Fun on the Bus
So I was on the bus and I came across zome fun people.
On the ride this morning, the bus was so crowded, that people were packed togther like sardines. Ever see the clips of tokyo where they have those guys in whote gloves pushing and packing people into the subway? Well it felt like that.
Anyway, I was standing near the front and I couldnt help listening to these two girls talking. They were probably around 23-25 and were dressed in The North Face jackets. In the begining, the blonde told the brunete about how dissapointed she was that Bush won reelection. She mentioned that being able to speak up and allowing people to speak up is soemthign Bush does not seem to want. She claimed that under Bush we can not even disagree with the government, or we are labeled unpatriotic. She concluded by saying that free speech is very important and we should never have our speech censored. The brunete then complimented the blond on her blog posting from the previous day. The Blond then said, "yeah, but there were these people that posted stuff on my blog that was like, way wrong. So, I had to delete their posts. I mean I am not gonna let people post things on my blog that I don't agree with. Its my blog, and I want to make sure only what I want is on it" The brunete, agreed with her and echoed her sentiments.
I was absolutly stunned when I heard this. This person is a hypocrite and should be ashamed of herself. How can you say that it is wrong to censor people and then actually censor people on your blog? The thing is that this is not an uncommon thing among people. When the idea of censorship is around, a person says, oh, how terrible, that isnt right, but when faced with something they dont like, they jump and censor it. I have only deleted a post once here on my blog, and that was when a person posted the same thing twice. I would never deelete a post just becuase I didn't agree with it.
If anything, I feel sorry for you if you delete posts you do not agree with. You obviously believe that your opinions are not strong enough to stand a little discussion. So the very people that blow their horn of free speech will do everything they can to prevent free speech in their areas. Congratulations, you are a hypocrite, and really do not get it afterall...
9 Comments:
I donno, there are some posts you really do have to delete. But not this one! Please! ;)
Seriously though, the times I delete comments are not when people have differing opinions but just when they're... what's the word... ridiculously stupid.
If someone posts and all they are doing is swearing like a sailor with no particular point to it, it's gone. Or if someone says some comment that is just WAY off the topic of a serious conversation through comments. ie- I had a quite serious talk about relationships and women going on, and another guy busts in asking if anyone can help him with getting his background working on his journal... mind you, in the comments to one of my journal entries.
But I totally agree about keeping opposing viewpoints around.
I dont know. Even if the person is off topic or swearing, they will simply demonstrate their own foolishness and not warrent a deletion(at least in my mind). You can obviously do as you wish in your journal/blog, but I prefer to keep the no deletion policy over here. I am glad though that you allow opposing opinion on your blog as the exchange of ideas is the very basis of this country so good work there!
Preventing people from criticizing the government and censoring comments on your blog are two entirely different things.
The government makes policies that determine the well-being of your life. It can take as much of your money that it wants, by force, and spend it. The government can do all sorts of ugly stuff, and the only power we have over the government is that we (supposedly) manage it through elections and criticisms of its policies. Hence, the government's censorship of a particular point of view could have serious ramifications for everyone.
A private blog isn't the government at all. It's a personal possession - think of it as hosting a party. You've invited people into your house, but that doesn't mean they can spill beer on your furniture and pee in your plants, or even rearrange your sofa and CDs in the way that they think is best. It's still your house, and you have the right to determine what goes on inside. Same for blogs and forums.
I applaud your open-mindedness, and I think that opposing views make for an interesting blog. As a Jolt admin, however, I fully recognize that not everything should be preserved in the much-abused name of "free speech". Whether it's an obnoxious comment or simply an opposing one, private blog/forum operators have every right to decide what is said on their blogs/forums.
- Chris
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Thanks for your comments, but I disagree with you. I liked your example of the house party, but I ask is that really a valid example? I say no and here is why.
When you have a house party, you invite certain people to your home and allow them to come in and enjoy your place. These are people you know and trust. You trust these people not to pee in your plants or screw up your cds. You trust these people to behave themselves, but more importantly you knowthese people.
