Some readers may have noticed that "The Inside Edge" has been removed from our link list.
There's a reason for this.
Wally Edge, the editor of that site, has been asleep at the switch and the nutjobs have been running wild. That had been a problem here at the Monmouth County Republican Blog; it reached the point where something had to be done. We did something about it. First, we eliminated anonymous commenting and required people to register with Blogger. When this proved insufficient, we activated "comment moderation." Now, all comments must be approved before they are published.
Some of the comments that have been rejected from this site would curl your hair, so it would appear that we have done the right thing.
Wally needs to pay attention to the comments left on his site.
It began with a comment left over three weeks ago in which an individual slandered a potential candidate for County GOP Chairman. Then, last week, a comment was left in which a colorful local publisher and sometime Democrat activist was accused of drug abuse. To compound matters, this particular commenter signed their comment with the name of a longtime Republican activist. This was followed two days later by a similar comment using a different name.
As of May 30, all of these comments remain on The Inside Edge.
Due to the anonymity of the internet, bloggers must be constantly vigilant for such abuse. While it is not always possible to trace who these comments come from, it is possible to delete them, or to institute an approval process. Wally has not done any of this.
As a result of this, the link to The Inside Edge has been removed. At such time as he removes the offending comments, and stays on top of the situation, we may re-link.
13 comments:
Thanks, Abe. I really do appreciate it. Yes, we disagree about positions sometimes, but you deal in issues and with a lot of class. My thanks. You're a class act.
You know what Wally did the right thing. Bloggers should not fall into the trap of being the comment police. That is one tiny itsy bitsy step away from being a censor. Unless they are upfront and say it is my blog and I am not letting comments on I disagree with don,t be a censor.
Have you ever read some of the anonymous writings of the founding fathers?
If it is not true then why worry about it. Do you thing people are not smart enough to weed out the lies for themselves?
A couple years ago if someone blogged that McGreevy was gay would you have suppressed that comment? OOps that one turned out to be true.
ABE Let it all hang out. In the end you have to have faith that the truth will prevail.
TR: "It is not censorship when it is on private property". Wally can remove or keep whatever he wants. His site. But if he keeps comments up that are just wrong, he must be prepared for the inevitible criticism. What made this all the worse was the commenter's hiding behind someone else's name; the person who's name was used is not happy about this.
Have you considered starting your own blog?
Sharon: If I had "Colleen's" IP, you would have had it in February. I cannot deliver what I don't have. As I stated then, my hit counter, statcounter.com, rolls over after 100 hits. Back then, leading up to both Lincoln Day and the Title 19 Convention, there was quite a lot of traffic here, to the point of several hundred hits a day, so the information rolled over and was lost pretty fast. I explained that on the "Anonymous Comments" thread: http://gop-of-mc.blogspot.com/2006/02/anonymous-comments.html#114045147198519485 .
I will point out the similarity of the comments left on "The Inside Edge" to those left here by "Colleen"; I noticed that Sue Veitengruber pointed out on howellnj.com that comments on another site also bore a similarity.
Setting standards in a private venue, whether announced or not, is not censorship.
Sometimes it is more effective to ignore offensive speech than it is to criticize it. The criticism gives the offenders the attention they crave. For example, I bet Fred regrets the moment he referred to bloggers as terrorists :-).
There will be no further references to Inside Edge on my blog. After mulling it over, I've decided to leave existing references stay because to remove them could draw more attention, and because I really like the milk cartons.
teddy...
you're comparing the foudning fathers to a couple losers who are saying that people are drug addicts and god knows what else that are lies?
THAT is not the point of free speech. in fact, if it wasn't on the Net it would be libelous if someone weren't a public figure (because we have no rights to privacy). I don't hide behind anonymity anyway, but it's no cause for anyone to call me a drug addict, or the sheriff the despicable things they said about him or to slander geri popkin.
NO, the founders would not have been on board about this garbage. but this sort of nonsense doesn't have to be sanctioned by responsible people seeking dialogue about government. that's why people like abe and will have credibility. it's why wally doesn't.
