Comments moderating policy of this blog

EDIT: A good friend sent me this graphic.  It's as apt for this situation as any other:

A recent post on this site has provoked a larger than usual amount of nitwits.  It seems a good time to reiterate some things...

Ever since the start of this blog more than twenty years ago, I have welcomed vigorous discussion and debate in the comments sections of the posts.  I have also allowed for anonymous comments to be made.  My policies about that have been more liberal than a lot of sites on the Intertubes.

Last month, as a result of some people abusing the rules of polite society when commenting, I turned on moderation of comments.  It is now set to publish a comment only after I approve of it.

Many of the comments that had been made were laden with profanity and obscenity.  They were not the writings of civilized people.  It would be an insult to young people if I said that the comments were "childish".  They were more like adolescents enraged with the onset of hormones.  The comparison I've made of them to manic eighth graders is an apt one.

They refused to behave. So I turned on moderation.

The nitwits cried out that this is a violation of freedom of speech.  They demanded that I make this place one rife with abuse again.

It's very, very simple.  Anyone and everyone is free to make a comment.  And I do indeed allow for a wide range of opinions and perspectives.  I like it when this blog can be a place of vigorous debate and discussion.

But there is expectation also: that people commenting do so in a polite and dignified manner.  Which means NO hard profanity, NO crude sexual references, NO petty insults, NOTHING that you would be too ashamed to show your mother.

(Some of the people I'm talking about come across as having no shame at all.  Who knows, maybe their parents didn't love them enough.  Maybe they've never known any better than to not act like @$$holes, but I digress.)

I have told the people screaming for open comments about this many times by now.  Have laid out the instructions so clearly that a young child could grasp it.  The nitwits still don't understand.  Their minds seem as dark as their souls.

I see this place as an arena of ideas.  Some people want it to be a no-holds-barred battle royale with flying chairs and hidden weapons.  They just don't seem capable of being decent human beings.

So I'm saying again, as crystal clear as I know to say it: be nice and your comment will be allowed, and I believe that over the years I have demonstrated appreciating a remarkable latitude of opinions here.

If you cannot stop acting like wild naked savages dancing in blood however, you will not be allowed to enter the discussion. 

If a person has something legitimate to say, they certainly can do so and I will definitely hit the publish button for it.  Regardless of viewpoint.  But if they can't do that without acting like a total bastitch, it will not be published.

And now I'll wait for the rabid jackals who have been abusing the comments to come again to cry foul.  I can practically hear them even now.

Read More

About the Murthy vs Missouri decision...

Regarding Murthy v. Missouri: the Supreme Court decision yesterday about government coercing social media companies to censor users' activity based on political content.  SCOTUS decided that the plaintiffs had no standing and dismissed the lawsuit.

This seems like a colossal victory for the government and social media companies.  HOWEVER...

The case was *not* dismissed.  Today's ruling dealt with the temporary injunction in the case, not the case itself.  The case was REMANDED, back down the legal chain.  It could still come before the high court where the plaintiffs can better frame their arguments with solid evidence of coercion and censorship.

I believe that such a thing is not only possible, it is almost guaranteed to happen.

Twitter, or X as it's called now, is going to be VERY interesting to watch as it pertains to the case.  When Murthy v. Missouri was first filed it was confronting a seemingly unassailable block of social media companies, especially Twitter.

But Twitter/X is no longer part of that.  It's in the hands of Elon Musk now.  Who may prove to be quite enamored with the idea of opening up Twitter's old files and shed some sunlight on how his company under previous management censored content because the government told it to.

That may be a more substantive body of evidence than a few emails were as was the crux of the plaintiff's arguments.  If not in support of the Murthy plaintiffs then almost certainly worth a case all its own.

So to those who have been frustrated by today's ruling: be of good cheer.  This sort of thing has happened before, and it will again.  Personally I believe that Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas were correct in their dissent.  But I'm not ready to throw out the bathwater with the baby quite yet.  This was a ruling on the injunction, not necessarily the case itself.  The case was sent back to the lower courts.  And might still come before the Supremes again.

Read More

"It's not a free-speech zone when we did it!"

I did not watch President Obama's inauguration today. There is nothing particularly interesting about a leader with no real vision. Sadly that's a trait that has been shared by every president since Reagan. But I digress...

It does interest me this afternoon however that President Obama continued the tradition established by former president George W. Bush of having a "free speech zone" marked off for the event...

Freedom Plaza is the site of one of the only authorized demonstration zones, where a strip of the plaza is designated a free speech zone.

The "free speech zones" were a routine and chronic practice of George W. Bush. Nobody who protested his policies was allowed anywhere close to him when he was president and out in public. There were many instances when protestors were limited to an area nearly a mile away from Bush.

The "free speech zones" were wrong then. They are just as wrong now on Obama's watch.

But that seems to be going clean over the heads of a lot of self-professed "conservatives" today, judging by how many at the above link on Politico.com are feigning outrage that Obama is keeping those who disagree with him out of sight and out of mind.

