Defending Free Speech in the Moronosphere
No one has been more vigilant than Scenty in defending the rights of bloggers to speak their minds (as long as they’re not spewing Islamopoopynazidimmitude). To that end he lifted comment moderation on the Scented Litterbox to, as he put it, facilitate “discussion”. I guess even Scenty dimly realized there was a bit of a conceptul gap between pretending to be a free speech warrior and not allowing anyone to disagree with you.
Well, Peter and I have been doing our bit to make the moronosphere a better place by policing the Scented Litterbox for the benefit of his readers. And we certainly helped them a lot. Among the many egregious errors we saved them from believing during our brief stint of public service:
- a year old report on an impending US invasion of Iran which Scenty breathlessly mistook for a news release;
- a hilariously unsourced, unproven climate change piece which Scenty’s readership thought was real science;
- a joke by Glen Beck on Hillary Clinton’s “racism” which poor Scenty actually mistook for a serious editorial;
- Scenty’s assertion that a group of fundamentalists disrupting a gay celebreation were arrested “just for silent prayer!!!”
All this editorial assistance – absolutely free, mind you! – In just a couple of weeks. Well, you’d have a thought a thank you note would be in order from Steve…maybe even a nice bottle of wine for bringing up the tone of his blog. But the funniest thing began to happen. Our free speech warrior – that tower of strength who caved into to Warren Kinsella, but came creeping back when the all-clear sounded – that staunch defended of the rights of oppressed bloggers – started to censor our corrections. Little notes like this began to appear, over our names:
Deleted. Evasion. Game playing. Ditto the other one. -Ed
Deleted. Hostile. Entitlist to a disturbing extreme. -Ed
Deleted. Off-topic, irrelevant and trollish. -Ed
And my favourite, after I suggested that he had been editing my posts:
Liar. I have not edited your comments. Besides, this is a private blog, not the public.
This last was directly under post of mine from which he had removed my comment, and added the line
Yes, censoring again. Fascist that I am. What do you expect? -Ed
It’s been a weird old week among the URQs: Kate McMillan’s slapdown and meltdown, Kathy Shaidle’s sudden Declaration of Hate Pride, Mike Brock’s peculiar decision to play lawyer and tangle with the grownups. But Scenty, as alway, deserves a special mention whenever the stupidity and hypocrisy of the moronosphere is tallied up.
Have a good weekend, y’all, I’m off to Montreal for some non bloggy time.
It has been quite the week hasn’t it?
Scenty is well, Scenty.
You could see the McMillan incident coming a mile away. It was only a matter of time.
As for Brock, I truly felt sorry for him but not because Kinsella misquoted him – hell, he does that to everyone. Brock’s amateur lawyer response to him was painful to read and some of his musings about it afterward were like pouring gasoline on himself while he was sitting next to a campfire. Free speech supporter or not, some things are truly better left unsaid.
When are you going to bring back Con-u-copia?
That’s what I want to know.
I’m still trying to figure out what entlitist means.
Scenty is a bonafide joke and people like him and Kate don’t seem to understand their hypocrisy. Scenty thinks it’s OK to censor privately, but not in public. Kate thinks the media should be unbiased, but not her. Whatever gets them thru the day. Chomsky talks about the principle of universality – whatever you expect of others, you must expect more of yourself. Pretty basic stuff, but they can’t grasp it.
I think that while what happened to Kate is sweet justice, it can’t help but add to her cause (which I think is – I can be as racist and stupid as I want) and all but make those who flock to her site everyday more proud of her. Fucked up ain’t it?
It’s a brand of golf ball, isn’t it?
“I’m still trying to figure out what entlitist means.”
That’s someone who gets up in his high tree and looks down his trunk at everyone else, silly!
It has been a very entertaining week, hasn’t it? And that was without even one mention of Thomas Beatie! Are they saving him for next week?
