A Not-So-Hypothetical Hypothetical: Let Your Voice Be Heard on What Should Happen to This Commenter
Assume that a commenter (let’s call him “jmaharry”) comes onto a blog and calls the owner (call him “Patterico”) a liar right out of the gate. The commenter is quickly exposed for making numerous false statements. When challenged, the commenter disappears from the thread, and never admits the false and clueless nature of his statements.
The commenter returns at other times to call the host a liar. Despite the commenter’s invective, the host tries to be patient, because he actively cultivates opposing viewpoints on his site, as long as they are civil.
The commenter disappears for a period of time. He has still never admitted or retracted the numerous false statements he made in the first post he commented on.
Then, after a period of time, however, the commenter returns, using a different name. He tells no-one that he is the same person.
He suggests that the host has a history of dishonesty.
The host calls him out for being too cowardly to make the accusation under the name he used before, which is the name other commenters know him by.
As an excuse, the commenter pleads that he has received threatening phone calls and e-mails from other of the host’s commenters. Ergo, he had no choice but to change his name.
The host suspects that this is a fabrication by the commenter, to justify changing his name. Although the commenter has contacted the host by e-mail before, at no time in the past had the commenter e-mailed the host to say that the commenter had been threatened by the host’s other commenters. Nor had the commenter left any comments to that effect. The first time that the commenter mentioned the alleged threats was as an excuse for coming on the host’s blog under a different name than the one the commenter had always used before.
But the host offers the commenter a chance to substantiate his charge. If the commenter proves his charge, the threatening commenters will be banned.
The commenter repeatedly refuses to substantiate his charge.
What should be done with such a person? If he’s banned, he will whine about the host banning people of opposing viewpoints (not true). If he’s not banned, the host must remind readers of the commenter’s checkered history every time he comments. After a while it eats up too much time.
Suggestions?
UPDATE: Banned. (But with a caveat.)
Create a label/warning/disclaimer for problematic commentators and add it to the beginning of each of their comments.
great unknown (71415b) — 5/24/2006 @ 7:43 amSome suggestions: “This commentator has a record of presenting extreme and unsubstantiated statements as fact.” Or, how about, “I think this guy is a chronic liar and/or delusional.”
You might be able to color code these flags (yellow = somewhat suspect, orange = makes Kos nervous, red = too dishonest to work for the LADT).
Maybe there is an editing program that will automatically edit out any words deemed unacceptable, resulting in, e. g., Patterico is a banana and is full of bananas, etc. I must say Mr. P. has a lot more patience than I would have with this sort of thing.
dchamil (ede441) — 5/24/2006 @ 7:45 amPfft! Easy!
Castration followed by a nice braising in red wine and veal stock.
heldmyw (a999cd) — 5/24/2006 @ 7:53 amAx the a**hole!!. He doesn’t add value to the discussion, he’s useless!!
Ron Olliff (096a64) — 5/24/2006 @ 7:57 amdon’t feed internet trolls! if you ignore them, they’ll eventually go away. instead, you put his name up in lights. this was the biggest thing that happened to him all day, he craves this sort of attention, it’s a validation of his insecure psyche. you can ban usernames and ip addresses, but i don’t think you can ban actual users.
assistant devil's advocate (755c03) — 5/24/2006 @ 8:00 ami am confused on one point. in maharry’s post #9 on the link, reference is made to threats to the author’s husband and dogs, yet you continue to use the masculine pronoun in reference to this author. is jmaharry 1) party to a gay marriage, 2) attempting to misdirect you regarding gender, or 3) victim of pronoun misuse?
jmaharry should know that if his/her username is derivative of his/her real name, anybody can go into zabasearch or one of the other stalker services and post the real name, address and phone number right here. as a chronic amusement deficit sufferer, i will go to great lengths to generate laughs. if jmaharry doesn’t want this to happen, his/her best course is not to respond to my post, and definitely not to attack me.
Ban the idiot. And you should take my advice because I am as ambivalent as Cyndi Smallwood.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 5/24/2006 @ 8:39 amGive your commenters more credit. If you have time to rebut the idiot, then do so. If you don’t, don’t sweat it. The people who comment here regularly do more than a fair job of policing the comments themselves, don’t they?
