The blogosphere has decended upon itself talking about very little other than the blogosphere itself – and I’m talking about me talking about the blogosphere talking about the blogosphere! Whole new level, baby!
I’m beginning to think poor Sunny’s feeling rather left out of the whole “Smeargate” scandal, so has decided to troll the whole blogosphere with this piece accusing blogs of promoting degradation of politics and destroying civility.
The title? “Blogging will only increase the sleaze – unless we stop it.”
Apparently continuing to expose sleaze and scandals benefits anti-politics types, reduces trust in politicians and, therefore, reduces trust in the state – which is the opposite of what Sunny wants. He implores to ignore this non-story and rise above the fray….
…Except the blogs are exposing politicians to a level of scrutiny that they’d not had to face before. Because blogs do not depend on access to politicians, they can say what they like. These scandals were simply a matter of time, and until politicians realise that their world has changed, that the only way to ‘stop Guido’ is to give him nothing to write about, this is only going to get worse. The idea that ‘the Left’ should get together to protect politicians from anti-politics types and libertarians? Oh sweet christ. You have fallen from the Zeitgeist tree, haven’t you Sunny?
It’s not bloggers generating the sleaze – it’s the politicians. Well, sort of…
Sunny, editor of Liberal Conspiracy, writes:
The British left, I think, has to take heed from the American leftwing blogosphere. They didn’t set up their own smear sites and spend all their times ranting like the rightwingers (Michelle Malkin, Little Green Footballs, Townhall, Faux News etc) – because they knew that it would lead to an even more degradation of politics.
Which is great, but then two stories after this one he publishes this nasty piece of crap that repeats smears against ‘Mad Nad’ Dorries on the grounds that ‘these rumours have been doing the rounds for months’.
And the title of that particular blog post? “Hypocrisy Rules Ok”
Yes. Yes it does.
And then it gets worse, with a progressive and friendly form of comment censorship:
Y dts
Why th HLL d y llw pltcs t rn vry spct f yr lvs?
Why th HLL d 60,000,000 ppl d s thy r tld by mr 646 cllss dts?
Wht r y frghtnd f? Lsng yr Nctr pnts?
Y gt N lf. Lv t s Y wnt, nt hw Rth Klly r nn Wddcmb thnks y shld. Thy nd p n th sm plc s y nywy. Rttng n grv. nd lng tm dd.
Those open minded, pro-free speech liberals over at Liberal Conspiracy haven’t deleted comments. They don’t want to delete comments, because that might make them look like illiberal authoritarians. This way is much nicer.
So yes, Liberal Conspiracy is having a bad couple of days (although good in a ‘getting attention’ sort of way, which I suppose is the point).
Stu said...
13 Apr 09 at 1:21 pm
Well said! This is the blog post I would have written if I hadn’t been away for the weekend
that comments thread shows Liberal Conspiracy as exactly what they are: arrogant hypocrites. Notice that a comment which said nothing but ‘F**k off’ was allowed to be posted but then DK and Old Holborn were both censored for eloquent comments – and then Sunny ‘The Troll’ Hundal had te audacity to give a warning to DK about LC’s ‘strict comments policy’ aimed at ‘fostering constructive debate’.
Idiots.
Oh, and what was their ‘top story’ of the Easter Weekend again? Surely it must have been McBride, no? Oh, hang on…
Andrew Hickey said...
13 Apr 09 at 1:24 pm
I couldn’t agree more, and I’m an occasional contributor to the site. I don’t know what they’re thinking…
Plato said...
13 Apr 09 at 1:26 pm
Excellent. I read Sunny’s piece and thought “eh?”
Martin said...
13 Apr 09 at 1:33 pm
I myself stopped reading LC a while back. T’wasn’t worth the effort.
I still don’t see what’s wrong with being “anti politics” and “distrusting the state”.
Well, distrusting the state is a good thing, and as for politcs: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/politics
If that defintion is anything to go by, damn straight I’m anti-politics. Very much so.
Nuts to the lot of them.
Neil said...
13 Apr 09 at 2:13 pm
That picture’s a little out of date; these days, Sunny like us all to wear matching togas…
Sunny H said...
13 Apr 09 at 2:44 pm
I didn’t realise reading comprehension was a problem for you Charlotte.
You say:
He implores to ignore this non-story and rise above the fray….
…which is a funny reading of what I said because we constantly try and expose the bullshit politicians come out with. In fact in that post we pointed out the bullshit Nadine Dorries has come out with in the past (in trying to smear others) and then you accused Unity of smearing! Very funny, but sadly you’ve completely misread what we’re actually saying.
Lastly, my point wasnt’t specifically to say let’s ignore this non-story, since I wrote another article criticising Derek Draper. My point was to say we on the left have to respond to the bullshit on national politics in a different way – more along the lines of how the American left has done it.
