Censorship or Discretion?

I know nothing and admit I know nothing....but isn't it your website? And if it is your website, isn't it your own property? Is some government entity paying for you? Or are you merely stating your case in a medium available?

I am, above all else, confused.

You may also want to prepare yourselves for the reality that censorship and discretion are not mutually exclusive.

There are very few people I know who yell "censorship" quicker than me. Is it censorship when you yank something from your blog? Sure. You are censoring someone. Is it totally within your rights to do so? Without question.

The bottom line is that YOU created your blog, for YOUR purpose, and YOU pay for it. Everyone else is a guest. And, those who try to co-opt you have no business using your resources to do it. I try my hardest not to delete stuff, and have only done it rarely, but, in the end, your website is a represenative of you, and you will be held accountable for what is on it.

It is totally within your discretion.

I'm sure you'll delete this post because you clearly don't agree with my views.

I lived (suffered) in a country where the media was censored. I know censorship when I see it. This is censorship.

Democracy is about an open, public debate. Blogs and blogging are part of the democratic process. You won't find uncensored blogs in Korea or China.

Reading your post, it seems to me that you are fearful of information that will surface regarding some imminent government decisions.

Suppressing information is bad form, whether it’s done by a totalitarian government, a democratic government, or someone (you or another blogger) who is acting as a publisher.

You should hear and welcome the public’s input. The fact that you believe someone wants to hijack your site is short sighted. The reality is that you control the content here, have the last word on all topics.

Censorship arises from fear. Your post sounds very fearful to me. I urge you to forget the fear. Post both sides, and engage in fostering a healthy, open debate.

The Webmaster who allegedly removed that post be sensitive to the fact that many people view blogging as an function of democracy – an open forum -- and we look forward to the intellectual stimulation that comes when people freely share their diverse views.

Biases are everywhere. You can’t stamp them out with an iron fist.

Don’t censor debate. Don’t be exclusive. Be inclusive.

Just remember that if you disapprove of some comments, it may imply that you approve of some others. If you never delete anything, it's clear that you are not demonstrating control over the comments. But if you delete some comments and let others stand, you are demonstrating control, and you could potentially be liable for the words you do leave up. It's best to develop a clear and conherent policy and stick to it. "Hands off" is one such clear and coherent policy.

I am the webmaster who unpublished the comments in question. I think I'm qualified to comment on specifics here.

> The fact that you believe someone wants to hijack your site is short sighted.

No, it's very well founded. After I removed the posts in question, the individual in question sent me hate mail. It just so happened that they were a property developer in the area. Thus, my fears were confirmed. He wasn't trying to start "debate". He was trying to start a flame war and basically disrupt things.

> The Webmaster who allegedly removed that post be sensitive to the
> fact that many people view blogging as an function of democracy – an
> open forum -- and we look forward to the intellectual stimulation
> that comes when people freely share their diverse views.

I'm all for debate, too. But that wasn't the nature of the comment. It was rude and offensive. The individual wasn't interested in starting a debate, he was interested in picking a fight.

Furthermore, I do not see why I should be required to babysit people who do not behave themselves. The individual got two chances before being banned. I've wasted enough of my spare time on him.

SAC Note: our webmaster is a GREAT guy, and extremely tolerant (it's not easy putting up with all of us SAC kids, LOL)

Further and to the point, we are thrilled at the dialogue on this topic as it IS something most websites face at one time or another.

However, we are a website, not an opressive country...with all due respect, there IS a big difference. And Doug is right, his raison d'etre is not to baby sit. He is a webmaster, not the tiny tot lot.

The purpose of this post remains to seek input, so we are intrigued to see what other dialogue pops up

MMHoffman - you have posted commentary before. And as we told you before, we are a diverse group representative of many cultures, races, and religions. Please don't presume.

We are not fearful; this post is hardly fearful. We are culling feedback from the experts in the Philadelphia web community.

AND, we are not the last word on content HERE, Philly Future is.

In essence, you have taken our post and applied it to your own sociological and world political perspectives, which is totally cool, albeit somewhat apples to oranges.

Thank you for your feedback.

Yes, of course you have the right. You should just be transparent, by posting a short explanation of your comments policy. That way, anybody who wants to post a comment will know in advance what your rules are.

I've been online since 1991. Every well-run community (bulletin board, blog comments section, etc.) is moderated, either lightly or more aggressively. Otherwise, sooner or later you get chaos. People drag the discussion wildly off topic, engage in personal attack, or otherwise don't participate in good faith.

Nothing wrong with using discretion. ABUSING discretion is wrong. So just make your rules clear. Here's one blogger's very personal list: http://bodyandsoul.typepad.com/blog/2006/03/comments.html

That's a good point. We didn't have one before this (we thought people could use common sense, but clearly we were mistken :-)

Our blogger wrote this the other day: http://www.saveardmorecoalition.org/node/541

And I created a menu item linking to it. So hopefully people will exercise a little more self control on our site in the future.

Quickly looking over your blog, I see a couple references to the change of ownership at the Inquirer and how it could affect content and lead to censorship. In the case of the Inquirer, I agree that ownership should not be used as a censorship tool. Yet, that is the case you are making for this blog. Further, censorship has many levels .... If the post was offensive because it was obscene, you could have simply edited out those parts and let the meaning remain. In other words, bleep the **** offensive words. That's what other blogsdo. Look carefully at this. You are doing precisely what we do not want to happen at the Inquirer. Ownership is not an argument for censorship. Let people speak and reply thoughtfully and you will do more for your case than less ........ just my 2c on blog censorship

I very much respect the work of SAC. That is why I was so dismayed when I received an email containing a recent exchange between a local developer and SAC. The email has been widely circulated in town and it suggests that SAC is censoring and suppressing opinions that differ from their own. I couldn’t believe that. So, I visited your blog for the first time and read the posts here. I am concerned that SAC is turning into the very thing it fought so hard against. What’s concerning to me is that you chose to delete and censor, simply because a voice spoke that was differs from your own. Then, in the email Mr. Muth suggests that the real reason it was deleted is that it contained foul language.