As for Brock, I truly felt sorry for him but not because Kinsella misquoted him – hell, he does that to everyone. Brock’s amateur lawyer response to him was painful to read and some of his musings about it afterward were like pouring gasoline on himself while he was sitting next to a campfire. Free speech supporter or not, some things are truly better left unsaid.
Yeah, well, it wasn’t exactly meant to be a “lawyer response”. It was meant to be incredibly formal, but of a personal nature. I knew exactly what without prejudice meant, and I used it appropriately. It meant that I did not intend the e-mail to be used in any legal proceeding henceforth. That’s what I meant.
On the other hand, it was not my expectation that Dickhead Supreme would publish my e-mail, which of course, was the second of the series.
Warren Kinsella is an asshole. Like most bullies, he backpedaled and amended his post, when he was challenged. I had every intention of going forward.
However, all of my friends, and many others bloggers privately confided in me not to go through with it. Some thought it would send the “wrong message” about my position on free speech, others though it was simply a waste of time on a pitiful excuse for a man.
After seeing Warren start to backtrack, and in light of all of these suggestions for me to back down, I’ve decided not to proceed.
It’s nice to see my suspicions confirmed, that you people take pride and joy in seeing people whom you disagree with, be character assassinated. What’s honestly beyond my comprehension, is that the only guy on the left, who thought I had a bloody point, was Ti-Guy.
You know, when push has come to shove, and I thought things have gotten excessively personal, I have taken the time to e-mail people and try and bring things down to a “human level”. I’ve done this with Balbulican, I’ve done this with you TH, I’ve done it with many people I disagree with. Why? Because I don’t like things to become personal. That’s not who I am.
But what I’ve realized about assholes like Balbulican, is that they’ll turn around and make things personal anyways.
So if you wonder why the Right vs. Left blogsophere is so far beyond productive dialogue, look in a mirror.
What’s honestly beyond my comprehension, is that the only guy on the left, who thought I had a bloody point, was Ti-Guy.
I know! Weird, huh?
…next time you go a-vindicatin’, make sure you understand actions have consequences.
“It’s nice to see my suspicions confirmed, that you people take pride and joy in seeing people whom you disagree with, be character assassinated. ”
I wonder who you mean by “you people”?
You wrote an email in mock-lawyerese, and you got your ass handed to you by a guy whose better at that game than you are. “Character assassinated”? Naw. You pulled a bit of a boner, and some people are now laughing at you. Get over it.
“But what I’ve realized about assholes like Balbulican, is that they’ll turn around and make things personal anyways.”
Mike, you really want to be taken seriously as a blogger? Knock off the juvenile, petulant insults. I sincerely don’t care, personally: but they simply reinforce some of the less positive impressions you’ve created of your own maturity.
“So if you wonder why the Right vs. Left blogsophere is so far beyond productive dialogue, look in a mirror.”
I don’t wonder that at all. The majority of bloggers, left and right, are immature, inarticulate, poorly informed ideologues who rely on borrowed opinions and low-grade trolling skills, and they attract a like minded readership. On some sites, there’s actual dialogue. Stageleft is pretty good that way; so is Candace’s space, and Last Amazon’s and Ghost of a Flea, and several other sites. Your site has its moments, but, as I’ve noted before, you have an unfortunate tendency to go for the cheap expedient of casting a potentially interesting topic in a tedious “left/right” frame (as you’ve attempted to do with the quote above.)
Personally I would have not gone the ‘take that back or I’ll sue you for libel‘ route, especially where Kinsella is concerned – not because he’s a lawyer, but because all it does is draw attention to him.
Points to consider:
[1] If the facts speak for themselves let the facts speak for themselves. I think, had I thought it worthwhile to do so (see point 2), I would have used the blog network itself to rebut Kinsella’s points. First on his site*, then in the greater blogosphere where, and if, (see point 2) they are being discussed.
