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.
It is definitely not censorship. I don’t moderate comments on my blog but I expect people to be decent. I delete those comments which are inappropriate (deleted only 3 till date). Many people write on sensitive issues, for them moderation is a must.
In reply to Saru (@SaruSinghal)
What’s your blog URL?
I don’t see blog comment moderation as censorship. Sometimes people make controversial comments just to gain publicity and traffic. I am damned if I am going to make my blog a launching pad for loonies!
The example of visitors to your own home and how they should behave properly or might be thrown out was what came to my mind too when I saw the title of your blog post :)
In reply to Shail
It’s so easy to understand once you think of it no? By the same token, the government has no right to tell me that I CAN’T allow abusive comments on my blog if I choose to…
Well…you are not preventing them from putting their thoughts into cyberspace, just preventing them from doing so on your blog. Censorship would be preventing the person from expressing himself/herself anywhere, even in their own space.
In reply to Clueless
Exactly! And in most cases it’s not preventing them from airing their arguments as much as airing their abuse.
I support you, as it matters and impacts the fellow bloggers and followers who like your blog
http://www.readitt.in (the e magazine)
I agree. I want to write about this too! A recent comment pointed out that if I believe in free speech, I shouldn’t have comments moderation enabled. One more reason for moderating comments is legally we are responsible for whatever we allow to be published on our blogs.
And I agree with this too, another reason for comments moderation. //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.//
In reply to indianhomemaker
Well, I don’t know how much of an issue the legal thing is because I feel you’ll still moderate comments even if there were no legal issues involved. But yes – a certain amount of comment moderation is akin to tidying up your house and making it a better place for the rest of your guests.
I was going to quote the same example, of a guest coming to your house and you expecting him to behave well. You seem to have read Matt Gemmell’s blogpost, haven’t you? Or maybe it’s just a coincidence. I liked that post. And yes, you’re right.
In reply to Darshan Chande
No Darshan, I haven’t read his post – though I’m going to now! It certainly is a coincidence :-)
Please explain what is liberal about Times of India
In reply to Haha’s fan
Just read the link I included. With many controversial topics, they frequently include a “Times View” section which lays out their position on the matter. Whether it’s about homosexuality, or about censoring the Internet, or about allowing drinking in Maharashtra for all adults and not just those above 25, the TOI consistently takes a very liberal position.
Agree.
Moderation is not censorship.
No one prevents a reader from writing anything he wants on his own blog.
He cant insist on a right that you should host him when he wants to be nasty.
Some readers have egos.
They don’t like to be kept waiting.
They want to see their comment appear immediately.
These people usually criticise moderation.
Moderation is also necessary to prevent spammers from becoming a nuisance.
Like you, I too avoid unmoderated blogs where readers use abusive language and the blog owner does nothing about it.
Regards
GV
(first time visitor today, but you can expect me again tomorrow, Sunday)
In reply to G Vishwanath
Thanks! Hope to see you here frequently :-)
I too can’t understand blog authors who don’t moderate recommends at least a little bit. At least to edit out extreme abuse.
Comment moderation is not against free speech….
Blogs are not social networks. A blogger particular controls and owns his/her blog. So freedom of speech rights only rest with the blogger.
I know very popular blogs which do not even allow commenting at all.
Finally, if someone feels so strongly about his comments not being allowed, share the URL on Twitter and Facebook and let go. The blog’s URL is public property, not the blog itself.
In reply to Aditya
That’s a good point about posting the link and then having a separate conversation about it on Twitter or Facebook. As you said, the URL is public property.
“No one has unlimited freedom on another person’s private space.”
Define private space. What about private religious or spiritual space?
In reply to Real Wincy
A space that you own is automatically your private space if you choose to make it so. How can you own a religion?
In reply to bhagwad
Just because you didnt buy something doesn’t mean you don’t own it. I didn’t buy my kidneys, eyes, etc. If I have an accident, someone still needs my permission to take this from me for organ donation, etc. That’s why the Falun Gong were upset when the Chinese government harvested their organs without their permission.
My spiritual beliefs are my own, too, though i didnt buy it with money, though i did with time. it is my relationship (or lack of) to God. It is a private thing, and others should refrain from invading another’s personal space if peace is to prevail. Otherwise you get controversies like the Danish cartoons, mf husains bestiality paintings or the Piss Christ exhibition and corpus Christi plays, predatory conversion activities. All lead to violence.
The counter argument is that if you put anything in the public sphere, then you should be braced for damage, including religion – so maybe everyone should grow a thick skin to abuse – be it on a blog or any public display of religion. It’s part of the territory, right? Care should be taken that abuse doesn’t turn into violent crime.
The reality is that the Abrahamic religions have a long history of censorship – through capital punishment for blasphemy and apostasy. You made the point that the west has progressed because it put scientific reasoning above christianity. In dharmic religions, dissent and debate are part of it so they can coexist with science and reason better and jettison accumulated superstition. So they have thicker skins and are more “tolerant.”
That said, the key is to be consistent to all. Thats secularism. Yu can’t have different standards without appearing two faced. That’s pseudo secularism which is the norm in indian media as Matt and haha and others have pointed out.
In reply to Real Wincy
You can’t “own” an idea. At best you can only own your holding of a particular idea. Meaning that no one can force you to change your ideas against your will. But you have no right trying to prevent others from manipulating their copies of ideas in any way they want.
No one is invading your private space because you can still hold whatever views you choose to hold in your private mind. By the same token, you have to respect my rights to hold the views that I want – which may well involve burning the quran or painting naked Hindu goddesses. Those are my ideas and my personal space which you have no right to intrude on by telling me not to think/paint/write about them on space which belongs to me.
I’m afraid I didn’t understand what you meant about pseudo secularism – how does it apply to moderating blog comments or posting contentious views online?