I hope that clears up your confusion on the issue.
Charlotte Gore said...
13 Apr 09 at 2:47 pm
So you didn’t write,
then?
Sunny H said...
13 Apr 09 at 2:49 pm
Oh, also I forgot to respond to this.
Those open minded, pro-free speech liberals over at Liberal Conspiracy haven’t deleted comments. They don’t want to delete comments, because that might make them look like illiberal authoritarians. This way is much nicer.
I didn’t realise the dedication to free speech meant I had to tolerate abuse and trolling on our blog too. The rules are clear for everyone to read – if people follow them then they’re welcome to engage.
All the big blogs (Political Betting, Dale, ConservativeHome) except for Guido’s have comment moderation to take out abusing stuff.
It’s a funny misreading of the concept of free speech if you think deleting abusive comments is somehow against that. But then, I suspect you’re just trying to make a partisan point than say anything substantial.
Ian B said...
13 Apr 09 at 2:53 pm
This kind of argument entirely ignores the nature of blogs and the internet; that they are individualist and bottom-up, and naturally oppositional. A blog is a means for a person to gain a voice that they wouldn’t normally have under the ancien regime. Rather than comment and debate being shaped by the political class, they give a voice to the plebs.
As such, they are naturally counterhegemonic (to be marxist), like pampleteering and samizdat. Pamphleteers never wrote pamphlets called “How I Love The Way Things Are”. They are always “anti” in nature, an attempt to attack the incumbent dominant power, whether it was minority political ideas, religious non-conformism or attacks on particular public personages.
Asking the blogs (pamphleteers) to act like the MSM just doesn’t understand what they are. The MSM is co-opted. It is the voice of dominant power groups, be they “right” or “left”. The Daily Express or the Daily Mirror are the voice of their editors, members of the empowered/political class. If the blogs turn polite and “follow the rules” that will be a sign that they have been co-opted too.
Bloggers, like pamphleteers, are peasants beyond the palace railings shouting “down with the king”; the MSM are insiders, court gossips who will never challenge because then they lose access to the court. The whole point of the blogs is to be disreputable.
Ian B said...
13 Apr 09 at 2:56 pm
Also, butchering comments is entirely the right of a blog owner, of course. But it comes across as peevish and mean-spirited. Because, certainly in this case, it clearly was. If hardened authoritarian socialists want to try getting away with calling themselves “liberal” they’re free to do so. But they shouldn’t be surprised when people call them on it.
Sunny H said...
13 Apr 09 at 3:23 pm
Charlotte, it would probably be best to offer the full context of that remark…
… and tell me which bit you disagree with. Yes I do think the story isn’t as important as other issues.
Charlotte Gore said...
13 Apr 09 at 3:33 pm
I don’t think the context changes the fact that you called this a non-story, despite the fact that it clearly is a story – a blogger has got someone fired – that’s news. Someone finally stood up to a spin machine and won. That’s news.
I disagree with the bit that says it’s a non-story. I agree there’s other important issues, but the integrity of politicians is not irrelevant. If they’re known liars and dirty tricksters, what else are they willing to lie about? How on earth can they be trusted?
You can’t create trust by silencing criticism.
Bunny Smedley said...
13 Apr 09 at 4:14 pm
Charlotte, there’s something I don’t understand about the whole ‘a blogger got someone fired’ business.
Here’s what seems to have happened: Paul somehow got hold of those remarkably indiscreet emails, conveyed them to the nice folks at News International, teased a bit on his blog and waiting for the run-up to publication to set the scandal going.
Yet if blogs hadn’t existed, wouldn’t someone have just conveyed the emails to News International in the good old-fashioned way? And if so, in what way would the outcome have been substantially different? In other words, to put it in erasatz art-historian language, in what way does the ‘blogness’ of blogs affect this story at all?
I’m genuinely not trying to be obtuse here, and I don’t mean to downplay Paul’s achievement in bringing about the events he so devoutly desired. It’s quite cool when that stuff works, although it will also be interesting to see where it all ends, which will perhaps not be exactly where some Tories assume.
Brown has few friends, but he probably still has enough, even in the media, for two types of event to shift the balance of the story as it stands at present: either the revelation that one or more of the ‘smears’ actually has some substance in fact, or hard evidence that senior Tories have launched ‘smears’ either against Labour figures, or indeed their own colleagues, in a similar fashion.
And yes, I know two wrongs don’t make a right, etc, etc. I’m just saying that it’s hard to be quite sure who’s going to be numbered amongst the casualties when all this is over – no surprise to Paul, who’s nothing if not sharp, but perhaps a surprise to some of the more innocent, less worldly constituency over at ConHome.