If the email adequately reflects the original post, there was no foul language, just a strongly worded opinion. Deleting the post is no way to deal with a differing opinion. Turning off the poster’s access is even more dismaying and shortsighted. Then, contending that it contained foul language, when it did not (perhaps it was thought the post would never be seen by the public), suggests that you knew it was wrong to delete the post, and then cut off access, so you needed a stronger case than simply “we own it, we can censor it.”

Censorship? Cover up? What gives? Why is SAC wallowing around in this muck? Just be transparent and truthful. SAC started as a community group fighting those who were presenting a single view, idea and vision of Ardmore. Your voice showed a better way. Why now limit other people’s voice? Let them speak and argue them openly. Don’t fear dissent.

For instance, in the email, Mr. Muth says that another reason he deleted the post is that he is a volunteer and doesn’t have the time for such matters. Huh? Your blog is very well done. It’s amazing how much content is on it. You have obviously worked hard on it. Now, one dissenting opinion arises and it’s too much work to leave it up, rather you chose to delete it? That’s a convoluted argument built only to justify a poor decision.

Again, are you becoming the very thing you fought against and defeated? Is this the way power should be exercised once it’s gained?

You have done great work! Congratulations on your recent imminent domain win. Don’t tarnish that legacy and lose the respect of the community now.

So you were privy to the e-mail exchange? The ENTIRE e-mail exchange? Interesting. Because if you had seen the entire e-mail exchange, we doubt you would be bringing any of this up. And we are amused that so many people have so much time that these e-mails would continue to circulate a week later.

The deleted poster in question wasn't addressing the topic of eminent domain, and while some might have had differing perspectives on what to do with those posts, no one at SAC can disagree that as individuals (webmaster) or a group (SAC), we have had our fill of bullying.

Our webmaster neither censored nor covered up a thing - he merely exercised the rights of webmasters everywhere. Do you think that the perspective of the Save Ardmore Coalition has been welcomed on websites everywhere? Hardly. Yet when our posts were pulled at other places, we didn't sit up in bed and scream censorship.

Thank you overall for your kind words about our group because we are working very hard for a better Ardmore.

If you have further questions, feel free to contact webmaster@saveardmorecoalition.org or saveardmore@AOL.com

veeeery interestink! I saw your post on NORG, and wondered how you arrived, et voila!

Good lord I am going to have to get hip on development and new construction now...god, how awful....can't I just LIVE in a nice place?

Oh bander, dahlink, will have to respectfully disagree with you here as well...haven't seen the e-mail exchange y'all is chewin' on (and don't want to so pullleaazeee don't offer - I don't like frown lines early in the day),I don't live in Ardmore...but...it's their party over there on that SAC site, so why the constant regurgitation? Aren't there bigger fish to fry, or perhaps since you are obviously a member of the "in" crowd over e-mails (how very sophomoric it all sounds), mebbe you know somebody who knows somebody?

Also, please note I am not a registered user of the SAC site, and don't need to be. I discovered it off of this site...but I am intrigued by the whole hulabaloo.....I found this on the web via a google search http://giza.livejournal.com/234030.html and this trail of trash on phillyblog: http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?t=16559&highlight=mahoney - gues this is what you are referring to.... so it doesn't seem too much of a terrible dark secret...and exackly how many websites have to discuss this??????

Otherwise, my 5 cents (I'm an expensive creature, after all), is that webmasters use their own discretion, and we either live by their rules or develop our own website where we create rules more to our liking....that way we are only "censoring" ourselves (which isn't a problem unless you have a personality disorder) - a much tidier package, no?

Thanks for your response. It’s a little hard to tell, but I think you are making my point. If you would have published the post then we could make up our own mind! That’s the power of open, transparent communications. Bad ideas should be exposed, not suppressed. Then, you would probably be correct and "we wouldn’t be bringing it up." But you did ask for response and you did post it around the web looking for input. I don’t see why you should be amused now that a few people took the time to respond. I was just responding to an open invitation.

ummm.... who the hell cares? Really? Posts get pulled off of websites every day.....aren't there more important things in life than waah, waah, waah ?

Sheesh...I'm done following this thread...these people asked for feedback, not a personal crusade...this whole thing has gone plain STUPID

(You asked people to make up their own minds, so here's my 5 cents again as an expensive creature. I'm so outtie....Rittenhouse Square and a martini is SO calling my name)

To: Her Alter Ego - don't break a nail, enjoy a martini for us, and thanks for the link http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?t=16559&highlight=mahoney - we don't post on phillyblog (it seems more like a big message board than blog) and we don't generally follow them - it's a whole new web world to explore!

To: bander - we're flummoxed because we answered you, yet you come back with stuff about the infamous posts (now yesterday's news)? Perhaps didn't get what we were saying: no matter how individuals feel about those posts, the SAC webmaster made the call. He's a webmaster,not us...we suggest (seriously) that you e-mail him at webmaster@saveardmorecoalition.org and take it up to him. We continue to defer to him on how he feels.

Look, nothing is perfect, and not everyone is going to like our responses, nor us theirs.....

Thanks in general to all for taking the time to comment.