[2] I’m not sure how many take Kinsella and his blog all that seriously. In making a good libel case you would probably have to prove that he (a) created an opinion, or (b) changed someones opinion, in a way that harmed your reputation. To answer that you would have to determine if the negative value of a Kinsella blog post, or a link from a Kinsella post, in terms of what matters in the real world, is significant. My personal opinion is that it’s probably not that important, read that as I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it.
As for whether or not people may, or may not, take personal pleasure in seeing a blogger being misquoted, misrepresented, and/or dragged through the mud it bears noting (time and time again) that any individual with an opinion that goes against the current social grain, and who has sufficient spine to put that opinion forward, is ultimately going to take heat for it.
– and that’s a simple fact of life none of us can escape.
Grab a bit of a narrower brush there will you Mike, yer painting some excessively broad strokes with the one you got now.
* Yes, there will always be the talking heads who are going to agree with whatever a specific author may say simply because they are adherents and hangers on. That’s the extent of their ability to think, so that’s what they do, and the probable chances of changing that are slim to none – but ya gotta start somewhere don’t cha?
So if you wonder why the Right vs. Left blogsophere is so far beyond productive dialogue, look in a mirror.
You first. BTW, don’t you have another post to write alerting everyone to the horrific “Islamification” of the feminist movement? Then just for fun, you could out all the anonymous commenters who hurt your feelings.
“It’s nice to see my suspicions confirmed, that you people take pride and joy in seeing people whom you disagree with, be character assassinated.”
I’m not sure who you are referring to in that statement but in my case their was neither pride nor joy, only pity. I really didn’t enjoy watching you fall for Kinsella’s trap. The statement he made about your opinion of Aboriginals was obviously designed to elicit a response from you.
I realized by reading your email that Kinsella posted that you were trying to deal with the situation personally, except for the part where you threatened to sue him. He lives for that kind of a situation and the outcome was very predictable.
Forget the asshole and move on. While you are at it, quit the left right generalization foolishness. It’s really dumb and not logical at all.
I was mostly disappointed, because I think there was an opportunity to get Kinsella to retract something, which he might have done easily, since it was a minor point, and as far I know, the facts in this case do speak for themselves.
I was also disappointed because the only point in living is to gain experience to make better judgments in the future, and I really am not seeing a lot of growth here.
I don’t know why that is, really.
“Character assassinated”? Naw.
Yes, actually. He invented some imaginary defense I supposedly had of David Ahenakew’s reinstatement in the FSIN. Since I made no defense, this is defamatory.
Mr. Kinsella did not “hand my ass to me”. I had slam-dunk libel case against him, and he just blinked by amending the post.
Stageleft, the burden of proof is on Kinsella in a defamation case in Ontario to prove what he said was true, not for me to prove that it was not.
Not to mention, Warren Kinsella’s highly immature e-mail to me where he basically says: Oh yeah well, if you sue me for this, I’ll sue you for that.
The bottom line is I had every intention to proceed. Until about 3:00pm yesterday, when I was finally convinced not to.
Absolutely. You were going to give him SUCH a smack, but you heroically controlled yourself and thought the better of it. Uh huh.
If you want to claim the high ground on “maturity”, then refrain from calling folks “assholes”, drop the “aren’t lefties awful” knee-jerk stuff, and don’t claim victory after vacating the field.
I had slam-dunk libel case against him,
Then why aren’t you pursuing it? After all, isn’t about time someone taught that “bully” a lesson?
And if anyone knows about bullies, it’s definitely someone who sees nothing wrong with outing an anonymous commenter and publishing their private information on his blog because said commenter was rude. Pot meet kettle. Kettle, pot.
If you want to claim the high ground on “maturity”, then refrain from calling folks “assholes”, drop the “aren’t lefties awful” knee-jerk stuff, and don’t claim victory after vacating the field.
Then what’s the point of being a YouthQuaking Conserva-Boy? That’s sounds too much like growing up, Balbulican.
I grew up when I realised that prolonging adolescence was really too much work.