Finally, just to conclude with a point I tried to post at LFAT’s site but which fell prey to my stupid failure to do the anti-spam thing before submitting it, I’m sure Brown knew quite a lot about these emails, as every bit of evidence I’ve ever read or heard on the subject is quite clear that he’s a control freak of some magnitude, unable to avoid micro-managing everything around him. McBride would never have lasted so long with him if he didn’t cosset Brown in his control-freakery. In their hearts, I think everyone around Brown – Blairites as well as Brownites – must realise this is the case. And so a government that is, in the words of the old song, tired of livin’ and scared of dyin’, confronts its gottedammerung.
Tristan said...
13 Apr 09 at 4:18 pm
@Martin:
Being ‘anti-political’ and ‘distrusting the state’ is bad because it challenges the legitimising mythology of democracy.
Challenging the right of politicians to rule over us, wondering whether this system which we call democracy does in fact give those members of the political class the right to dictate our lives threatens the power of the political classes.
Charlotte Gore said...
13 Apr 09 at 4:27 pm
Hmm… when you put it like that? Good question.
I suppose from a technical point of view the reason Guido broke this story is because the information was leaked to him. And the fact is the Telegraph and the News of the World were happy to publish the emails without fear of retribution from Downing Street.
Which, you’re right, it could easily have been a normal journalist.
Hmmm indeed. Bunny, you’ve stumped me.
Stu said...
13 Apr 09 at 4:28 pm
Bunny,
“If blogs hadn’t existed, wouldn’t someone have just conveyed the emails to News International in the good old-fashioned way?”
You mean, like Kevin Maguire? The one who has sat on this information for months? No, the mainstream media have to cosy up to the politicians so that they can score interviews and exclusives. News International would be far more likely to run the fake ‘smear’ stories, not attack the guys within Downing Street feeding them the lies.
The reason that Guido can take credit for this story is that the news media could have broken it any time they wanted to, but they chose to leave it alone. Since bloggers are outsiders by definition and by intention, they have the freedom to get these stories out. That’s why I think this story is important.
Over at Liberal Conspiracy they’re trying to suggest Guido is being a hypocrite – whilst leaving out the rather significant fact that Paul Staines is not a high ranking civil servant or a Government Minister.
Charlotte Gore said...
13 Apr 09 at 4:40 pm
The problem is, Stu, as Bunny rightly points out – these emails were published in the mainstream media. Paul simply teased it, having apparently having passed the emails on.
I suppose the reason it came to Paul’s attention in the first place was because of the ‘Iain and Guido are racist’ thing that, on the Daily Politics show, Paul said he had ‘proof’ that the line had come from McBride.
If they hadn’t tried to attack Paul, no-one would ever have known these emails existed, and the story wouldn’t have broke.
I think Bunny’s right. It’s not quite so clear cut.
What’s remarkable about this incident is that an individual survived a Downing Street Dirty Tricks campaign, turned it around and got the perp fired. That’s the truly significant ‘first’ for New Labour, rather than a ‘first’ for the Blogosphere.
Ian B said...
13 Apr 09 at 4:54 pm
A general point indeed is that the question of “what is news” is still set by the MSM, mostly. If the newpapers and TV had ignored the emails, there’d have been no story or resignation. Likewise Dan The Han’s viral phenom needed attention from American conservative MSM. So we’re not at a stage where blogs and the web have pushed the MSM out of the way. What remains is the question of whether they will, or always remain no more than a significant junior partner.
patently said...
13 Apr 09 at 4:55 pm
I only commented on LC once; the utter inability of its regulars to either form or address a coherent argument was so depressing that I gave up.
Although it was fun to be called a teenager, given that my 40th is looming…
Charlotte Gore said...
13 Apr 09 at 5:04 pm
Did you write your comment in the “lolz your lame” form?
Peter said...
13 Apr 09 at 5:25 pm
What is the comments policy on Liberal Conspiracy? Mercifully, I’ve not had any of mine removed, but I’ve seen perfectly intelligent comments removed for no apparent reason other than that they appeared to disagree with the initial post. Trolling indeed.
Stu said...
13 Apr 09 at 5:31 pm
Agreed, Charlotte, on the significance of Guido going from target to conquerer in a few short months. I still think the ‘impact of the blogs’ story has legs, though. The fact that Guido did the research, discovered the story and got the emails is what shows the power of the blogs, regardless of where he decided to publish the information.
Guido is a trouble maker and wants to cause as much difficulty for those in power as he can (which is why the Tories are just as scared of him as Labour are, incidentally). He could have published these emails himself and got into a blog war about it, yes. He probably would still have caused McBride’s resignation, too, because his actions are grave enough.
Alternatively, he could sit on the story for a short while, drop hints and build tension, and then put it in front of as many people as he can as quickly as he can – by filling the entire mainstream media with it on what would have been a slow news day
Which of these causes the most trouble?
Bunny Smedley said...