Joan (1f3f15) — 5/24/2006 @ 8:43 amAnd what’s up with how she spells her name? Is she an ex-dancer or something?
chris (be49db) — 5/24/2006 @ 8:45 amIgnore him. Or ban him. Your choice.
Don’t let ’em get your goat Patterico.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 5/24/2006 @ 8:50 amBan him. Lying commenters are like wiregrass in your lawn. They suck up resources and clutter up the dialogue.
craig henry (ad142f) — 5/24/2006 @ 8:55 amI vote to allow the comment abuser to stay. These folks are ultimately their own worst enemy — I think they should feel free continue to display their Folly (including clueless lies) for the amusement of all.
Ann (cc9923) — 5/24/2006 @ 9:01 amDo you really care about his whining? If so, let him stay, otherwise conserve the bandwidth.
Boss429 (4ce8ec) — 5/24/2006 @ 9:37 amJust make sock-puppetry a bannable offense. Allow commentors to remain “anonymous” under a single pseudonym only.
Offer a one-time amnesty. Let him (and any others) choose one more pseudonym and stick to it or be banned. (But don’t allow any illegal immigrants from other blogs! :P)
If you try to ban based on lying… well, forget it. Just hold commentors responsible to their posts by making them stick to one consistent pseudonym (or their real name, if they so choose.. but not both separately!)
And if he’s getting threats, tell him the FBI is listed in the phone book and the internet tends to be a mighty interstate kind of place so they probably have jurisdiction. (If not, I’m sure they can advise him… or her… or Fido.)
Oh, and should any commentors be teamed such that they do share the same IP, allow them to so advise you BEFORE they start posting under separate pseudonyms from the same IP. I doubt that happens terribly often.
Dan S (191b32) — 5/24/2006 @ 9:38 amI’m sorry, I missed the part of the Constitution that says people have to have some extended due process and solicitation of public comments before they lose their fundamental right to comment on your blog.
Dude, just ban the guy. You can tell us why if you feel like it, or maybe he just…goes away. Will he be missed? Will his lies be missed? Will your constant reminders that he is an unethical and recalcitrant liar every time he comments be missed?
I think you know the answer.
See-Dubya (afdbd2) — 5/24/2006 @ 10:00 amBan him, and never think of him again. He’s not worth the effort necessary to argue with him. What’s that old saying… “Never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time, and annoys the pig.” This pig isn’t worth the time.
HD Wanderer (dc60da) — 5/24/2006 @ 10:01 amSuspend him until he either substantiates his statements and alleged threats or retracts the statements and allegations.
Stu707 (18fdc8) — 5/24/2006 @ 10:12 amI say just ignore the troll. He mainly craves attention, but cannot get it in the 3-D world around him. So he shouts in cyber-rooms like this one. As long as he doesn’t use profanity, etc., then let him go and he’ll get tired of not being the center of attention. And besides, “Patterico’s Posse” will take care of him.
Bill Schumm (33ab73) — 5/24/2006 @ 10:19 amI mean, come on, even the ACLU is cracking down on what their members can say.
See-Dubya (afdbd2) — 5/24/2006 @ 10:21 amGet a horse and horsewhip him.
N. O'Brain (5deb6d) — 5/24/2006 @ 10:27 amOption 1: Ban him. He libeled every person who comments here by claiming one or more threatened him. Thus, his comments are offensive to both host and patrons.
Option 2: The internet is premised on free-wheeling dialogue. If you want to avoid banning commenters, consider putting a permanent advisory at the beginning of each comments section warning about specific commenters and any requirements for comments (no sockpuppets on the same thread, no bad language, etc.).
DRJ (60b1d3) — 5/24/2006 @ 10:28 amI would say that all points of view would be welcome as long they are civil. Once civility has been abandoned, simply ban the commentor and worry no more forever. It’s not worth the effort to police someone elses comments.
SciFiJim (0f996d) — 5/24/2006 @ 10:38 amBAN ! call the IRS on him , castrate him, Teepee his house,and unplug his electric car.[sarc]
builder (c426b0) — 5/24/2006 @ 10:51 amIf you could put an icon of a troll in each of his posts, I’d say let him hang around.
