Is That Legal?

I'm sorry if you think the speech of the common folk is too despicable to be allowed. I'm a law student, and this is my first and last day reading this blog. You can disagree with what people say without claiming the forum in which it was said should be removed. I think that's the difference between, uh, tolerance and intolerance. And yes, you have to be tolerant of the intolerant. Peace.

Frist! (Sorry, I couldn't resist).
Seriously, blogs without comments are just diaries for exhibitionists. The power of blogs is that rapid feedback allows you to see where people either misunderstand what you're saying or are unconvinced and lets you communicate more effectively. Don't tear down the walls just to get rid of the graffiti.

Well, to the extent that blogs open up publishing to the broad masses, you just have to make up your mind what you think about the even broader masses.

And unlike the filtering which is common in the media (and though I am dancing on the edge of attracting the sort of trash that appalls you), blogs let you see what people really think, when they think no one who can effect them is looking. Much of the American (and world, for matter) media has been slowly restricting the reality that reaches people since a brief flowering in the later 1960s to the 1970s - the time when satellites and video allowed close to 'real time' unfiltered information (it was fascinating to watch how home reception of raw news satellite feeds became essentially criminal throughout the 1980s - I worked in TV in DC during that period), while the Internet remains open to anyone with minimal skills and no means.

As a very concrete example from 20 or so years ago in DC - the Washington Post never posted verbatim quotes from Mayor Barry, they always corrected his language to fit the Post's style guide. Even the broadcasters tended to be careful in showing clips. This 'filtering' did break down when he appeared in court, as changing the contents of testimony/court records is considered beyond the pale. At that point, you would have wondered if there were actually two men called Marion Barry. Or what other 'realities' the media was manipulating.

This has nothing to do with Barry, by the way, it is just a very concrete example of how the media filters information, for whatever purpose. When people discover the reality which the media has not been presenting, the reactions can also vary widely, from mild yawning ('yes, everyone gets copy edited') to wild conspiracy theories.

And part of allowing a forum is tolerating a number of fellow human beings you would instantly kick out of your house if they expressed themselves that way.

There is no solution to this, except a clear and constant opposition to what is unacceptable.

And you may wish to ask yourself a truly disturbing question - are you, a decent human being, truly in that small of a minority that it is important to restrict discourse to prevent greater harm?

In the case of Germany, which is quite restrictive of many things which are not considered notable in the U.S., the answer is clearly yes in the eyes of those people who wrote the laws (which also included the American occupiers at the time). Here, it is illegal to denigrate politicians or democracy, for example, as such denigration can be used as a weapon to replace a democratic government with something else.

Here, it gives a number of people pause to allow people to use the Internet (I have talked to police who feel that the Internet should be essentially shut down), with all of the hateful information which can be found spewing from America, seeing as the various German authorities try to arrest and prosecute the sort of people you are disturbed about. However, I'm fairly certain this is not your idea of a solution either.

Reality tends to be a problem, which is why we prefer other things.

Well, in contrast to the above persons who seem to think that failing to allow comments on a blog is the equivalent of elitist fascism, I sort of agree with you.

A blog is just a website where you post things you write. It isn't some sort of natural public space. Its actually quite a private space, literally, albeit one which has been voluntarily opened to the public in the form of blog comments.

So, I figure people should think about why it is they allow comments. There are some good reasons to do it. It can create conversation, and if you want to do that, its a great way to go about it. Blog comments can help build a community- people who post in comments seem to feel more attached to the blog than people who don't.

But blog comments also open you up to abuse by anonymous strangers, or obnoxious comments from whiny law school students who think that they're entitled to your time and attention. And if you do in fact respond, the tireless efforts of your typical blog commenter can quickly wear you down.

Its a tradeoff that isn't to be taken lightly.

I, for one, agree with you. I tire of the way comments spiral down into an incoherent mess. And unlike Justin, I don't agree that you have to put up with the bad to get the good. I make religious use of the banning function on my own blog. I don't have to agree with you and you don't have to agree with me. But your contribution to the conversation must go beyond invectives and profanity.

That said, I love the comments feature when a good dialogue gets going. I've sparked a few in my day and, though they got heated, they always landed in a productive place.

On larger sites, like Volokh, you're going to get those people who say what they want because the attention is so rewarding. The best thing we can all do is refuse to feed the trolls.

Query: Is any any comment about stuff that bothers you about another race a "racist" comment? That seems to be the implication of the post. That is, is it impossible to be bothered about actions that are primarily taken by another race without being a "racist"?

Certainly one may say that certain actions are associated with certain races (that's not to say that every person of such race engages in such action nor that only members of that race engage in that action; rather it is just that there is a perceived correlation between that race and that action). What if that action is bothersome to you? It is disallowed to note that?

ELM: Of course noting that is not disallowed. Just as it is not disallowed for people to comment on the noting.

tRJ: Making religious use of the banning function is an interesting metaphor. I don't disagree with the fact that, for example, death threats don't belong in really any forum. However, I'm under the impression that most blogs have the option whether or not to allow comments. By choosing to allow people to comment, it seems to me that the blogger chooses to make it a public forum as opposed to a private one. Not that the blogger loses the power to block comments in any way; just that, if want to run a public forum, you have to accept viewpoints not only that you disagree with, but even that you find repulsive.

I didn't see a problem with the "holocaust revolutionist" that Eric considers to be "reprehensible". The dude made arguments leading a point which, regardless of its merits, people have the right to hold. There's a chasm between what you think is right and what you're allowed to condemn people for thinking is right. I fear that blogs, which really are a great way for different viewpoints to be promulgated, are moving towards forums for necessary agreement with the author.

Shorter Justin: Everyone has the right to use the microphone that the blogger has paid for to say any offensive thing that pops into their head. Also, Justin never lets anyone come into his home who isn't a specifically invited guest, because then he wouldn't be able to throw them out.

Never mind that blogs are FREE. If you're saying smart enough things, people will find you.