13 Apr 09 at 5:55 pm
Stu, I entirely agree with what you wrote above about Paul’s skills as a trouble maker, perfected over several decades now. But I still think that even if the only tools at his disposal were a cave wall, greasy fingers and a bit of promising-looking soot, Paul would still somehow manage to wreak almost infinite havoc, political or otherwise, because, well, that’s what Paul does. Which is to say, the means are here interesting, clearly, but perhaps not entirely decisive.
And as for you, Charlotte, thanks for reassuring me that I’m not going totally mad (in this context anyway!)
Sunny H said...
13 Apr 09 at 8:54 pm
I make no apologies for our comments policy – it’s difficult to maintain civil and constructive conversations (our goal) in an atmosphere where so many trolls want to come by and spout drive-by abuse (CIF). Though, comments don’t get deleted if they disagree with the author – as any regular reader will know and see. If you don’t like the comments policy, no one is obliged to post on LC.
As for your attempt to paint Guido Fawkes as the fearless fighter for blogs against party machinery and the traditional media- it is perhaps best you read this article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/5145640/How-the-Labour-smear-email-story-unfolded.html
If Guido had that much faith in his own blog why did he approach The Times and NoTW and want money for the emails? And if really did it for pleasure than profit, perhaps he would like to sue the Telegraph?
This isn’t to play down the role he plays, nor to say blogging is useless and I love the MSM. In fact I despise most of the media, apart from certain bits of the Guardian.
I would much rather lefties organise and create their own information structures online – as they have in the States. Eventually, we will.
Ian B said...
13 Apr 09 at 9:03 pm
Sunny, what I don’t understand is why, since you’re clearly an unabashed socialist, you call yourself a “liberal”. The two things are direct opposites. Shouldn’t your blog be “socialist conspiracy” or “left wing conspiracy” or “progressive conspiracy” or something?
I’m aware that “liberal” is a euphemism for socialist in the USA, but here it still means what it always has- free individuals, free markets, property rights, the antithesis of socialism and what is now called “the left”. So what’s with “liberal”?
Stu said...
13 Apr 09 at 9:35 pm
Sunny, if you’re trying to stop ‘so many trolls want to come by and spout drive-by abuse’ so you can ‘maintain civil and constructive conversations’, you want to explain the prescence of this comment (screenshot) even after you went in and removed all the vowels from two other comments (which were both perfectly eloquent – and unusually clean, considering the sources)?
No, don’t bother answering – it’s because ‘david brough’ is taking a position you agree with, whereas the others were taking positions you disagree with.
Liberal Conspiracy is your kingdom and you can do what the Sam Hill you like with comments that are posted there, but your stated ‘comments policy’ is simply a lie, and your approach to moderation is as petty as it is inconsistent – so spare us the bullshit.
(Sorry, Charlotte)
Sunny H said...
13 Apr 09 at 9:58 pm
Stu – I’m not even going to deny it. Like Guido I’m openly partisan and biased towards specific political views and goals. I enjoy the sight of lefties bashing and smacking down right-wingers. That’s what LC is all about, in fact. If they come over to our space to engage in drive-by trolling, they’ll get abuse in return, while having their own contributions mangled. Life is harsh, man.
ConservativeHome is for Tories, LC is for lefties, Order Order is for…. erm, well, I can’t think of a description for his readers. But there you have it.
Bunny Smedley said...
13 Apr 09 at 10:13 pm
In fact I despise most of the media, apart from certain bits of the Guardian.
That must be one of the more unlikely sentences I’ve ever encountered …
BenSix said...
13 Apr 09 at 11:39 pm
“Oh, and what was their ‘top story’ of the Easter Weekend again? Surely it must have been McBride, no? Oh, hang on…”
Yeah, instead of repeating something that was already clogging up 4/5ths of the known internet, they drew attention to 100,000 people marching with regards to a conflict that’s killed over 80,000…
Good God, have they no sense of proportion?!
Devil's Kitchen said...
14 Apr 09 at 5:36 am
Sunny,
Well, that rather shows that you haven’t the foggiest idea what free speech is, Sunny. Yes, free speech does mean that you “tolerate abuse and trolling”: if you want to censor comments, that’s your right — but don’t pretend that this policy is actually free speech, because it ain’t, old chum.
Look, Sunshine, free speech is free speech: there aren’t any shades of grey here. I rather think that it is you who have “a funny misreading of the concept of free speech”. So, I am forced to apply the Polly conundrum: are you thick or are you a liar? Or both?
Although, amusingly, it was one of my comments that you edited and I… er… don’t moderate, edit or delete comments.
Never mind, Sunnyshine, you pop off back to your nice, safe, happy playschool where everyone agrees with you and we grown-ups will continue to ignore you…
DK
P.S. Sorry, Charlotte: I just couldn’t resist it…
Devil's Kitchen said...
