RSS 2.0 FeedComments and Free Speech
by EricFor anyone that may have a question about how comments are handled here or who may think I am anti free speech, see the comment policy.
“Three groups spend other people's money: children, thieves, politicians. All three need supervision.” Dick Armey
February 11, 2006
• • •
18 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Your policy clearly mimics this:
http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2006/02/07/pc-manifesto/#respond
Comment by John Newman — February 11, 2006 @ 3:37 pmsay what you want to say, but if I find it offensive I won’t provide you a forum mimics PC’ism?
Comment by Eric — February 11, 2006 @ 5:35 pmThat’s very tolerant of you.
Comment by John Newman — February 11, 2006 @ 5:41 pmYou do realize, in a world where you can put up a free blog in 10 minutes, your position doesn’t sound credible, right? I’m not trying to prevent anyone from saying anything. I just see no reason to provide a forum, at my own expense, for certain things.
Other than that, I am pretty tolerant, so thanks. I suspect, though, that we really mean two different things.
Comment by Eric — February 11, 2006 @ 6:06 pmEric anti free speech???
That’s funny! No disrespect intended to anyone. But anyone who believes that has serious issues…
SR
Comment by Sacramento Republicrat — February 11, 2006 @ 9:02 pmThe blog is Eric private property. In my house you are my guest and have no right for freedom of speech.
Comment by Rogel — February 11, 2006 @ 9:13 pmIf someone want the freedom of speech, do it on your own expense.
Thanks guys. Rogel, that’s exactly the point I’m trying to make. I’m under no obligation to provide a forum to say anything you want to say. Tolerant doesn’t mean that I have to enable something I find offensive. It simply means I don’t try to coerce you not to say it. If you were offensive to me in my house, no one would consider me intolerant to kick you out of my house. Why is it different on my blog, that I pay for?
Comment by Eric — February 12, 2006 @ 2:12 amIt is your forum and you can do anything you want with it – even lie – and say you allow free speech when obviously by your own admission you don’t. It even means you can make up your own definition of ‘free speech.’
Comment by John Newman — February 12, 2006 @ 7:24 amEither you really don’t “get it” or you like provoking fights. Either way, I don’t feel like continuing to play.
Comment by Eric — February 12, 2006 @ 9:27 amAt least be honest and say you allow ‘limited’ freedom of speech – limited to what you like. I think Jefferson would agree with me that freedom of speech can be offensive, and it should be – otherwise it ain’t free, just cheap.
Comment by John Newman — February 12, 2006 @ 9:52 amI’m under no obligation to admit any such thing. Your freedom of speech is not up to me to allow or not allow. You seem to think that I am obligated to let someone use my blog to say whatever they want if I believe in free speech. I say to you, if you want to say whatever you want, get your own soapbox. Free speech does not corrolate to a right to be heard. Nor does it obligate me in any fashion. I refuse to be put under any obligation by you. There’s nothing to be honest about because you are completely incorrect. I don’t “allow” or “prevent” you from speaking freely.
Comment by Eric — February 12, 2006 @ 10:09 ameeeEric said:
I don’t “allow” or “prevent” you from speaking freely.
But if I do speak freely here, you’ll ban me. Proving again that you do not ‘allow’ free speech here.
Comment by John Newman — February 12, 2006 @ 10:22 amSince your understanding of free speech is so collective, I really see no point to that.
Comment by Eric — February 12, 2006 @ 10:44 amSome of you seem to be confusing your right to free speech with your having some sort of power to force Eric to listen to you or become your vehicle of free speech. This is no different from if he hung up on you on the telephone, or kicked you off of his front porch. People who call that a violation of free speech have no understanding of what repression and freedom actually are.
Comment by Wulf — February 12, 2006 @ 11:13 amI’ll add one thing to that Wulf. The belief that I must use my private resources to enable someone else’s speech, or I am “not allowing free speech” is a collectivist approach to the idea of rights. I am under no obligation to enable anyone else’s rights or privileges, and I have no intention of doing so. But, I will not be bullied into admitting anything when there is nothing to admit. That’s just more collectivism in the guise of being pro-liberty. I’m tempted to point out how PC such a position is, but that’s probably just a low blow. ;-)
Comment by Eric — February 12, 2006 @ 11:31 amWulf said:
some sort of power to force Eric to listen to you or become your vehicle of free speech. This is no different from if he hung up on you on the telephone,
So you are suggesting I am forcing Eric to read what I write here? I believe he has every right to ignore me and anything I have to say. By banning what I say would not be Eric hanging up his phone, but him hanging up my phone.
Nowhere am I implying that Eric doesn’t have a right to run this place as he sees fit, my complaint is that he says he allows free speech, which his policy clearly does not. If I say anything HE finds offensive you can all say good-bye to the newly banned John Newman, whether or not that same thing may or may not offend you. That simply is not allowing free speech, but as I said, he can do whatever he pleases.
Comment by John Newman — February 12, 2006 @ 11:49 amNo John, hanging up your phone would be me finding a way to prevent you from writing what you want to at all. I’m not doing that, to anyone. Go get your own blog and write whatever you want.
I’ve never said I allow, or don’t allow, free speech. Because your individual behavior is not up to me.
Comment by Eric — February 12, 2006 @ 11:59 amAye yie, yie!!!!
Comment by John Newman — February 12, 2006 @ 12:11 pm