Bob_K (e05609) — 5/24/2006 @ 10:55 amBarring that, bar him. He’s not worth the effort.
Let him stay, but make his comments nearly impossible to see by displaying the text in a very light gray color, on the white background.
Wesson (c20d28) — 5/24/2006 @ 11:01 amToy with him (her). Create a penalty box for the IP’s of trolls and invite everyone to flame away.
Perhaps make a game of it – you know, guess the troll’s identity and win a subscription to the LA Times.
Let’s think creatively. There must be some way to harness troll power for useful purposes…
TakeFive (2bf7bd) — 5/24/2006 @ 11:26 amIf I have read my Site Meter correctly, the subject is posting from Santa Monica (or the area, incorporated or unincorporated, that Site Meter calls Santa Monica). Does Santa Monica have a jail, prison or insane asylum that allows internet access? That could explain a lot.
nk (956ea1) — 5/24/2006 @ 12:51 pmMark this episode: Fun with fascists!
I especially liked the horse whipping quip, as I have worked to create, fund, promote and finance the largest ranch in the country for displaced horses. (See the site I created here: http://www.wildhorsesinneed.org/)
Thanks, everyone, for the laughs. Your impotent sputtering and foaming, and your invective, have been preserved for my scrapbook.
The obfuscation of what I originally wrote yesterday is very nearly complete. What I originally wrote was quite sensible and, as alway, was factully unerring.
It’s my first time being Swift-Boated by, who else:
Paterick Fay, Prevaricator.
Beware: The email bomb will soon drop.
jmaharry (74c3ec) — 5/24/2006 @ 12:51 pmThese are so fun!
You know how they host contests like “Faux Faulkner” where you try to write in the style of a famous writer? Patterico should have a contest where everyone tries to comment in the style of jmaharry. Whoever gets the closest wins a weekend in Atascadero or something.
JVW (d667c9) — 5/24/2006 @ 1:07 pmjmaharry,
If you have been threatened repeatedly by phone and email, why would you provide such an easy way for people to find your company contact information by providing that link?
This doesn’t add up….
John Ekdahl (1fe18c) — 5/24/2006 @ 1:18 pm#29. Because my anonymity, as it was, was already blown apart by:
Paterick Fay
Prevaricator.
No need to rely on the anonymity that every other commenter on this site enjoys, since our host has laid out my personal details for alll to see
BTW, threats were not repeated. Nice try, though. Perhaps you could contribute to the horses.
jmaharry (74c3ec) — 5/24/2006 @ 1:36 pmYou said:
You make it perfectly clear that this was not an isolated incident. How would my description of you being “threatened repeatedly” be unfair?
John Ekdahl (1fe18c) — 5/24/2006 @ 1:54 pmjmaharry is catnip.
Why would any site disposed to unmasking unbalanced lefty’s (I’m one, after all) forgo the opportunity to pity and caricaturize one regularly?
steve (f8c5a5) — 5/24/2006 @ 1:56 pmI don’t get it either. I had no clue (nor did I care) who you were until you posted that url. If you felt so threatened, why would you apparently remove all doubt as to your identity. Of course I take you at your word that you are legitimately affiliated with this organization.
This kind of reminds me of that nutty teacher in Claremont that spray painted her own car with racial epitaphs so she could self-righteously denounce racism and proclaim how brave she was to stand up to the hate mongers. In the end though, she was just a delusional nut looking for a purpose in life.
Domain Name:WILDHORSESINNEED.ORG
TakeFive (2bf7bd) — 5/24/2006 @ 2:12 pmCreated On:19-Dec-2003 17:06:10 UTC
Last Updated On:15-Dec-2005 20:49:10 UTC
Expiration Date:19-Dec-2006 17:06:10 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Go Daddy Software, Inc. (R91-LROR)
Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:GODA-04859065
Registrant Name:Jean Marie Webster
Registrant Organization:Wild Horses In Need
Registrant Street1:PO Box 824
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Solvang
Registrant State/Province:California
Registrant Postal Code:93464
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.8056887016
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:jaclk@aol.com
It’s racial epithet, not “epitaph.”