14 Apr 09 at 5:36 am
Damn! Missed closing the blockquote. Again…
DK
Charlotte Gore said...
14 Apr 09 at 8:05 am
Hey, it’s free speech here too (except for spammers
Fixed that blockquote for you
Obnoxio The Clown said...
14 Apr 09 at 8:45 am
I make no apologies for our comments policy
Fair enough, but your comments policy has got SFA to do with free speech.
Jeez, would you like me to draw you a picture? Smaller words?
Charlotte Gore said...
14 Apr 09 at 9:05 am
This,
Followed by this,
At least we’re being honest. Free Speech for Lefties?
Stu said...
14 Apr 09 at 9:22 am
“Like Guido I’m openly partisan and biased towards specific political views and goals.”
And unlike Guido, utterly incapable of accepting criticism and meeting it with honest debate.
Roger Thornhill said...
14 Apr 09 at 10:32 am
I think there are two aspects to the the smeargate (sorry).
First is the blog impact, that the MSM sat on the rumours either because it dared not leak it OR that the timing did not suit them. Had the Tories got in, given Nadine a ministerial post, THEN the MSM may have struck. Would they have used the material to unearth the behaviour in the Brown government? Unlikely, which is why this is a story.
To me, though, the biggest aspect is the fact that Brown hires these people and that they think that this behaviour is acceptable or can be recovered from. They are not fools who did not think about what they were doing or did not weigh up the risks had Brown found out internally. I suspect they knew (and I think rightly so) that had Brown found out internally that these emails existed, he would not have fired them on the spot.
Laurence Boyce said...
14 Apr 09 at 12:26 pm
Devil, here are two possible scenarios:
- Blog is sensibly moderated leading to intelligent and thought provoking debate.
- Blog is unmoderated leading to domination by trolls who drive out intelligent comment.
Under which scheme do you think free speech is better served? You see things are not always as clear cut as they might seem in your black and white world. Old chum.
Charlotte Gore said...
14 Apr 09 at 12:39 pm
Actually I’ve found that intelligent, thoughtful comments attract intelligent, thoughtful commentators.
If the standard of debate is generally low and quality of argument barely rising above dogmatic partisan drivel, then you attract dogmatic partisan drivellers who feel that they’ve got something of equal worth to everyone else to contribute.
Just saying.
MatGB said...
14 Apr 09 at 1:43 pm
I agree with both Charlotte and Laurence. Chris, free speech is there, but so is free association.
You’re the one who thinks property rights are paramount. I don’t have the right to say whatever I like on your blog. That you allow me to is your choice. However, I tend to avoid commenting there these days as the commentary at the Kitchen does tend to be as much an exercise in GroupThink as some of the LC threads, and frankly can’t be arsed.
Free speech only works with free association. Sunny’s blog, his rules, your free speech rights aren’t infringed if he chooses to moderate your contributions, Laurence is right, without moderation of some sort, some potential commenters, especially of the sort of marginalised groups that Sunny wants to reach out to, are put off and cease trying to contribute.
However, the comment of yours that you cross posted a few days back that Sunny disemvowelled as, to my mind, a fair comment that addressed the issues, did not engage in mindless abuse and was within the remits of sensible discussion. I, personally, do not think that comment should’ve been moderated.
However, it was not a post I had written (I post to LC even less than I used to post to the Kitchen), and thus it’s not my problem—if that had been done to a constructive comment on one of my posts, I’d be angry.
Sunny, the last few days haven’t been good for the site. Far too much concentration on a non-issue, drowning out the good stuff. Combine that with heavy handed moderation (and yes, I’ve asked you to delete comments recently, and I think justifiably, it’s not black/white as Chris thinks) and I think we need to be careful.
I’m going to try, this afternoon, to write a constructive post on differential turnout and electoral mechanics. But, I might need help to make it non-dull. We do need to lay off on the email story, it’s not worthy of the coverage it’s getting, it was a bunch of arses batting daft ideas around for a gossip blog—I know I’ve seen worse in email conversations elsewhere. Sure, Dorries is involved and making herself look ignorant and petty to anyone that knows the score, but meh, I care not.
Peter Horne said...
14 Apr 09 at 8:35 pm
nice blog
You might like this
http://www.corrupt.org/news/the_liberal_argument_shut_up
Aaron Murin-Heath said...
15 Apr 09 at 10:34 pm
Finally, someone mentions “free association”. Thank buggery for that.
DK, really, should know all about the fundamental principle behind that. After all, it’s one the pillars of libertarianism, old chum. *AND* it’s also one of the fundamental principles behind editing. Now I’ve never censored a comment (that wasn’t spam), nor have I ever banned anyone. But if I did, I wouldn’t, EVER, feel the need to justify it to anyone. I pay for the bandwidth, and free-speech exists when I pay my bills.
Praguetory said...