In the case of a blog, it is a public entitiy. You do not know all the people who view. I do not hide my blog nor only allow some people to view it, I allow the world to view it. I am very happy to allow anyone to post whatever they want here, becuase I feel if you are going to go through the trouble of posting, it is likely something worth saying. Even if it is off topic, I feel that everyone has the right to say what they wiah about my comments.
Here is the thing: even if someone makes vulgar statements they will be demonstrating their own ignorance. A person who thinks that it is funny to insult or be extremely vulgar on a web forum are only demonstrating their own immaturity.
An interesting way of dealing with these people can be thought of thusly: All I am doing is allowing a person an oppertunity to make a fool of themselves; but they are the one taking the oppertunity!
Tex, you're correct that a web site is much more public than a house party. Perhaps a better example would have been a bus station - it's completely open to the world, but it still has a staff of people who clear the graffiti and take care of the trash. That's because a bus station covered in graffiti and trash is ugly and disgusting. It's the same in the virtual world.
I think, Matt, that you're mixing up your beliefs on what should be with what actually is. The Internet is not public land. It's a city, where certain portions are owned by people who have paid for those portions and have every right to decide what will appear there. Tex leaves the stupid comments he gets because he thinks that they make the posters look like idiots. That's his decision, because he's reserved this part of the Internet for himself. This friend of ours has, as she said, paid for her Internet property and doesn't want to see it defaced by idiots. She isn't at all required to, by the Constitution or by civic responsibility, just as you are not required to allow vandals to spray-paint homophobic and Jewish epithets on your parents' car.
I'm not arguing for a whitewashed Internet, as I think you know. That would be boring. I'm arguing for the right of property owners to manage their property the way they see fit. A web site is property like a house or a car is. Those who wish to spread their ugliness on the Internet have any number of options for doing this - free blogs, free web sites, etc. Arguing that your free speech rights are violated because someone isn't taking your crap on their blog is pure laziness. Ask Tex about cheap Internet hosting solutions. As the World's Cheapest Man, he'd have some suggestions.
Get your facts straight about the Jolt, too. It never had any pre-speech code days. It always had a set of usage terms, and this wasn't changed by the fact that certain inept Jolt admins didn't take the time to keep track of the forum the way they should have. I'm not, though, going to waste space on Tex's blog defending the Jolt. If you want to discuss this further, IM or email me.
Bottom line: if you want free speech, Matt, found your own blog. Don't go trying to impose your ideals on other peoples' lives. That's the Republicans' job.
- Chris
Thanks for your comments Matt and Chris.
First Matt, thanks for your comments. I appreciate your comments and liked your comment in regards to who was defending what. Remember I am a moderate(though it may not seem it at times). I think free speech is important, but there are some instances I think its important to infringe upon. You shouldnt put other people in danger(ie dont yell fire ina crowded movie theatre or claim to have a bomb on an airplane). But things like making Soup Jokes, should be viable for everyone.
Chris: While I appreciate your example of the bus station, I am still not sure it is complelty accurate. A bus station is not always public entity. There are cases where a bus station is the property of the bus company. This is similar to an airport where the different airline companies actually own(and help build) the airport. So in that sense, it is not complelty public, and the person who is taking the messages down at the bus station is the bus company. In that scenario, it would be more of a private company coming in and doing what they wish in their domain.
Also, are you insinuating that Big Tex is the "cheapest man alive"! Ok maybe I did eat free jelly packets at school for lunch and drink from the water fountain in order to save money. Oh wait. I didnt really help my case there did I?!
Analogies aside, my original point still stands - that private property is private property, whether virtual or real. I am arguing for one thing and one thing alone: the undisputable right of owners of a web space - or any space - to decide what information will or will not appear in that space. This isn't subverting democracy or quelling differences of opinion (although I'd be willing to make an exception for soup jokes). It's recognizing that there are reasonable limits to free speech. As the quote goes, "my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins". There is no good reason why one person's so-called "rights" should lower the quality of another person's life or possessions.
Oh, and you forgot to mention "leftover Tripod pizza" and "leftover Tripod soda". And "leftover Vernon Social Center pizza and chips".
Of course, I did all this too. But I drew the line at wine in a box!
- Chris
Post a Comment
<< Home