This isn't a game for the school yard. it's about gov't and leadership. Censorship of libelous garbage isn't censorship. As for it not mattering if it's not true, i make my living in the public and do not need lies and innuendo following me around. I've already lost professional opportunities because of just that kind of garbage and, at that time, i did just "ignore it." Well, I paid and never again.
If the tactic is intended to get me to shut up, someone's going to have to make a lot more of a point though, because i'm not buying the BS. If anyone wants to say something to me, they know where i am.
Morons are going to say things. Fine. Nothing anyone can do about that. But good people can engage a dialogue civilly about ideas and concepts without playing to the gutter.
I know the people who did this. But I'm not saying anything publicly because I cannot prove it. Should I be protected for slandering them, as I cannot prove their guilt to a reasonable degree? I suppose so, but I still wouldn't do it because it's wrong.
Jim, How does the blogger know if the statements are false or not?
I ask again would any of you removed comments from your blog about McGreevy rumors if they were made 2 years ago?
I am just suggesting let the free marketplace of ideas deal with it.
By the way. Alexander Hamilton was accused of being an adulterer. that is at least as bad as you being called a druggie.
I will admit one issue I do not know how to deal with is the slander issue. I do not believe Bloggers should be held responsible for comments posted but there does need to be a way to pierce the viel of annonymity if someone demands satisfaction.
Abe- Start my own Blog. I'm not smart enough to do that.
William, Sorry but it is censorship. It is private as opposed to public sensorship and there certainly is a right to private sensorship.
The question is ... Is private censorship by a blogger a good thing? Truth be told I am not sure what the answer is. I just wanted to get you guys going.
It was fun.
Teddy Roosevelt addressed...
"Bloggers should not fall into the trap of being the comment police."
Now let's not attract the comment police. That's about as much fun as the professor! Or swimming in a pool full of candiru!
Teddy Roosevelt said...
"I ask again would any of you removed comments from your blog about McGreevy rumors if they were made 2 years ago?"
That's impossible to say, and would depend on the context of the entire conversation. McGreevy's sexual orientation was a very poorly kept secret and the "news" would have hardly been surprising for most readers.
Call it censorship or call it setting standards. It's really a matter of semantics, and I don't want to be called anti-semantic.
teddy...
You said: I ask again would any of you removed comments from your blog about McGreevy rumors if they were made 2 years ago?
My point: A lot of people in politics and the media knew he was gay. No one said it because no one believed it had anything to do with his job. If someone would have said it it wouldn't be wrong, just iniappropriate.
You said: By the way. Alexander Hamilton was accused of being an adulterer. that is at least as bad as you being called a druggie.
My point: Alexander Hamilton WAS an adulterer and that's why he wasn't President Hamilton. Hamilton didn't even particularly hide the fact in his life. He had a lot of fun and that was his deal. Doesn't reflect on his patriotism, good works, or valor. He liked women. Nevertheless, in his day, the founders didn't trash each other for their human failings. It lacked dignity, they had class like that.
You're probably thinking about lampooning. Yes, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin...most of them...lampooned like all get out. Cartoons in the papers, caricatures of them spinning the world on a finger and exaggerations of their facial features...so what? It's i nthe tradition of Moliere. No one called anyone anything they weren't. They called King George crazy...he was. He was institutionalized at some point after the war. It's not a lie when it's true.
James Franklin, Benjamin's son, was a war criminal. It goes on...and it's true.
Not to mention Franklin was an airbather. LOL
Honest Abe said...
"Not to mention Franklin was an airbather"
As is Lisa, allegedly. I keep looking for her by the clown, with no luck
She didn't say by the clown, she said by the statue of-
Ohhhhhh...
A little respect for the clown, whose name is Calico by the way. He is a beloved institution in the Bayshore, scaring the hell out of people for almost a half century.
And, he's a movie star, making a cameo in "Clerks III."
Just goes to show you clowning around gets a big tall fella a movie deal now and again.
Post a Comment