People don’t always use the word “censorship” correctly. I’ve experienced this on my own blog when I warn someone to curb their abuse in the comment section and I’m accused of censorship. As any reader of this blog knows, censorship is something I abhor and do not support it under any circumstances. Unlike Kapil Sibal, who IS in fact indulging in censorship though he tries to deny it, I’m against censorship by law or by any government agency.
I’m not against private discretion where people have the right to publish or not to publish anything in their personal space. Every newspaper for example has its own philosophy. The Times of India, is an openly liberal newspaper. They’re also a private company. As such, they have the right to print or not to print anything they like and it wouldn’t be censorship. Those who say that newspapers have a “social responsibility” to publish “just the facts” and to treat all facts equally are simply wrong. Such rules exist only in their own minds.
Similarly, blog owners have every right to allow or disallow certain comments on their blogs – or indeed “prescreen” comments outright. After all, we own our blogs. Our blogs are our private space on the Internet. It’s up to us to decide what kind of experience we want to offer to our readers. If that includes a non-abusive comments section, then that is our prerogative. Equally, a blog owner has every right to NOT moderate comments – though personally I prefer to visit only those blogs which have a certain level of moderation by the author. I expect the blog owner to keep the discussion clean, but that is their choice. If I find the blog owner is not willing to take any interest in promoting a healthy and name-calling free debate, I simply don’t visit that blog anymore.
Look at it another way. When someone comes to your house, you expect them to behave with a certain amount of decency. This is not to mean that they have to agree with everything you say, but etiquette demands that they don’t do something egregious like peeing on your carpet! If you find their behavior obnoxious, you have every right to eject them from your house. This doesn’t mean that you’re “impinging on their freedom”. It simply means that you expect them to behave when they’re in your house. However, no one is preventing them from going to their own house and peeing on the carpet to their heart’s content!
So is the moderation of comments on the blog censorship? No, it isn’t. Censorship relates to the stifling of speech by the government. Demanding decent behavior when a guest is on your property on the other hand is merely an extension of your property rights. No one has unlimited freedom on another person’s private space.
I knew a reader (let’s call him R) who was nasty and abusive when commenting on the blog of a person (let’s call the person A)
The blogger A rightly used moderation to filter out R’s comments.
Blogger A was a controversial person and sometimes expressed rather extreme and outageous views.
The nasty reader R then started a blog of his own solely for posting his comments on A’s blog and widely circulated the blog’s url and invited other readers to read his comments there as the blogger A was “unfairly” blocking him.
This second blog became a sounding board for R and a few other hostile readers who would post nasty, abusive comments on A’s blog at R’s blog.
The second blog did not last long.
It died a natural death.
A’s blog is flourishing.
Regards
GV
In reply to G Vishwanath
And to me, this is the best example of feeders choosing where they want to go. In the marketplace of ideas, the user isn’t stupid and can see for themselves what quality of conversation they want to participate in.
well this is true for people who write on controversial topics and expect different types of comments. But I dont get those bloggers who write very general stuff..mundane daily things or stories and have comment moderation on!
In reply to Reema
Apparently women sometimes receive abusive and harassing comments. Don’t know for sure though whether even those writing about general stuff receive them.
Regardless it is censorship. We can say that those who use profanity clean up their act but if something is censured because the censurer does not agree with what they say that is censorship. Individuals that don’t want to talk to someone or argue should be able to block these person but any information on the internet or opinions should be allowed to be stated. We think that the internet is where we can find out anything but the truth is that those that censure opinions or ideas regardless of our dislike are just allowing what they think is true to be printed. So yes it is very hard to find a website where ideas can freely flow and where people can use the information to decide what they think without the censures disallowing anything that disagree’s with them.
Look at Wikipedia, we seem to have professional censors censoring anything that disagree’s with the company they work for. For example look at any alternative cure for cancer. Someone on Wikipedia will give FDA and AMA and big pharma’s warnings that it doesn’t work or that it is dangerous. I have even seen some cure that the FDA says in studies is harmless yet if it is used they will start to say it is suddenly dangerous. this is funny as the Chemotherapy used by so many has a 1 in three rate of success. Or should I say one in three lives. Whereas there are studies showing that alternative cures have rates of 80% or greater on these same terminally ill patients. I have disagreed without being rude or using swear words and my comments never show up. So what we see online is definitely censored.
Moderation should be to remove swear words and abusive content, however the term ‘abusive’ is stretched to allow political censorship. A person’s post can be removed for ‘offending’ which almost always means ‘not in line with the politics of the blog’.
You cannot defend this kind of obscene censorship. This happens a lot on liberal blogs which tend to tow the establishment or New World Order line. When someone speaks the truth often they get censored no matter how objectively, logically and ad hominem-free their comment.
More and more people are expressing their concern over the increasing political censorship. Nazi Germany, here we go again.