This outing impulse has become a mania.
steve (f8c5a5) — 5/24/2006 @ 2:33 pmPatterico:
The Big Lizards policy in such cases is not only to ban such persons but to make them “unpersons”: that is, to go back through all the comments and delete every comment the offender ever made on the blog.
After a bit of work, not only does he cease to exist, he never existed at all.
I’ve only had to do it once.
Dafydd
Dafydd (6e94cd) — 5/24/2006 @ 2:48 pmBan him.
Kneave Riggall (afd381) — 5/24/2006 @ 2:53 pmThis outing impulse has become a mania.
But this was a case of self-outing, and apparently fictional threats. Why?
TakeFive (2bf7bd) — 5/24/2006 @ 2:54 pmPublishing my client’s personal contact information. Another item for Seve Cooley to think about.
jmaharry (74c3ec) — 5/24/2006 @ 2:59 pmIt’s a no brainer for me. If I were you I would have banned her after the initial posting.
Ban.
RLS (0516f0) — 5/24/2006 @ 3:00 pmOk, let’s have a show of hands . . . everyone that believes jmaharry when he calls Patterico a liar. . . .
no one?
So, Patterico, why are you keeping this alive? Ban him if you want; it is your site, after all. But even if you’ll spend bandwidth on him, please don’t dignify his attacks by paying a tribute measured in the currency of your spare time . . . it’s a bit painful to watch, you know?
TNugent (6128b4) — 5/24/2006 @ 3:07 pmWould it take much effort to use a significantly smaller font for the offender’s comments ? Sorta have the character size match the character …
Alasdair (0c1945) — 5/24/2006 @ 3:08 pmWould it take much effort to use a significantly smaller font for the offender’s comments ? Sorta have the character size match the character …
Why post it if you’re going to make it so small you can’t read it?
RLS (0516f0) — 5/24/2006 @ 3:17 pmBan him. Life is too short to tolerate this kind of mean and chronic mischief. But if you choose not to ban, put him on “probation,” with a link to each of his new posts describing his history of childishness.
Robert (ce3de3) — 5/24/2006 @ 3:33 pmPublishing my client’s personal contact information. Another item for Seve Cooley to think about.
I don’t think he’ll return your emails if you call him “Seve”.
Anyway, here’s the Agent for Service for Network Solutions:
Service Provider: Network Solutions, LLC
Designated Agent: Woodrow Jones
Address to Which Notification Should Be Sent: 13861 Sunrise Valley Drive, Herndon, Va 20171
Telephone Number: 1-703-668-5505
Facsimile Number: 1-703-668-5959
E-Mail: wjones@networksolutions.com
Once you get them to remove that pesky whois lookup, see if you can get the Google free speech filter implemented.
TakeFive (2bf7bd) — 5/24/2006 @ 3:36 pmDid he/she ever specify what was lied about? Any
btorrez (bbda7f) — 5/24/2006 @ 3:43 pmdetails? If there were specifics my sense is that Patterico would have responded in detail outlining his position as he has done on a number of other occasions under different circumbstances. Anyone can make any charges they want. It sounds like bs as far as the threats are concerned. I think you are dealing with somone who is not playing fair and I say give them one more chance and if the mendacity continues ban them.
jmaharry – is that you with the horses? Your a handsome woman.
http://jesmaharry.com/
TakeFive (2bf7bd) — 5/24/2006 @ 4:03 pmBan him. He is contributing nothing to the conversation.
Let him whine, elsewhere, about how badly you’ve treated him. He’ll lie about you anyway.
Stephen M. St. Onge (0a341f) — 5/24/2006 @ 4:47 pmDesperate cry for attention. BTW there is a good market for horses in Montreal. Not bad with pommes frits and gravy.
Gbear (95d12a) — 5/24/2006 @ 5:35 pmBan Him.There is nothing of worth in what he contributes.He evidently believes he’s in a contest where his petty dishonesty is forgiven because of the larger good he promotes.I don’t agree with that.This is not a gadfly.It’s a pissant
Lincoln (85bda1) — 5/24/2006 @ 5:47 pmPublishing my client’s personal contact information. Another item for Seve Cooley to think about.