15 Apr 09 at 11:49 pm
The idiot Sunny said “I enjoy the sight of lefties bashing and smacking down right-wingers.”
That’s why I take the fact that my posts normally get removed rather quickly as a back-handed compliment.
Leon said...
16 Apr 09 at 12:36 am
Wow this thread has everything including Pricktory, now where his mate Letters from a Twat?
Charlotte Gore said...
16 Apr 09 at 12:45 am
Sunny enjoys the sight of lefties bashing and smacking down right wingers.
I enjoy watching rude people embarrass themselves.
Devil's Kitchen said...
16 Apr 09 at 1:00 am
Laurence,
The latter, you nitwit: the former isn’t free speech.
MatGB,
Shame on you , Mat. You know damn well that you can say anything that you want on my blog. We have met, and I have pointed this out to you. For you to take this line is utter hypocrisy, and you know it. I thought that you were better than this.
Aaron,
Yes. And. So. What? If you have a controlled comment policy, do not try to pretend that it is about free speech.
I have no comment policy: post what you like (including, for instance 24 lines of “you cunt”, as I had recently). But don’t pretend that that is free speech Aaron.
I am sure that your wife could tell you where control of free speech leads, yes?
DK
MatGB said...
16 Apr 09 at 1:09 am
DK, on your blog, everyone has your permission to say what they like. It’s your site, and your rules.
But you do, for example, delete spammers, right? I do.
Sunny has the right, on his site, to set the rules as he sees fit, and enforce them as he sees fit. I think he goes too far at times, and the rules are a little restrictive, but it’s his site.
The right to free speech is not infringed by the right to free association. In the pub where Jennie works, just down the road from where Charlotte lives, you can say what you like, but the landlord reserves the right to throw you out.
Just as the landlord reserves the right to have a sign saying “Barred” with a picture of one A. Darling.
Govts infringe free speech. Private individuals, on their property, do not. Like I said, I think the edits of your comments that I’ve seen by Sunny were innapropriate and too much. But it remains his site and property, it’s his right to do so.
You retain the right to complain, and repost the comments on your site. Your freedom of speech is not harmed, and neither is Sunny’s freedom of association.
Devil's Kitchen said...
16 Apr 09 at 1:12 am
MatBG,
The reason that spamers are deleted are because they are not freely speaking: they are robots. Otherwise, everyone has their voice.
Sunny’s.. Actually, no, fuck that idiot: I can’t be arsed.
All I will say is that spammers are not commenters: anyone else can say what they like. That is free speech.
DK
Charlotte Gore said...
16 Apr 09 at 1:18 am
Free speech doesn’t apply to robots. Sorry robots.
Brian Micklethwait said...
16 Apr 09 at 3:44 am
Devil (and all others having the free speech conversation}:
Surely the important thing about “free speech” (which means different things to different people) is not that bloggers have any sort of obligation to tolerate comments they don’t like, but that those “censored” (“edited”?) on one blog can say whatever they like on other blogs, or their own blog.
If “free speech” means your right to say whatever you like wherever you like, e.g. your right to swear like a lunatic during a church servive you’ve just wandered into, then … I am against free speech. If. And I, like you, am a Guido-ite libertarian. (I’m not saying you’d do that.)
The kind of free speech I (and others in this thread) do believe in is your right to swear like a lunatic where that’s allowed, e.g. in Guido’s comments, and in your own blog postings.
This kind of definition blurring matters, though. Lump these two things together, and the world is liable either to use the blurring to excuse forbidding us each to say what we like in our own territory, OR: laws are passed which (e.g.) force Churches to tolerate swearing by interlopers. Or both.
By the way (Devil), I think your relentless swearing in your blog postings is becoming a bore and it’s holding you back, but that’s just my opinion.
Newmania said...
16 Apr 09 at 9:49 am
Matt Sunny banned me from contributing to Liberal Conspiracy and what is especially galling is that it was done with a cowardly dishonesty. He allowed the foulest possible language to be used against me and then when I responded banned me from the site something he had obviously be itching to do for other reasons.
Those other reasons were that I know more than he does about ‘everything’ and expressed a point of view he would like to see banned from the country.
In this action Illiberal Conspiracy has shown what it really is which is a a Sunny Hundal and Labour mouthpiece masquerading as something else to insinuate itself into the healthy free air of the blogasphere whilst practising its real bossy boots agenda
You cannot be committed in any wauy to a free and Liberal society and yet support this nasty little ego trip
Stu said...
16 Apr 09 at 10:04 am
I have no problem with moderated comments policies – I will moderate comments on my blog as and when I deem it necessary (only once, so far, in 10 months of blogging – the person who simply wrote ‘Shut the Fuck Up, Stu’ on a 6 month old post can frankly grow up). My gaff, my rules and all that.