In reply to The Truth
The word “censorship” is used only for government crackdowns of free speech. Let’s say I remove a comment on my blog that’s derailing the discussion. Is anyone preventing the commenter from posting their comment on their own blog? I don’t think so. So it’s not as if free speech is being restricted. Since my blog is my home, I get to decide who I want in my property.
Removal of comments on blogs is not censorship, unless it’s a publicly owned space.
In reply to The Truth
Whether it’s called censorship or not, only allowing one side of a discussion, hurts the credibility of the website doing it.
Even if a reader (and frequent poster) agrees with a site most of the time, occasionally they’re going to see something they disagree with. If they post a critical comment, and it’s removed, their trust in the site to provide them with the FULL conversation is, rightly, diminished.
Re: “This happens a lot on liberal blogs which tend to tow the establishment or New World Order line.” I have seen this both on liberal leaning blogs, and conservative leaning ones. Basically, if you’re views are outside the narrow spectrum they like, your post disappears from the conversation.
In reply to azbz
For me, it depends on the way the criticism is expressed. If you leaf through my blog’s most discussed posts, you’ll see some debates going on for days with dozens of replies and counter replies. I love debate. I thrive on it. In fact, I’d once written a post on how boring it was to have everyone agree with you!
For me, the problem arises when a commenter gets personal. Then it’s no longer fun for me. This blog exists for me to have fun (in a manner of speaking) debating, and thrashing out ideas. For that, I need a pure intellectual conversation where the personalities of the people involved in the debate are irrelevant.
The handful of times that I’ve blocked someone from my blog, it has been because of comments getting personal.
I’m sure you will agree that it’s possible to post a critical comment without getting personal about the author yes?
In reply to bhagwad
First, my comments weren’t directed at your blog (I happened to find this post, and your blog, during Google search for “blogs that censor comments”). I just saw it, and wanted to add my views to the discussion.
I have no problem with blogs removing offensive, abusive, or threatening comments, spam, copyright violations, libelous comments, etc. I also agree a site has a general right to remove comments, if they choose to.
My point is, that sites that present themselves as a forum for open discussion, hurt their own credibility when they start removing comments just based on viewpoint.
In reply to azbz
Oh absolutely. I don’t think anyone would disagree with you on that score.
You are wrong. It is not just the government that inflicts censorship on the public. Censorship: Is suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a GOVERNMENT, MEDIA OUTLET, or other CONTROLLING BODY.
Media Censorship is the act of altering, adjusting, editing, or banning of any or all media resulting from the presumption that its content is perceived to be objectionable, incendiary, illicit, or immoral by the applicable legislative authority or Government within a specific jurisdiction. The ideology, methodology, and measures or determination regarding media subject to Media Censorship exists in conjunction to the vast expanse of the varieties of media in existence; this can include – but is not limited to books, publications, expressions, products, services, radio broadcasts, televised broadcast, Internet-based broadcasts, films, movies, pictures, images, videos, and speech:
“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”- Noam Chomsky
“Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them.”- Mark Twain
“Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.” – Potter Stewart, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court
I posted on a blog I came across – having found a lot of what the blogger was saying very good, he then stated that he has come to believe no-one can really harm another person. I responded hotly to this saying I couldn’t bear it, it is bollocks to say this, and giving some personal experience if having been many times hospitalised in the past due to very young child abuse which I hadn’t remembered due to the trauma, about the many years of excellent therapy and healing which has enabled me to discover meaning and purpose in a previously inexplicably depressed existence, and then repeating please don’t tell me no-one can really harm another person. I then responded with great positivity to two more comments which also argued the case against the non-possibility of being harmed by another person, saying how helpful it was to read their comments .and that I would print them out and put them on my wall. I checked about two hours later to find all three of my comments had been removed! I had not posted any links, just stated my experience and my difference of opinion stemming from experience. I have not often posted comments online, but I feel if this is typical of what happens when you may be writing about controversial subjects, I certainly cannot ever again trust that what I am reading is a true and uncensored discussion. This was, as someone above has written, “obscene censorship.” I do not think I was abusive in what I wrote. I am very glad to have read your posts above.
You argue that the verb “to censor” only applies to “the government.” Wrong. Here is the definition of censorship according to The Oxford Dictionary (a definitive source):
Examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it:
e.g., my mail was being censored
Notice that the word “government” does not appear here.
In reply to goomba
Note the word “suppress”. When I moderate comments on my blog, I am not suppressing any expression. I am merely preventing it from showing up in this particular spot which belongs to me. No one is stopping the commenter from going elsewhere and writing the same thing elsewhere.
This makes perfect sense. Otherwise, kicking someone out of my house for abusing me would also be classified as censorship! Whereas said person is perfectly free to go outside and abuse me in a public space or his/her own property. This blog is my property. That does not count as “suppression”.
Also, if we look up the definition of censorship in Google, we get the following:
“The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.”
Note the word “officially”. Implying government intervention. There is a broad consensus that the word “censorship” only applies to legal removal of speech, and not private removal.