Here is what I wrote this past October about Obama continuing Bush's practice.

Now, I defy anyone to argue that it was any more right when Bush had the "free speech zones" than it is for Obama to do precisely the same.

This is but one reason why I have become so disgusted with politics. I like to think of myself as an honest person... and honest people have a problem with sullying their hands with such blatant hypocrisy.

That and as I said earlier: there is no leadership with clear and bold vision in America.

Sometimes I wonder if that might be on purpose. Or even if that's what we the people have come to embrace.

Read More

Obama Administration brings back Bush-era "free speech zones"

Students at Wright State University who were protesting against Joseph Biden when he visited the campus last week were quarantined a quarter-mile away from the Vice President by the Secret Service. This happened not once, but twice. The rationale given by the Secret Service: they "didn't want the protesters to be too close to the motorcade."

Before any Republicans or Romney supporters cry "foul" about this, it would be well to remember that this exact same thing was routine policy during the presidency of George W. Bush! But that fact hasn't deterred a number of people on "conservative" websites from claiming that the Secret Service is violating the First Amendment, that Obama is violating the Constitution ad nauseum... when Obama's predecessor, a Republican president, was also insulating himself from public dissent with the very same methods, and on a much more chronic basis. Very many of Bush's following at the time had no problem whatsoever with the First Amendment rights of protestors being quashed. But now that the shoe's on the other foot...

"Free speech for me, but not for thee." I guess depending on who has the power, more animals really are more equal than others.

I don't want to hear any whining about Obama or Biden's use of "free speech zones" from past or present supporters of George W. Bush. As far as I'm concerned, come January we'll have had at least twelve years of regime by successive egomaniacs with narcissistic disorder. And I don't give a flying rat's butt which party either one belongs to.

So people: what's it going to take for us to quit supporting this sham?

Read More

Rockingham County Board of Education members lashing out at free speech

An item has been placed on the agenda for the August 13th meeting of the Rockingham County Board of Education that, if approved, would limit remarks by private citizens to three minutes or less during public comments portions of the monthly meetings.

The Knight Shift blog received this information from a highly trusted source earlier this evening.

I've spent the past good bit of evening trying to find out more about this and I'm going to be making further inquiries come tomorrow morning.

As I've come to understand it, here's what's going down: at least one and possibly two members of the Board of Education placed this item on the agenda for the next meeting, and it's quite likely that this is coming as a reaction to what happened at the July 9th meeting. That was when the Board voted to rescind it's decision in April to implement school uniforms at Reidsville Middle and Reidsville High schools beginning this fall. A group of citizens - and I was one of them - calling themselves P.O.T.S.M.O.D. (People Opposed To Standard Mode Of Dress) dominated the public comments time during every meeting from April to July in protest of the policy. The July 9th meeting received considerable news coverage from most of the area's major media outlets because members of P.O.T.S.M.O.D. announced that they were going to address the Board wearing costumes and black armbands as a visible sign of defiance to the policy (the vote for which had been based on dire faulty information).

It's already public knowledge that there are some on the board who have expressed disdain for citizens' right to free speech. One member of the Rockingham County Board of Education stated aloud during the July meeting that P.O.T.S.M.O.D. and others were "bad for the community" because they used "loud noise" which "changed public opinion" about the uniforms.

What kind of elected official, so entrusted to uphold the principles of the Constitution, would try to "shut up" the constituents that he or she is sworn to serve and represent on the board?

I'm working on finding out more about this, folks. If more info comes this way, I'll be sure to share it here. But I wanted to go ahead and get the word out: some people on the Rockingham County Board of Education are actively taking steps to drown-out the public's right to speak out and participate in government as concerned citizens.

I don't know of any better way of wrapping up this post, than to present one of my all-time favorite works of art: a painting by Norman Rockwell simply titled "Freedom of Speech" ...

Read More

Larry Flynt makes a statement about Jerry Falwell

Say what you will of Larry Flynt, but this was high class. And I can't help but think he's sincere in saying all of this, in spite of the legal turmoil that went on between him and Jerry Falwell. Here's the statement he released today after news came out that Falwell had died:

"The Reverend Jerry Falwell and I were arch enemies for fifteen years. We became involved in a lawsuit concerning First Amendment rights and Hustler magazine. Without question, this was my most important battle – the l988 Hustler Magazine, Inc., v. Jerry Falwell case, where after millions of dollars and much deliberation, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in my favor.

My mother always told me that no matter how much you dislike a person, when you meet them face to face you will find characteristics about them that you like. Jerry Falwell was a perfect example of that. I hated everything he stood for, but after meeting him in person, years after the trial, Jerry Falwell and I became good friends. He would visit me in California and we would debate together on college campuses. I always appreciated his sincerity even though I knew what he was selling and he knew what I was selling.

The most important result of our relationship was the landmark decision from the Supreme Court that made parody protected speech, and the fact that much of what we see on television and hear on the radio today is a direct result of my having won that now famous case which Falwell played such an important role in."

Read More