I appreciate this puts me at odds with DK, but my problem with Liberal Conspiracy is that they have an inconsistent and petty moderation policy, and then have the audacity to claim it’s ‘aimed at fostering constructive debate’.
I other words, the real problem isn’t with their comments policy itself, it’s with the fact that they sanctimoniously lie about it on their site. They claim to care about debate but investing the time to write a comment there is pointless since you could get moderated just because Sunny doesn’t like the cut of your jib.
Newmania said...
16 Apr 09 at 10:47 am
I other words, the real problem isn’t with their comments policy itself, it’s with the fact that they sanctimoniously lie about it on their site. They claim to care about debate but investing the time to write a comment there is pointless since you could get moderated just because Sunny doesn’t like the cut of your jib.
Spot on Stu , and this lie really reflects the dishonesty at its heart which is that it is a left wing campaigning site ,necessarily requires a lot of banning and control but it pretends to a Liberal site .
How much less Liberal would it be possible to be ?
Charlotte Gore said...
16 Apr 09 at 11:30 am
I’ve long complained about the use of the word ‘Liberal’ in ‘Liberal Conspiracy’ and wrote a blog post to the effect that this was a honeypot to lure lib dems into continuing the ‘vote labour to keep out the tories’ idea alive and well.
They’re welcome to their comments policy – and we’re welcome to judge them by it. It’s obvious it’s building up ill-will, negativitity and a seemingly endless stockpile of enemies. This is why Free Speech is a good thing, by the way – avoids all this rubbish. Just sayin’.
Letters From A Tory said...
16 Apr 09 at 11:31 am
“If the standard of debate is generally low and quality of argument barely rising above dogmatic partisan drivel, then you attract dogmatic partisan drivellers who feel that they’ve got something of equal worth to everyone else to contribute.”
That’s what makes LC comment threads so pathetic. They have no goal, no objective, they just shout and yell at people who have nothing to contribute of their own. The concept of a ‘discussion’ is totally alien to LC as their regulars just hurl abuse. Mind you, it is funny to see them pretend to be relevant when they have no relevance in politics whatsoever.
Excellent post, Charlotte.
Aaron Murin-Heath said...
16 Apr 09 at 11:33 am
Oh my, a lecture on being pathetic from LFaT. My day is complete.
Letters From A Tory said...
16 Apr 09 at 11:43 am
I say again, the concept of a discussion is completely alien to LC regulars – no objective, no goal, just abuse.
Talk about proving my point!
Leon said...
16 Apr 09 at 11:55 am
You’re a twat and deserve all the abuse you get.
Aaron Murin-Heath said...
16 Apr 09 at 11:57 am
Abuse?
Oh my, I don’t think this internet is for you, dear. Maybe you should wrap yourself in cotton wool and put yourself on a very high shelf.
This is my problem with the internet. It’s just full of people feigning offence and wasting their time achieving very little.
So you’re telling me that rightwing blogs don’t slate liberals and lefties? You need to get real. Seriously, please stop wasting my time.
Newmania said...
16 Apr 09 at 12:08 pm
Aaron is one of the goodies in my experience LFAT and I cannot agree that there are not some very good regulars on Illiberal Con . I have a guilty liking for Unity even and Sunder is superb ( much though I may disagree with him).I think its fine to do whatever you like on a comments policy what annoying is to pretend to be “Liberal” and actually be authoritarian socialist.
Sunny H said...
16 Apr 09 at 4:01 pm
Awwww, isn’t this sweet – this thread has become a little refuge for all the idiots abused and banned from LC to complain and bitch about bloody sucking lefties and their censorship seeking aways.#
DK: You know damn well that you can say anything that you want on my blog.
I don’t really like addressing you Mounsey – a guy who posts pictures of bloggers to comment on their ‘Asian features – but if someone writes on their blogs about the sexual fantasies they have about Polly Toynbee, then that’s a pretty high bar you’ve set for idiocy. Ergo, it’s unlikely you’ll get commenters who are bigger fuckwits than you – which is why there’s little reason for you to delete anything on your blog.
But please feel free to carry on talking about LC – it just makes the site more prominent. If LFAT, Stu, DK, newmania etc never appeared there ever again it would be no skin off my back – it’s a website by and for lefties. Not right-wing sychophants.
Ian B said...
16 Apr 09 at 4:13 pm
I’d still like an explanation as to why “a website by and for lefties” is calling itself “liberal”.
Sunny H said...
16 Apr 09 at 4:47 pm
You can ask, but I’m not obliged to keep repeating what I’ve already pointed out lots of times – it’s a brand name. There’s been plenty of discussion about it already on LC in the past:
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/lc/topics/liberal%20conspiracy/page/2/
oh, and another relevant post:
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/12/04/dealing-with-right-wing-trolls/
Letters From A Tory said...
