Hillary’s View on Dissent . . .
. . . appears to be that she doesn’t like it.
It’s hard to tell for sure, though, whether Hillary’s people are deleting this fellow’s comments just because they make Hillary look bad — or because the commenter has genuinely done something that deserves a banning. Because sometimes people really deserve to be banned. I don’t ban people here for having an opposing viewpoint, but I do have to ban people at times for inappropriate language or personal attacks. Did the fellow described in the piece deserve his banning(s)? I don’t know, because we don’t get to see any of his comments.
Nor, I suspect, are the other candidates’ sites likely much different; my guess is that anything but a rah-rah attitude will get you the old heave-ho at just about any candidate’s site.
And that’s a problem. Bush has received criticism — much of it valid — for insulating himself from opposing viewpoints. Those who seek to replace him, I think, should show they’re willing to take on the opposition. A campaign blog that is open to dissent would be a good start.
“Speaking truth to power” is now forbidden by Hillary.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 12/23/2007 @ 10:54 pmI wonder how many years it will take for Dan Rather to be outraged?
Sorry, but why shouldn’t a candidate and his/her webmasters have the right to control what goes on their official forums and website? Patterico, you’re about the only major conservative blog that doesn’t have a pre-screening process for comments. Does that mean all conservatives are against free speech? Of course not, but as private entities, they have the right to control the amount of dissent, if any, that they want on their own webspace.
If Hillary, or any candidate, banned all four-letter cuss words, would you be able to make a generalization that said candidate is going to scrub all speech when he/she gets into power? Of course not.
My problem is when a candidate tries to exert control over a forum outside of their ownership…say, GQ Magazine…which the Clintons allegedly have done. But I don’t bear any grudge against someone who doesn’t want to deal with trolls on their own website.
Mike (8e0e3b) — 12/23/2007 @ 11:17 pmAs Patterico says, we don’t know what the comments that led to the bannings contained. If they were facts based comments that made the candidate look bad, the other commenters or a moderator should have been able to deal with the comments without banning. Banning suggests dodging issues. Wild assed conspiracy theories, unsourced allegations and other junk are potentially another matter.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/23/2007 @ 11:48 pmImagine a womans scorn?
Imagine attempting to curtail foul language?
The online world is full of some real Azzholes! Most of which don’t care who or what they be talking about as well.
But it is rare that the need to pass a message requires foul language for such. If it does, there are many real words that can be found that most will not read as foul, but the message may be just a s foul.
I’m sure that hillary does not enjoy that I continue to post this site about her and her husband, but I do and do so at every opportunity. Because no matter how much is truth it still points out how closely she needs watching. That and can a lepoard change its spots?
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/politics.html
TC (1cf350) — 12/24/2007 @ 3:49 amIf you search for his username at Her site, you can see a few of the comments in Google’s cache. The ones I looked at were not offensive, and it doesn’t seem like the other ones would be either. While site owners certainly have a right to block dissent, that doesn’t mean that it’s a good thing to do for PR reasons. And, in my experience it’s an admission that their arguments are fragile and they know it.
On Youtube, most candidates moderate their comments, including Rudy and Hillary. Oddly enough, John Edwards doesn’t. OTOH, a Kucinich comment I left was deleted. And, CNN/Youtube deleted a response I left about their last “debate”:
youtube.com/watch?v=nIbDAVQMKGM
The long list of sites that have deleted my comments or banned me starts at the link.
My trail (08032f) — 12/24/2007 @ 2:55 pmI don’t know that editing of a campaign website’s comments indicate much.
However, the Clinton’s reaction to criticism and dissent during the two presidential terms of Bill Clinton show no reason to think that they were any more welcoming of criticism/dissent then. The claims that the Bush administration is somehow especially adverse to dissent is just based on a blindness of history more than anything else.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/24/2007 @ 7:23 pmMike, I see you don’t go to Powerline, Townhall, or Ace of Spades, or several other large right wing blogs. Where exactly are you going?
Headhunt23 (a177d4) — 12/25/2007 @ 6:43 pm