big loss. *yawn*KEvron
Darn. I was this close to convincing Suzie her that she really should become a nun and give up all that filthy, dirty, congress altogether.
She's obviously changed her mind about the nunnery, Ti-Guy. In another thread, she's on about how sexual congress needs to be Regulated. Presumably that means she has a set of rules & regulations in mind, as well as some ideas about who could do the policing of said rules & regs.WV - "rizat", as in "Rizatzinger". Fo shizzle
She turned on moderation because she had her ass handed to her on so many subjects...So now she's going to only publish comments that she agrees to....Mr. Taylor must be proud of his Free Speech Warriors...#roft, Manning Institute, Dick Evens, NAMBLA, Harper.... I'm sure the Conservatives enjoy being associated by proxy with pedophiles...
Boldly striking a blow for the right to Free Speechy-ness everywhere!Or is that Free Shrieky-ness?
Sorry, but turning on comment moderation on a blog is not infringing on freedom of speech.We are all free to have our own blogs where we can comment on what is written on other blogs - even if they use comment moderation.Each of us has a legitimate right to manage the tone of the discussion/comment areas on our individual blogs.
Mgs, you don't understand the irony do you?
Sorry, but turning on comment moderation on a blog is not infringing on freedom of speech.Of course it's not infringing on free speech. But it's still an assault against the ideal of free expression, particularly when you're suppressing commentary simply because it challenges you or you don't agree with it. It's a moral/ethical argument that is being made, not a legal one.
Don't worry, kids, I'll be addressing that particular form of douchebaggery soon. Now, if you'll excuse me, there are raw oysters somewhere with my name on them. Their deaths will be quick and painless.
To an extent, I agree with MgS.The irony is obvious; allegedly campaigning for free speech while simultaneously shutting off all comments save those you agree with does smack of hypocrisy - but it is her sandbox.Now, that being said, it also means that she can't protest when other people mock her in their blogs, because those are their sandboxes. Regardless of the language they use. She can debate the issues about which they mock her, because they (being reasonable people) don't suppress all dissent in their comments section. But "that's not fair" is no longer a valid complaint for her.
I've yet to see any one of Suzie's detractors ban her. They let her present her pseudo-science, indulge in her special brand of illogic and advance whatever calumny she's seized with at any given moment to her heart's content. Hell, she could even swear, if she wanted to.What a hypocrite.
Funny how the Speechies are the one that moderate their blogs to death but those of us they accuse of wanting to stifle speech are the ones that rarely ban, remove, delete or moderate comments...
Mike,You larger point, as I read it, is fair enough: Busy-bodies work dilligently to control other people, and they work at every level of social organization. Not particularly savory. If the "Speechies'" blogs, as you call them, were the only social outlet in Canada, their interference would be much more similar, in principle, to state regulation of opinion. In any case, the net impression is not unlike the situation with healthcare. Those who want to give that responsibility to the state heap scorn anyone who would take the responsibility upon themselves.
Post a Comment