Arbitrary censorship blocks potential benefits of blogging
An article in Law.com, "Is the Future of Legal Scholarship in the Blogosphere?", extols the potential benefits of blogging but ignores the arbitrary censorship of visitors' comments that blocks those potential benefits. This article says,
.
It is usually the best comments and commenters that are arbitrarily censored. There is no good reason to arbitrarily censor bad comments and commenters.
Also, I can't understand how arbitrarily censoring bloggers expect to have any credibility at all.
.
.
Does blogging contribute to the scholarship, teaching and service asked of legal academics? It's easy to see how blogging could contribute to the dissemination of knowledge. Can blogging also be a part of the process of discovering knowledge? If knowledge is discovered by the assertion and exploration of ideas, issues and opinions, through an iterative process of dialogue, critique and reformulation, blogging is making that contribution.
. . . .Instead of scholars focusing inward, writing for and expecting to be read only by other academics, legal academics blog with the desire and the expectation that they will be read by the public. Law-related blogs such as the University of Chicago Faculty Blog bring the perspective of the academy to the attention of anyone interested in the issue under discussion, educating both sides of the dialogue. The Internet functions as a public square, where Main Street, Wall Street and the ivory tower meet.
. . . .Blogging contributes to the shortened life cycle of a theory or idea, reflected in what is called the open access movement. Law review articles no longer meet their readers first in published and printed form.
. . . . .Even if blogging will never replace traditional legal scholarship, blogs are where the scholarly dialogue increasingly takes place.
It is usually the best comments and commenters that are arbitrarily censored. There is no good reason to arbitrarily censor bad comments and commenters.
Also, I can't understand how arbitrarily censoring bloggers expect to have any credibility at all.
.
Labels: Internet censorship (new #3)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 9/19/2007 05:01:00 PM
11 Comments:
You have been challenged repeatedly to show any examples of ARBITRARY censorship and you have failed. I am sure that it exists but it is not all that common.
You have always been censored for cause and everyone knows it.
This is definitely an obsession with the clown. He actually is so delusional that he thinks that he is banned because someone disagrees with him. He is always banned for the same reason; He acts like a jackass.
Yes. He really is quite thick. It is amazing considering that before his mental deterioration, he was actually an engineer, though not a particularly good one due to his absense of capacity for original thought.
Dunghills ViU and Hector think that murder should not be a crime because they have never witnessed it.
I have presented plenty of examples of where I have been arbitrarily censored, but I have obviously been wasting my time.
These dunghills take advantage of my no-censorship policy while ridiculing my campaign against Internet censorship.
Under the Social Darwinism that they love so much, they would be among the first to be euthanized as mental defectives.
> Dunghills ViU and Hector think that murder should not be a crime because they have never witnessed it. <
The jackass again shows the lack of understanding of analogies that gave him an unmatched record of failure in his legal cases.
> I have presented plenty of examples of where I have been arbitrarily censored <
You have misrepresented many cases where you were banned for cause. You are not fooling anyone.
> These dunghills take advantage of my no-censorship policy <
You have no such policy. You have even admitted to censorship in the past but tried to rationalize it. By the way, why did you ban ViW?
Perhaps all mental defectives, such as yourself, should be euthanized to improve the species?
Under the holocaust, whose existence you question, you would have gone up the chimney, as doubtless did many of your relatives. Why do you hate your own people so much.
Larry's childish repetition of the term "dunghill" is reminiscent of the tendencies of 5-6 year olds to believe that anything related to bathroom activities is brilliantly clever. It is no doubt another sign of his mental deterioration.
Larry, if you believe that you are actually doing something worthwhile, or that any of your “campaigns” are actually attracting followers, I urge you to seek professional help.
As far as your holocaust views, It seems very odd that a Jew would be found among the deniers. This is probably also another symptom of your mental disorder.
I imagine many of us posting commentary here sincerely wish to be helpful to others, even if our professional credentials fall short of world-class standards for the daunting tasks at hand.
One of my goals is to raise the standards for bearing accurate witness.
Toward that end, I'd like to see a diminution in the invocation of language that tends to demonize, belittle, and stigmatize, and an evolution toward dialogue that heals and rehabilitates those who have been traumatized by harsh language and harsh treatment.
> I imagine many of us posting commentary here sincerely wish to be helpful to others <
> even if our professional credentials fall short of world-class standards for the daunting tasks at hand. <
I think that Sherry D probably meets world-class standards when it comes to Larry's problems. She is a third (or was it second?) grade school teacher. She has been working for years with children at Larry's level of maturity.
I doubt that. Probably most of us are here for the same reason that the now censored (on Larry's censorship free blog) ViW was "because he tired of pulling the wings off of flies".
> I'd like to see a diminution in the invocation of language that tends to demonize, belittle, and stigmatize, <
Good luck! Larry complains of this while being the leading practitioner. We tend to belittle him because it seems so appropriate. In one post he actually claimed to be an "unrecognized legal genius" despite his unbroken record of failure in that field. When someone claims to be Napoleon Bonaparte, it is hard not to point out that the streets are full of people with better claims to the French crown.
The problem with the practice of belittling others is that it tends, over time, to escalate.
Eventually, the parties divide into warring tribes that define each other in terms of which rival tribe they aim their insults at.
Most elementary school teachers are familiar with this 'clique dynamic' and try to create a socio-cultural climate that attenuates and mitigates it.
Otherwise, the mutually reciprocal belittling dynamic can grow into a cancer. In the end stages of the cancer, one encounters alienation, demonization, and stigmatization.
On the whole, it's an unbecoming process.
Moulton,
Are you including the BVD-clad blogger Fatheaded Ed Brayton and Sleazy PZ Myers in this criticism, or does it just apply to the dunghills ViU and Hector?
What happened to The Great Satin ViW? Why did Larry ban him?
In the Harry Potter series, Ron Weasely is often heard exclaiming, "Bloody Hell!"
When it comes to bloody hell, perhaps the oldest story in the book is the murder story featuring Cain and Abel.
In that story, Cain is a farmer who raises the crops; Abel is a shepherd who manages the flocks.
At the Missouri State Fair, they each bring the fruits of their labor before the judges. Farmer Cain shows up with his soggy platter of suffering succotash; Abel submits his succulent lamb chops.
Not surprisingly, Abel wins favor with the judges, who also sneer at Cain's pathetic offering.
Cain, in his anger, envy, and humiliation, takes bloody vengeance upon Abel.
Thus you have the basic plan of a classic rivalry. One character has Fear of Humiliation and the Desire for Honor and Respect. The other character has Fear of Annihilation and the Desire for Survival.
Each one gets what they don't want.
Thus it's a Tragedy.
Bloody Hell, indeed.
Post a Comment
<< Home