well, my comments also stem from a troll that was posting here for a short time.

I deleted his comments and he came back and told me I was infringing on his right of free speech, and wasn't I being hypocritical?

So, I see how my posting does seem a bit out of context.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home