Several times in the last few months, I’ve closed discussion on one of my blogs. Each time, some people have howled in outrage. Their anger makes them nearly inarticulate, but their position is apparently that I have no right to stop discussion. I am an enemy of free speech, they proclaim, a censor and cowardly, and downright evil as well.
I don’t see that, myself.
For one thing, free speech is not an absolute right, even if you believe that it should be. It is limited by laws against libel, hate-crimes, and terrorism, among others. Nor can you invoke free speech as a defense against mischief.
Admittedly, violations of these laws appear dozens of time each day on the Internet, and most of them are not prosecuted unless someone complains. Even in 2010, the Internet retains more of a frontier unruliness than other forms of media. But the point is that idea that free speech is unlimited is disproved with a moment’s thought.
Moreover, in each of these cases, some of these limits seemed to apply. Whether they actually would have been grounds for legal actions, I can’t say, of course. However, I think that erring on the side of caution is reasonable, especially since at least one determined commenter seems to have been required to close down his own blog.
At any rate, I have no desire to be involved, however indirectly, in a court action. And, in the case of one blog, I would be irresponsible if I exposed the company that owns the site to litigation. These motivations are not a matter of courage so much as caution. If I am going to be dragged into a legal action, it is going to be for something worth fighting for, and not because I provided a forum for the indiscreet and feckless.
However, my strongest motivation was that I simply lacked the time to either police my blog every half hour or to enter into discussions that were unfolding in which, so far as I can see, there was little to distinguish one set of claims from another.
I have been writing about free and open source software for five years now, and I have gained a limited amount of recognition. That recognition is not on the scale of a Linus Torvalds’ or a Richard Stallmans’, but it does mean that I get a lot of email and other contacts – so much that I can only answer some of it if I hope to get any writing done. Unless I am contacted by a friend or an unusually interesting stranger, I generally try to limit an exchange to a couple of communications.
I don’t always follow this rule strictly, but when someone is repetitive, abusive, and fails to address what I have to say, I am sure to apply it. By nature, I am easy-going and love to talk, but trying to hold a discussion with such people leaves a deadening feeling of futility. They are not going to sway me by bludgeoning tactics, and all too clearly, I am not going to convince them in a discussion. So why should I waste my time? A couple of exchanges is enough for them to have a say, and for me to know the type of people with whom I am dealing.
In other words, I choose to focus on the people who are interesting to have in a discussion, and/or can teach me something. So far as I’m concerned, declining to spend much time on the obsessive is not censorship, any more than refusing to publish bad writers in an anthology you are editing is censorship. It’s selection, plain and simple. i am hardly the only person I know who has to resort to this kind of selection in order to do what’s important to them, either.
Nor can I navigate the rights and wrongs of the feud that, in a couple of cases, is the reason for me shutting down comments. Both sides accuse the other of criminal behavior, and both sides claim to present evidence. However, all I can tell for sure is that I don’t want to be involved. Being hectored, abused, and threatened two or three times a day makes me even less likely to want to get involved; attempts to intimidate only make me stubborn, and, when people act like spammers, I treat them like spammers.
At any rate, to talk about censorship on the Internet is more of a rhetorical flourish than a reference to reality. If I refuse to post someone’s comments, that’s two out of – what? Several billion sites? If a commenter can’t find a place to publish what I won’t, they aren’t trying.
Under all these circumstances, you’ll excuse me if I find myself unmoved by the accusations when I close comments. I don’t do so quickly or easily, because I value freedom of expression myself. But I do so to create a space to work, and so I can focus on what’s important.
The peace of mind that results tells me, more than anything else, that I am doing the right thing.
I really hope you’re not talking about my blog. It was hackers, not lawyers.
Bruce, I fully agree with your point of view. If people feel the need to express their own views, then they can start their own blog. They don’t have to hijack yours.
They will quickly find out that it will take some considerable effort, over a long time, before they begin to earn the coverage and respect that bloggers such as yourself enjoy. Much easier of course, to simply troll others’ blogs.
It is your blog and you can moderate it in any fashion you choose. Those who disagree with you can always create their own blog.
Now if you somehow prevented someone from expressing their views on their own blogs, that would be preventing them from free speech.
Provided of course they weren’t using their blog to cause harm to person’s or property. Then you could use their blog as proof in court that they caused you harm.
This is one way in which free speech should be unfettered. let those who wish to use their free speech to cause harm be accountable.
Thanks, Bruce, for another thoughtful post. You are right – freedom of speech is not absolute, and it does come with responsibilities. I’d far prefer to see you spend your time writing interesting Linux and open source-related articles rather than wasting your time being a referee and monitor of a thread that’s going nowhere!
Best Regards,
Barbara
I agree you have every right to close down comments on your own blog, but I disagree with what seems to be the primary reason you think you have that right; namely the legislation which limits the freedom of speech.
I think your “justification” as it were doesn’t have to have anything to do with that. It has everything to do with the fact that this blog is your property or property rented to you (assuming you’re using rented hosting) and just like you can have house rules in your own house you can have rules on your own blog, as well as the right to do with it as you please.
So those who claim it is censorship to close the comments are claiming that their right to speak trumps your right to your own property, as if saying that they have the right to come to your house and do whatever they want despite being in your home.
As for free speech limiting legislation I personally don’t believe in their necessity and morality, but that’s another topic. Government and private property are two different things.
When I mentioned legislation that limits freedom of speech, I wasn’t necessarily endorsing any of that legislation. The truth is, I have reservations about some of that legislation — but, then, I also have reservations about asserting property rights. However, both prove the point I was really making: That the idea that freedom of speech is unlimited is not supported by many people.
I think people need to understand that freedom has its limits i.e when one person’s freedom starts to infringe on his neighbor’s freedom.
Bruce, if a guest at my dinner party was rude or obnoxious, I would not invite them again.
Your blog is YOUR dinner party, and you have every right to withdraw the invitation to participate.
It honestly feels like it comes to two things: a sense of entitlement and hiding behind Internet anonymity. People are going to shout “Censorship!!” when it really doesn’t apply, then they backpedal saying, “Oh, it’s really just a moral/ethical issue…soooo…how dare you!?!?!?!?!”
Let me be blunt, then, and please allow me the use of all caps for more impact:
GET
OVER
IT!!
It’s not YOUR site and it’s certainly not your right to lay a guilt trip barely masked as faux moral high ground on someone when they take control of their own site!
GET
OVER
YOURSELF!!
You are not entitled, at all, to have everyone listen to your drivel, and you are most certainly not entitled to force someone to carry your drivel on their site.
Whew! I feel better. 🙂
Bruce, like we said in the Army, “Drive on, soldier! Drive on!”