Blog comment censorship discussed in UK
A recent editorial in the Guardian Unlimited discussed the issue of arbitrary censorship of comments on blogs. It is noteworthy that neither the editorial nor the following comment thread raised legal issues as I did -- the legal issues I raised particularly concern the possibility of court opinions citing blogs whose bloggers arbitrarily censor comments (incidentally, several court citations of blogs were of the visitors' comments rather than the bloggers' initial posts). IMO a blog that is cited by a court opinion becomes like an official governmental public hearing that must accept all comments.
The editorial uses the same kind of doublespeak as used by prevaricating Darwinists who claim that Judge Jones did not really "ban" the book "Of Pandas and People" -- he merely "removed" it from the curriculum. The editorial says,
.
Whether or not it is called "censorship," the end result is the same -- so we might as well call it what it is.
BTW, just a personal anecdote --
When I was fighting California's grossly unconstitutional vehicle smog impact fee, my name appeared 31 times in a 49-page ruling of the US Environmental Protection Agency, even though my comments did not specifically address the subject of the public hearing! LOL
.
The editorial uses the same kind of doublespeak as used by prevaricating Darwinists who claim that Judge Jones did not really "ban" the book "Of Pandas and People" -- he merely "removed" it from the curriculum. The editorial says,
.
I've become increasingly uncomfortable with the notion that the removal of an individual's comments on a blog amounts to censorship, partly because it cheapens the word. Censorship is what China does to search engines, prison warders do to letters and the Lord Chamberlain used to do to plays. It is not the action of a blogger who decides to remove your comment from the bottom of their post.
Whether or not it is called "censorship," the end result is the same -- so we might as well call it what it is.
BTW, just a personal anecdote --
When I was fighting California's grossly unconstitutional vehicle smog impact fee, my name appeared 31 times in a 49-page ruling of the US Environmental Protection Agency, even though my comments did not specifically address the subject of the public hearing! LOL
.
Labels: Internet censorship (2 of 2)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 4/19/2007 10:29:00 PM
3 Comments:
> The editorial uses the same kind of doublespeak <
Doublespeak is claiming that "challenged" books which have not been banned ae banned.
To see other examples of doublespeak, look at nearly any of the posts by Larry Fafarman. Perhaps he is redefining this word too.
>>>>> Doublespeak is claiming that "challenged" books which have not been banned ae banned. <<<<<<
You stupid, profoundly retarded nincompoop, the American Library Association refused to classify "Of Pandas and People" as a "challenged book," even though the ALA's own records showed that this book was challenged in 1993!
>>>>> Doublespeak is claiming that "challenged" books which have not been banned ae banned. <<<<<<
> the American Library Association refused to classify "Of Pandas and People" as a "challenged book," even though the ALA's own records showed that this book was challenged in 1993! <
You hopeless microcephalic. What the ALA did on their list of challenged books is quite irrelevant to what should be on a list of banned books.
Post a Comment
<< Home