Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Press Action Submissions and Comment Policy

By

Read full article...

Posted 11/24 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. With all due respect to Mark, and Mark and I have emailed and I consider him a friend, I wish you would remove or re-word or re-think your submission policy. I realize this is tricky and running a website must be a head ache at times, and I deeply appreciate this website’s commentary feature, especially because of (not in spite of) the eccentric and brilliant characters who congregate here. But this submission statement has a chilling effect and given that this is the age of Ashcroft, last thing we want to do is chill free speech. Let us err on the side of liberality of speech and let people put their foots in their mouths instead of dampening down democratic discourse. Of course, if anyone ever makes physical threats against others this is very serious (I know of no such case myself) and should be dealt with in the proper way. Lastly, may I suggest if people don’t like someone on the list, the best thing to do is to ignore them instead of banning them. Forgive my ignorance if I have overlooked some pertinent points. Thank you.

    Posted by Rhino Rick from  on  11/25  at  03:12 AM

  2. Perhaps these guidelines should serve as reminders for the clueless people to be polite.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with “chill[ing] free speech”. To wit, if someone comes onto my porch after I invite them for a friendly discussion and they start ranting and raving and just plain being rude to me and my friends, I have every right (and an obligation to myself and to my other friends on porch) to ask them to leave.

    Mark and I have run this site for 2 years thinking that people participating would have some sense of decency and respect that would not have neccesitated that such guidelines be published.

    Mark is not preventing free speech (although he should be flattered that people think his site is the only place their voice can be heard). He is protecting his little tiny space on the Web as well as his good name and person. There is a difference. And Mark is quite patient. From the evidence I suspect it could take someone a year of being rude for Mark to take any of the actions indicated in his guidelines. -Nancy

    Posted by Nancy from  on  11/25  at  08:43 AM

  3. Your porch analogy is an apt one, Nancy.  And your response would be an understandbale one too, given the manner in which the visitor to your porch conducted himself or herself.

    But I think that we need to be particularly careful in delineating between the HOW and the WHAT of a person’s speech and conduct on your porch.

    Can I assume that, if I visited your porch, I would feel invited and welcome to talk about anything that was of importance to me, providing it was conducted in a respectful manner?

    That comfort to speak my mind, about anything that was important to me, would be what free speeech is all about to me.  HOW I communicate my thoughts, however, is that element of my speech which must necessarily include a healthy respect for the contributions of the other participants.

    I suspect, Nancy, that Mark’s recent intervention to positively influence the conduct of future discussions here… is an effort to address HOW the visitors to your virtual porch ought to conduct themselves here… instead what they can or cannot talk about.

    If that is the case, then the rules ought to specifically address themselves only to what Mark believes to be respectful conduct (which is his prerogative, since it is his porch)... and not to what can or cannot be discussed here ( i.e. certain criticisms of certain policies).

    If I’m off target as to what Mark’s intentions for his intervention are, then please disregard my comments.  But if I’m on target, then please consider restructuring the rules to specifically address themselves only to HOW we ought to communicate on your virtual porch, and not include WHAT we may and may not talk about.

    It’s a pleasure to virtually meet you for the first time too.

    NR

    Posted by NaderRider from  on  11/25  at  01:45 PM

  4. I’d like to know what EXACTLY Oxman threatened “to go public” about regarding Mark. Nancy?  Seems to me that the rule #14: “Press Action reserves the right to remove any comment that contains personal attacks or that is abusive, rude or authoritarian” is a case of the tarnished pot calling the kettle black. The issue is Mark being authoritarian NOT Oxman crossing any lines...which have all been very vaguely referred to in the comments.  That’s very bad for a site purporting to be for change. I’d also like to know about that Kap’s and that Tracy’s remarks...connecting with Mickey Z’s inactivity. Uninformed and off the point I thought.  But I’ll get back to that another time maybe.  The most important thing right now is to understand whether or not someone actually isn’t wrong here instead of applauding the editors for something that shouldn’t even be an issue, their initial over-the-top response.

    Posted by jjbro from  on  11/25  at  06:24 PM

  5. Thanks Mark and Nancy for removing the previous submissions policy. I agree with Nader Rider and Rosemarie that if there is a policy it should promote what the site hopes writers and commentors will attain to rather than discouraging what it is opposed to, and that ad hominem attacks are generally a violation of civil discourse. Although I reserve the right to make off color jokes (in poor taste and of questionable value) and ad hominem attacks on the more prominent figures in society that are leading us on the road to hell.

    Posted by Rhino Rick from  on  11/26  at  06:40 PM

  6. Ditto RR’s first sentence of the preceding post.

    I’m always reminded of what one of my heroes once said too: 

    “Take away the right to say “####” and you take away the right to say “#### the government.” - Lenny Bruce

    Besides, any time one of my activist compadres is getting verbally pugilistic with me, I just chalk it up to him or her wanting to get some sparring time for the real fight.

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  11/26  at  07:41 PM

  7. I just want to note that ad hominen arguments’ offensiveness lies not in its being personalized, but rather, in its manifest invalidity.

    Posted by Theo from Greece  on  11/27  at  07:39 AM

  8. One should wonder why the Holocaust Museum in Washington receives more money on a yearly basis than the National Endowment of the Arts.
    One might also wonder why the History Channel in the US is preoccupied with the Nazis, or why the historian of the US Congress was dismissed in the early 1990’s, after one day on the job, when it was found that she had some disagreement with the mandatory Holocaust Education Curriculum for American Highschools.

    It is a tragedy for the people of Europe - jews and nonjews - that the governments of Austria and Germany do not allow a discussion of the many facts available to us now. For example, Naeim Giladi’s “Ben Gurion"s Scandals How the Haganah and the Mossad Eliminated Jews” indicating that there was a relationship in the 1930s between agents of the Zionist movement and representatives of the Nazi regime. Squelching opinions of others is a real fascist trait.

    It occurs to me that the state of Israel would not be what it is today w/o the Holocaust.

    Respectfully, C. K. Grow

    Posted by Christine Kaserer from Tallahassee, Florida  on  01/17  at  06:21 PM
    9. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: Liberals and Bush’s Performatives

    Previous entry: Canadian Settler Injustice Against First Nations

    [ads]

    Support Press Action