Egregious censorship on Panda's Thumb
This has got to be the most brazen case of censorship I have seen on the Internet -- a PT blogger made a long reply to a visitor's comment and then deleted the comment! The visitor at Panda's Thumb was named "Anonymous." The unscrupulous PT blogger, Timothy Sandefur, left the following message:
Wrong. I am not Anonymous, and -- as I have shown -- there is no way to identify messages from me anyway. And yes, PT is "private," but that does not mean that it is not subject to government regulation. For example, an environmental law or regulation can be practically the equivalent of confiscation of "private" land. There is no reason why a government cannot enact a "fairness doctrine" prohibiting arbitrary censorship of visitors' comments on blogs. In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, the Supreme Court ruled that the FCC "fairness doctrine" for private broadcasters is constitutional, and a fairness doctrine for blogs would be even more constitutional because blogs -- unlike broadcasting stations -- have unlimited space for visitors' comments.
As a blog where flagrant arbitrary censorship of visitors' comments is practiced, PT is totally undeserving of its blogging awards and authoritative citations.
Arbitrary censorship on blogs is anti-intellectual, unscholarly, unethical, unconstitutional, and extremely rude.
Update: “Anonymous” has been identified as Larry Fafarman, who has been banned from PT for his many abuses. PT is, of course, private property and its owners (of whom I am not one) determine the rules to be followed on it. Thus his comment has been removed.
Wrong. I am not Anonymous, and -- as I have shown -- there is no way to identify messages from me anyway. And yes, PT is "private," but that does not mean that it is not subject to government regulation. For example, an environmental law or regulation can be practically the equivalent of confiscation of "private" land. There is no reason why a government cannot enact a "fairness doctrine" prohibiting arbitrary censorship of visitors' comments on blogs. In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, the Supreme Court ruled that the FCC "fairness doctrine" for private broadcasters is constitutional, and a fairness doctrine for blogs would be even more constitutional because blogs -- unlike broadcasting stations -- have unlimited space for visitors' comments.
As a blog where flagrant arbitrary censorship of visitors' comments is practiced, PT is totally undeserving of its blogging awards and authoritative citations.
Arbitrary censorship on blogs is anti-intellectual, unscholarly, unethical, unconstitutional, and extremely rude.
Labels: Internet censorship (new #2)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 6/27/2007 04:15:00 AM
4 Comments:
> I am not Anonymous <
Are you then denying that you tried to post on that blog under an assumed name? (This is a yes or no question.)
> and -- as I have shown -- there is no way to identify messages from me anyway. <
There is a way to determine if a message is probably from you; It will be irrational and pettifogging. It will repeat the same tired arguments endlessly. It will claim victory after failing to win its case. It may appear delusional. Yes, there are others with these lunatic traits but you are the only one I have seen with all of them rolled into one.
> There is no reason why a government cannot enact a "fairness doctrine" prohibiting arbitrary censorship of visitors' comments on blogs. <
They haven't. There would be some doubt if they could.
> In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC <
As has been shown repeatedly, TV and Radio bandwidth is limited. Space for blogs on the Internet is not (and don't bother to repeat that idiotic argument that the availability of space gives anyone a right to get on another's blog.)
> unlike broadcasting stations -- have unlimited space for visitors' comments. <
Well you did it. You proved how your irrationality can be identified.
> As a blog where flagrant arbitrary censorship of visitors' comments is practiced <
As you do, under the guise of eliminating "gossip".
> PT is totally undeserving of its blogging awards and authoritative citations. <
Obviously those giving the awards have better judgement than you.
> Arbitrary censorship on blogs is anti-intellectual, unscholarly, unethical, unconstitutional, and extremely rude. <
It is constitutional and it is practiced on this blog.
Voice in the Wilderness driveled,
>>>>>>> I am not Anonymous <
Are you then denying that you tried to post on that blog under an assumed name? (This is a yes or no question.) <<<<<<
How can "Anonymous" be an "assumed name"? And answering "yes" to your question would not prove anything. Panda's Thumb cannot prove that I am Anonymous and I cannot prove that I am not Anonymous.
>>>>>> There is a way to determine if a message is probably from you; It will be irrational and pettifogging. <<<<<<
Sandefur actually agreed with some of Anonymous's points and showed that he felt that Anonymous was raising valid issues and questions. So that's evidence that I am not Anonymous.
>>>>>> As has been shown repeatedly, TV and Radio bandwidth is limited. Space for blogs on the Internet is not (and don't bother to repeat that idiotic argument that the availability of space gives anyone a right to get on another's blog.) <<<<<<
I am going to keep repeating that "idiotic" argument over and over again because one of the big arguments against fairness doctrines for other kinds of media is that comment space is very limited on those media.
I should add, ViW, that blog readers should be allowed to decide for themselves whether someone's comments are of interest to them.
> Panda's Thumb cannot prove that I am Anonymous and I cannot prove that I am not Anonymous. <
In short, you admit it.
> he felt that Anonymous was raising valid issues and questions. So that's evidence that I am not Anonymous. <
That is a point. You would not rais valid issues.
> I am going to keep repeating that "idiotic" argument over and over again <
Just as long as you admit that it is idiotic.
> I should add, ViW, that blog readers should be allowed to decide for themselves whether someone's comments are of interest to them. <
So you will stop censoring?
Post a Comment
<< Home