Comment by jmaharry — 5/24/2006 @ 2:59 pm
You revealed it, you jerk. And you are the only one with any duty of confidentiality about your client’s information.
nk (54c569) — 5/24/2006 @ 6:17 pmPublishing my client’s personal contact information. Another item for Seve Cooley to think about.
Thanks for helping me make up my mind. You’re banned.
I was going to do the suspension thing, until you threatened my job.
Tell you what, though. Your comments will still appear in moderation. If you ever post a comment that substantiates your charges of threats by my commenters, I’ll approve it. That way, you can’t claim that I banned you to prevent you from providing the evidence.
Other than that, or an admission that the charges were false, your comments will not see the light of day on this blog. And since you will never post either, I think we’re done with you.
Goodbye.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 5/24/2006 @ 6:17 pmThis outing impulse has become a mania.
steve, can you read? jmaharry posted the URL himself. Because he was so worried about having his personal information posted, which was why he couldn’t substantiate his phony charges.
“I can’t prove my claims of being threatened because I will only get threatened more. Also, here is a URL to a site with more personal information about me.”
Whatever.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 5/24/2006 @ 6:25 pmGood call, Patterico. I agree with the posters who said that jmaharry adds nothing of value to the conversation (well, excluding amusement).
mh (952a36) — 5/24/2006 @ 6:53 pmi am confused on one point. in maharry’s post #9 on the link, reference is made to threats to the author’s husband and dogs, yet you continue to use the masculine pronoun in reference to this author. is jmaharry 1) party to a gay marriage, 2) attempting to misdirect you regarding gender, or 3) victim of pronoun misuse?
I know it’s a man because he e-mailed me and told me his name. Which I do not believe I have ever disclosed. I figure the bit about a husband is a reflexive lie. After a while it becomes habitual.
But the outing is a mania, according to steve. Even though I know this fool’s name and never published it — and the only one who provided clues to it, was the guy himself.
A *mania*, I tells ya!
Patterico (50c3cd) — 5/24/2006 @ 7:12 pm“But the outing is a mania, according to steve. Even though I know this fool’s name and never published it — and the only one who provided clues to it, was the guy himself.” – Patterico
And before the URL was posted, the commentariat was in exuberant gumshoe mode:
“If I have read my Site Meter correctly, the subject is posting from Santa Monica (or the area, incorporated or unincorporated, that Site Meter calls Santa Monica)…” Comment by nk — 5/24/2006 @ 12:51 pm
Is there a point to disclosing someone’s workplace location other than to intimidate?
Cyber banning as melodrama may become a hot ticket blog accessory. Along with toying with the unhinged commenter before execution.
Which, I admit, he deserved.
steve (f8c5a5) — 5/24/2006 @ 7:26 pmAnn got it right:
I’d suggest that you dump his IP address into the automatic moderation queue; that way you’ll see his comments before you allow them to be posted on the site, and are ready to respond quickly.
Dana (a90377) — 5/24/2006 @ 7:28 pmDan S wrote:
Uhhh, that happens more frequently than you might imagine. If a commenter is accessing the internet via AOL, his IP address will show up as one of AOL’s batch of addresses. The Liberal Avenger thought that I was engaged in sock-puppetry, because a commenter he found rather obnoxious (and who doesn’t write like I do at all) had teh same I address. Doing some checking, I found that seven people who are commenters on my site, all of whom use AOL, had the same IP address!
Dana (a90377) — 5/24/2006 @ 7:33 pmSteve, #55:
If you could please read my whole comment. Santa Monica is a big place, I believe. I also asked about jails, prisons and insane asylums. I was not threatening — I was questioning the subject’s motives and command of his faculties for his vitriolic attacks. And then, the jerk, on his own volition, gave his and his client’s information away.
As for “workplace location” we also know that now because he revealed it. For all I knew before that it could have been a public library, internet cafe, jail, prison or insane asylum hundreds of miles from his workplace or home.
nk (4cd0c2) — 5/24/2006 @ 7:44 pm“Santa Monica is a big place, I believe…
…I was not threatening” – nk
Understood. A selfless oracle.
Like Al Gore.
steve (f8c5a5) — 5/24/2006 @ 7:53 pmDana,
I had no idea AOL worked that way. That’s…primitive!
