If we don't believe in freedom of expression forThe above quote is the view of free speech I've adopted ever since I first discovered the Internet many years ago. And a good dose of common sense and law also says that while freedom of expression is a right, there are acceptable limits. From my very first post here I've gone above and beyond what some blogs allow as far as comments go. Consider this post my commenting rules and rationales, as well as to demonstrate a contrast to another certain blog.
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
-- Noam Chomsky
I allow:
- Conversation: As long the language used isn't abusive, offensive or randomly off-topic, I encourage conversations in comments, even if it's just between commenters.
- Criticism: Again, as long as the language isn't abusive or offensive, I allow criticism and dissenting opinions. This is core to free speech, and the source of Chomsky's opinion(as well as mine).
- Anonymity: Anonymous criticism is also a part of free speech, as a defense against unlawful retaliation. While I'm certainly not the type to retaliate against anyone for practicing free speech, I am aware that there are some people who have dissenting opinions, but are afraid to voice them for fear of such retaliation. So anonymous commenting is allowed here for that reason, but not to be used to launch attacks.
2 comments:
Er, no, dear. Your blog isn't free, it's the typical blog with oppressive comments policies.
"# Conversation: As long the language used isn't abusive, offensive or randomly off-topic, I encourage conversations in comments, even if it's just between commenters."
I allow abusive, offensive, off-topic conversations and people are free to bash me or each other, freely.
# Criticism: Again, as long as the language isn't abusive or offensive, I allow criticism and dissenting opinions. This is core to free speech, and the source of Chomsky's opinion(as well as mine).
Chomsky is a shrill old fool with a hateful and oppressive ideology. He isn't for freedom of speech any more than you are. I allow not only criticism and dissenting opinions and you can be abusive to your heart's content.
What I don't allow is posting without an SL name. An SL name *is* anonymous, not attached to an RL name, so your claim of superiority about anonymity is false. I don't allow day-old alts as they are exploitative of the principle, but any SL citizen with some reasonable reputation in world, i.e. not a blank profile but a credible account, is allowed to post. The point is to have your abusive posts match up with accountability for your reputation, business, activities in world. Abuse all you like, use an anonymous SL avatar all you like, but link it up to an authentic reputation.
I also do not allow people to post who are griefers and cause RL or SL damage. That would be you, as you repeatedly trespass on my land for no reason, evidently in common cause with Woodbury griefers.
So, my blog is more free and that's why it's more popular. You have an arbitrary rule about what is "abusive" and it unjustly oppresses free speech. I have a concept of *crime* which you obviously don't have, and I say that free speech can't be used for imminent incitement or cause of crime.
"That would be you, as you repeatedly trespass on my land for no reason, evidently in common cause with Woodbury griefers."
I've been around Ravenglass, yes, but I don't go around causing any damage or even made any contact with any of your renters. Apologies if it troubled you in any way.
I've been to the Woodbury sims, and got spammed with images that said "burn in hell, furfag" for discovering their not-so-secret Soviet submarine base and missile silo. So the only association I have with them is that of being a griefing victim, like you.
And sorry, never read any of Chomsky's work but I merely stumbled on that quote a long time ago and liked it.
Anyways, thanks for commenting. It's much appreciated. :)
Post a Comment