This is the saddest thing I’ve ever had to waste time writing. Find it here and please note I’ll be trying to stick to it as much as possible. This is about not only trying to create a safe and pleasant and thoughtful space for me, but also for my readers.
The Indelible Stamp
Ethics, outrage and evidence
Yes, without enforcement it will be virtually useless.
(And it’s very good that you’ve put it prominently in the top-level bar)
There’s nothing wrong with having a comment policy. In fact, it’s a good idea – as long as it’s a good policy.
What provoked this, I wonder?
No. Having a comment policy is wrong.
Please justify this assertion. Declaring something wrong does not make it wrong.
Just another feminist who hates freedom of speech.
Brilliant.
I’d love to see the justification for this one.
Having a comment policy goes against freedom of speech.
How?
Free speech isn’t allowing you to say whatever you want: consider defamation laws, for example, built into freedom of speech laws in liberal countries which themselves are highly respectful of freedom of speech.
You’re confusing licence for free speech: those are not the same.
Please note, too, that you need to justify your claims, not assert them here please. Anyone can assert what they want: takes actual effort to back up claims with rational argument, evidence, etc.
Wrong as usual.
The First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
“Wrong as usual”? What do you mean by that?
Also, that’s not an argument: that’s the First Amendment. I can quote from the Bible but presumably that won’t persuade you to believe me.
What? You don’t agree with the Constitution?
That’s irrelevant to this discussion. Anyone can quote anything: you haven’t given an argument. Also, I’m not Congress.
Also, I don’t believe I’m restricting you from blogging anywhere else on the Internet. Would you claim First Amendment rights are violated because Letter Editors didn’t publish crazy people’s letters in their paper? Difference between censorship and, at the very least, facilitating productive debate and discussion. That you fail to grasp this difference is deeply concerning.
Quoting the Constitution is not the same thing as quoting the Bible, duh. One is the supreme law of the land; the other is a fiction story.
Seriously? You cite the 1st amendment on a private blog as your justification for not having a comment policy? Seriously? The words that I would describe you would probably get me banmed, so I will leave it with, “you can claim that your free speech is being violated when Tauriq successfully convinces the U.S. Federal government that your posting on his personal blog is the equivalent of ‘hooliganism’ and the U.S. givernment arrests you, convicts you in a court of law, and sentences you to 2-years hard labour in ahe equivalent of a prison coal mine”.
Until you experience something a la Pussy Riot, your free speech is not being restricted. Tauriq is simply not allowing you to defecate bullshit on his blog. Feel free to defecate elsewhere.
Seriously, can someone research this complete stupidity by americans in not understanding the first amendment? Is it related to an authoritative tendency? Poor educational opportunties? Pure demagoguery? Plain dishonesty in knowning the difference but not caring just to snipe?
Can we name it a logical fallacy, “parrotta ad fox noise”? Can one of the blog’s moderation policy be automatic banning for not understanding the 1st amendment? How valuable or insightful would a commenter’s comment be if he/she cannot understand basic ideas and concepts learned in high school?
There’s a REASON we have the first amendment. Watch any thunderf00t video about freedom of speech.
Ah, nothing says entitled privileged critter that is used to always be heard regardless of merit of his opinions more than whining that someone else’s blog doesn’t allow you to comment in the exact way you’d wish to comment.
Spoken like a socialist.
Please refrain from mere namecalling or I will ban you from this blog.
Prodegtion: You keep referring without making arguments. First you refer to First Amendment without saying why it’s relevant; then to obtain relevance you say go watch a video. That’s not terribly convincing. (Also the First Amendment applies to [only one] country, not the Internet)
Again: I can compare your comparison to the Bible because that’s what people without actual argument keep doing. I didn’t say the Bible and First Amendment are the same: I’m saying the tactic of referencing equaling argument is.
An important part of this blog is actual argument – which, ironically, is in the comment policy you erroneously claim infringes on your free speech (something you keep asserting without justification and without responding to any arguments made to to you).