16 Apr 09 at 4:52 pm
“please feel free to carry on talking about LC – it just makes the site more prominent”
Ha, that amused me. I think you’ll find that more prominence only comes from greater publicity rather than people who already know about you mocking your site.
“it’s a website by and for lefties”
Yes, we know. So call it ‘Lefty Conspiracy’ and you won’t get people laughing at your non-existent liberal credentials.
Sunny H said...
16 Apr 09 at 5:15 pm
Oh wait – the guy making excuses for police brutality all this week is trying to give me lessons on liberalism? Love the irony.
Any mocking from you and your chums will be worn with a badge of pride.
MatGB said...
16 Apr 09 at 5:34 pm
LFaT, I know reading comprehension isn’t necessarily your strong point (you’re one of the less stupid Tories but still…) but look at the tagline and headline for the site?
“creating a new liberal-left alliance”. For the comprehension challenged, that means the objective is to try and get left wingers and liberals talking about issues, and finding those they agree on. There are some authoritarian lefties, and some rightish liberals, but most of the contributors are both leftish and liberal.
Not all liberals are left wing, not all left wingers are liberal, LC’s core audience is those that are both left wing and liberal, but there’ll always be some overlap.
As you self describe as a Tory (instead of a Conservative, which has a different meaning the two aren’t synonyms), it means you are neither left wing nor liberal, thus the site isn’t for you. Bitching about how much it isn’t for you doesn’t really get you anywhere.
As I am both, with greater emphasis on the liberal bit, I like to use it to reach out to those who ought to be more properly liberal than they are. That I’m too lazy to do enough of it is a different point entirely.
@Charlotte: I’m pretty sure that everyone with posting access to the site is ‘liberal’ in at least one of the three main areas that matter within the term, although some are distinctly illiberal at times in their approach to dogmatic positions—but then, the same can be said to me on some issues.
Ian B said...
16 Apr 09 at 6:00 pm
Perhaps we should define terms a little. ONce, long ago “left wing” meant classical liberals; individualists who sought to reduce the power of the state. It now means socialists; collectivists who seek to increase the power of the state.
“Liberal” still means, outside america, classical liberals, which is why socialists spit at economic freedom as “neoliberalism”. Americans, yes, use “liberal” as a synonym for socialism, but there is no reason to think that we outside American must tolerate the theft of the word.
So, you can’t talk, outside the US, about “liberal-left”. It would mean, people who seek to empower the indivudual against the state and seek to disempower the individual and impose state authority. It’s oxmoronic. There is not, and cannot be, a “liberal left”. It’s at best a deliberate smokescreen and at worst a deliberate attempt to steal the word.
So, liberals must cling onto the word, instead of settling for the clumsy “libertarian”. Come to that, perhaps it’s time we took back the term “left” as well, and forced the “left” into admitting what they are; a bunch of power-seeking authoritarians, wise enough neither to leave well alone that which ain’t broke, nor to change anything for the better.
“Authoritarian Conspiracy” would be an honest banner.
MatGB said...
16 Apr 09 at 6:11 pm
Oh Ian, such a close minded position. The term “left” has many many meanings, you’ve chosen to concentrate on the tendency of some left wingers (the illiberal ones) to also be authoritarian.
There are, after all, right wingers famous for increasing the power of the state as well.
There are, effectively, two axes, left and right (normally an axis about economic policies, where taxes should come from, property rights, etc) and liberty/authority.
Your “lefty” is, on that sort of scale, a left-wing authoritarian, and there’s no doubt these people exist, and I even said they post to LC. But there are many of us on the left that are distinctly not authoritarians, but our economics and social outlook would still be accepted, by most, as being left wing.
There is, and always has been, a liberal left. If you choose to say that in the first paragraph, then deny it in the subsequent ones, that’s up to you.
I believe in reducing the tax burden on the poorest, ensuring the wealthiest don’t have a billion llopholes to exploit and empowering the weakest to take part in society, all traditional liberal positions.
But all radically to the ‘left’ of the current centrist consensus of the duopoly that’s governed us for the last 60 years.
You seem, actually, to agree with most of this, but don’t see that many of those contributing to LC are of a very similar mindset. That there are those that aren’t is inevitable, it’s the nature of a diverse site: I want to persuade them of their errors, you merely want to bitch that they exist.
The overwhelming majority of those you bitch about are a lot more liberal on most issues than the current Govt, so while they’re not liberal enough, you can say that about virtually everything when you’re as committed to liberal/libertarianism as most of us commenting here are.
Aaron Murin-Heath said...
16 Apr 09 at 6:17 pm
Well I’m deputy editor, and I’m not a socialist – and certainly not ‘authoritarian’.
I just think Tories, in the main, are scat-munchers.
I believe in markets. But I also think large behemothic corps. are no better than large governments. I want the system to change. Radically.
I’m a progressive.
Leon said...
17 Apr 09 at 4:07 pm