But I should have known. I know there is always small odds of some bottlenecks at firewalls and such, but I figured this blog’s audience and commentor pool isn’t THAT large. I’m not even sure AOL would be that much of a problem around here.
I figure most people who hang around these parts are more sophisticated than that! 😛
Dan S (191b32) — 5/24/2006 @ 8:12 pmI don’t spend a lot of time reading remarks from the types of [unnamed] posters to which you are referring, so it’s no skin off my nose either way. However, I’d look at it this way if I were you.
1. “It’s my house, and I find you an unpleasant guest; there’s the door.”
2. “I’m a busy guy and people like you reduce the fun running a blog. Since I’m doing this for my own satisfaction – don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”
[I think there’s a Doors theme in here somewhere… maybe it’s “When you’re strange, No one remembers your name”?]
Regret (27245e) — 5/24/2006 @ 8:30 pmIs there a way to selectively hold comments for approval? That way a type of probation could be imposed. You could let comments through if there is any merit to them at all, e.g., a comment which makes him look particularly stupid or if he accidentally makes a valid point which reinforces one of yours. The rest of his mad-cap ravings could be flushed.
The approval process would of course mean that his comments would not appear right away which would probably drive him crazy — oh well. He’s the bad kid in class so it shouldn’t be a surprise that he doesn’t get to go on the field trip.
Pauli (d46168) — 5/24/2006 @ 9:24 pmRegret – ISTM that the only way to get commenters to approach their commenting privilige with the respect they would show as houseguests is to enforce rules when people cross the line. It’s unfortunate, but sometimes it has to be done (and I say this in the knowledge that the website I am most prominently associated with should have done a better job of it).
Patterico, congratulations: you were fair and above board in your handling of this, and you did the right thing.
aphrael (e7c761) — 5/24/2006 @ 9:25 pmBan him. You’re thinking about this way too much.
Brian (1ed943) — 5/24/2006 @ 10:01 pmAt first I agreed with commenter #16’s idea for suspension. But after comment #27 where the troll threatens you with an “email bomb”, banning was the right choice. Plus the threat may warrant ratting the troll out to the feds.
Brad (72af5b) — 5/24/2006 @ 10:22 pmIf responding to such idiots actually takes away from other substantive blogging – I vote for the BAN! Since this post spells out the detailed reasons for it, it wouldn’t hurt your credibility in any way.
Justin Levine (d8da01) — 5/25/2006 @ 1:24 amOne of the reasons I love this blog is because Patterico has always been fair and treats his posters like adults by letting them say (pretty much) what they will on this board and take whatever lumps come their way as a result.
Banning jmaharry doesn’t bother me, however, after the recent obnoxious ad hominem attacks. Typically, I oppose such things (I was banned from a blog for being against illegal immigration, for instance, because the host said I was “racist,” “evil,” and “hated Latinos” when I had never said anything meriting any of those labels), but, in this case, the poster has gone well beyond the bounds of civility. Not to mention the fact that you warned him repeatedly about his behavior.
sharon (fecb65) — 5/25/2006 @ 4:02 amIf you do decide to ban him, I won’t bother coming back to this otherwise excellent blog.
The purpose of free and open comments is to prove that speech, more speech, and still more speech, is how one discerns the truth.
We commenters are not so stupid that we can’t spot the dolts among us; so, you won’t be protecting US from HIM, you’ll only be protecting your own sensibilities.
You should be above that.
Let the leftys ban people who disagree with them (whether those disagreements are legitimate or not).
RightNumberOne (11dd90) — 5/25/2006 @ 5:10 amI agree that Patterico has been more than generous, even magnanimous, with this commenter and it’s probably time to just ban him. Maybe he could start a “hall of shame” page for banned commenters with a log of all the “second chances” squandered and how he only bans people as a last resort after multiple abuses of the commenting privilege and infractions against civility.
Pauli (d338cd) — 5/25/2006 @ 5:40 amI think jmaharry should be banned. He’s just looking for martyrdom to prove his points as he has no other way to legitimize his lies.
My, for people who are of a legalistic bent, so many do not know what “Free Speech” is and the limitations of it.
