Censorship Or The Better Part of Valor?

Jenna Orkin


Some explanation is in order regarding the editing or 'censorship' that takes place on this blog.

These are shoot-from-the-hip decisions. They stem from core beliefs that have not been fully thought out nor am I about to embark on a deep investigation of the matter or disquisition now. I'll simply try to explain the thought process or reflex process or whatever it is that's at work.

As you can see from the Profile to the right, a space I opted to use to explain how this blog works, when Mike originally asked me to take on this task (at the time, it was going to be a job) he wrote to readers:

"Comment with only one prime directive, 'What can we share here that will save lives by providing people with choices, experience, strength and hope?'

Of course, peripheral issues arise and inevitably, people have thoughts to share which are of interest but which have only the most oblique relationship to saving lives or offering strength and hope etc, etc. Some comments have been ornery or critical and there are a few that are off the wall but harmless.

But there are categories of comments which have been 'edited' or 'censored' or very occasionally, rejected because on balance, they weren't worth the trouble they might cause.

One category is comments that are strewn with obscenities. "Fuck" is acceptable in some situations; in others it's gratuitous. This, it seemed to me, was particularly true of a comment which several times used the word: Buttf*** (sic). You never got to see that one which was too bad because it made some intelligent points. As with any editor, the blog moderator's job is a balancing act.

You will note, of course, that I'm reproducing in this exposition the exact words which got the comment thrown out in the first place. Hypocrisy? Or context?

Another category of comments that have been censored are those that have criticized Mike or others in ways which I haven't considered useful. I know what he's been through, as do most of you. You have the right to your opinions which may even be brilliantly insightful. And I have no particular beef with truth (if, in fact, I thought the comments contained any) but there are times when its presentation is overwhelming.

I also tend to 'censor' comments which quote without attribution. Please just send links. There are legal issues involved in the ever-evolving area of internet copyright law. Again, it's a matter of proportion and purpose.

And then there's the question of guns.

A few comments have alluded to guns and ammunition, as did Mike's article a week or two ago. Some of these comments have made it through the filter. Others have not.

I once had a conversation with Congressman Jerrold Nadler about free speech. He said, "The answer to bad speech is more speech."

That's true. With perhaps one exception.

When it comes to speech that has the potential to incite or even simply induce violence, the criterion for censorship, if I remember correctly from Law School, is whether or not the listener has time to cool off and think before acting. You can't shout, "Let's go get the mother-f*ers!" to a crowd of vigilante wannabes.

What about when a comment does something akin to that on the internet?

So far no comment has done precisely that but a few have come, it has seemed to me, uncomfortably close.

And a few comments related to weapons have been written not in an incited but a rational state. Yet it was plausible that a reader - granted, one who was already predisposed - might get an idea from the comment that his community might live (or not) to regret.

In that case, the comment would be only one of a chain of causes, a proximate if not a particularly strong cause, but I didn't want the blog to be implicated at all.

This is not an exhaustive list; there's the whole issue of links or allusions to blogs of quesetionable judgment. This is just the beginning of what will perhaps be a heated but intriguing discussion. All right; bring 'em on. The floodgates are waiting.