First, there is no “Free Speech” here. It is all published on the sufferance of Patterico. On this website he is God, period.
Second, the 1st amendment is only a prohibition against the government from denying speech. Patterico is not the government.
Third, if you need more, you obviously need help understanding the differences between your Constitutional rights and granted privileges.
PCD (6aa617) — 5/25/2006 @ 7:12 amLet the leftys ban people who disagree with them (whether those disagreements are legitimate or not).
You completely misunderstand my purpose in banning him. I do not ban people for disagreeing with me, as you well know. But someone who comes on here under different names, to avoid responsibility for his past comments under other names, who under the new name accuses me of being a liar and threatens my job, while falsely claiming he has always been unerringly accurate in his facts — I think the consensus is that a twit like that is not worth the huge amount of time it takes to deal with him.
With his threat to my job, I agree. Let him prove his false accusations or retract them, or he will not post here again. If I lose you as a reader, RightNumberOne, I’ll regret that. But I ask that you not misunderstand the reason for the ban.
If a guy came on here and linked child porn, or screamed obscenities in capital letters in every comment, you would, I assume, support a ban. So there are situations where banning is appropriate. I think this is one of them.
This is not about disagreements. It’s about behavior that is dishonest, distracting, and time-consuming.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 5/25/2006 @ 7:17 am[…] Read my previous post and comments thereto for the details. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » jmaharry: Banned (421107) — 5/25/2006 @ 7:27 amRightNumberOne – as much as I’m trying, I can’t let that pass unchallenged.
I fall on the center-left on the political spectrum. I have been involved for years in an experiment in online community-building and discussion at http://www.kuro5hin.org, where almost all of the admins are left-of-center, some of them significantly more to the left than I am.
We maintained a “no censorship” policy for as long as we could, out of an ideological commitment to freedom of speech … a policy which led gradually to a coarsening of dialogue and which caused certain people to push to see what the limits are. Limits were finally imposed when some loser photoshopped a picture involving the head of the founder’s wife and the body of a porn star and posted links to it all over the site.
Since then i’ve become an advocate of websites drawing a hard and fast line in the sand against troublemakers.
It’s one thing to say, ideologically, that everyone has a right to the viewpoint of their choice and that it is good for the community if everyone has the freedom to express that viewpoint and the rationale behind it. All liberals with whom I am personally acquainted believe that. But it’s quite another to defend behavior which is clearly intended to do nothing other than degrade and impede conversation, claiming that you do so in order to protect freedom of speech.
I was part of a group of liberals who paid a high price for failing to understand and observe that distinction; and I find your dismissive comment about leftys banning those who disagree to (a) demonstrate failure to understand the situation actually under discussion, and (b) to be offensive in the broadness with which it paints all leftists using the same brush.
aphrael (e7c761) — 5/25/2006 @ 9:30 amPCD – you are of course correct that the 1st amendment does not require private website owners to allow people to post whatever they want. I very much doubt there is a person here who thinks that it does.
But it doesn’t strike me as being an unreasonable philosophy to hold that a website open for public discussion should be tolerant of different viewpoints, and that it is a seperate “good” for that website to allow its users freedom of speech.
I think there should be some limits on it, for reasons expressed in my previous post, and I think that the visitors of such websites should be careful to comply with whatever limits their host imposes; but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to argue that there is a benefit to the host choosing to allow a broad “freedom of speech” to his guests. But then again, I’m philosophically in favor of freedom of speech, so I want to see it wherever I can make an argument for it being appropriate. 🙂
aphrael (e7c761) — 5/25/2006 @ 9:48 amI’m all for vigorous and intelligent debate. As long as everyone “plays nice,” there’s really no reason to have to ban anyone, regardless of their opinions (including noxious ones). You’ll never clearly understand the other side (or sides) of an issue until you spend time talking with its advocates (such as the enlightening abortion debate we had here a while back).
In this case, however, it seems that we had someone who never intended to have reasonable or intellectual discourse, but just wanted to spew venom. This is probably one of the few areas I agree with Aphrael on. 😉 It’s unfortunate that boards just can’t expect everyone to act like reasonable adults.
sharon (fecb65) — 5/25/2006 @ 6:18 pm