While I agree with deleting the spam, I have a problem with people who post a blog and then delete the people who disagree with them. Yes, it's their house, their rules but......

How are you going to learn anything? How are you going to understand the other side of the issue if you don't discuss it in an open and honest way? Every coin has two sides, so do every issue.

People who read my comments have seen where I have said I come here because people don't agree with me. I admit that there have been a few people who have made their case as to why I'm wrong and I've changed my mind. Hopefully, I've done the same to them.

I've also been told to shut up and go away. Some have deleted my comments. I'm never rude or insulting in my comments. You should have and state a point of view. If your position is so weak that my comments are a threat maybe you should reconsider your position. If my position are so wrong, then everyone will see that also and make a judgment about me.

Comments and blogs should never, unless insulting etc, be deleted.

I have to agree with JL re the Planet place poster, it's blogarrhea, voluminously so.

and disagree, respectfully, with catnlion--your choice in your blog, but I do think getting rid of someone's comment leaves a hole and should be done with judicious care.

You are all blessed to have avoided the attention of the Right Wing Noise machine, or you would be happy to censor. I know of other sites where the robo-posting has been out of control.

I'm fine with deleting the obsessive posting of stalkers and mortal enemies, who will perpetually be on the attack, no matter what one blogs.

I keep spam posts at my other site where I have a group, just to humiliate them and to throw darts at their naked little bodies.

I agree with JL Davis: unless it violates TOS, keep the paws off!

As far as comments, I can see deleting a really nasty, mean comment intended to insult or harass, but deleting "just cuz you and said poster don't agree" is foolish.

If someone is "bugging" me, I just don't respond: that hasn't happened yet. I'm friendly, even with users I don't agree with, that is what makes OS what it is. You can get into a heated debate about something and the next mintue the same person you were bickering with is telling a joke, its great.

There has to be a limit to what can be posted here, so I think there will be posts that should rightfully be deleted, even if it is considered censorship by some.

Examples might include the unapproved disclosure of private information of another user, threats, obscene and harsh ad hominem attacks on other users, and so on.

True free for all online communities rarely succeed. There needs to be a minimum level of civility and a filtering of the truly objectionable content to keep continuity in the community, especially as this site will continue to grow.

I'm not advocating for strict and rigid authoritarianism; I'm just saying some things are out of bounds and a degree of structure and some rules are needed. For example, no one should be afraid to offer a thought or idea, but I don't think people should be able to post unsupported and vicious personal attacks.

IMHO, a tool to block those commenters who are being abusive would be more fair (and less sensational) than deleting their comments. This should be the prerogative of the blogger, whose post attracted the unwanted comment. That keeps housecleaning easier - the abusive poster still has the right to comment where his opinions are welcomed/tolerated, and the blogger who prefers a peaceful household can maintain it that way.

I completely agree. Thumbed!

I thought only gov't could censor. Rest is personal perogative.

To clarify: All members of OS agree to the Terms of Service (thanks to JL for pointing this out and providing the link) If members violate those terms, they are subject to consequences.
Deleting blogs that violate these rules (obscene, defamatory or invasive of the privacy of another person, graphically violent, physically threatening,etc.), is NOT censorship, in my opinion. This is a community. People do not have to join. If they do join, they are subject to the Terms of Service.
I wrote this post to clarify the difference between a post and a comment because that seemed to be blurred in some of the recent posts. There have been many people saying that the blogger should not delete comments made in their blog- that if they do, this is censorship. I think it is the blogger's prerogative to delete comments, whether they violate the TOS or not.

redstockinggrandma,

You can delete, just like you said, for whatever reason you like. You are not actually required to explain yourself. Literally, no one but you has the power to make that call--if it's your blog (except maybe OS from "out there") .

That said, just like it is necessity for a big mouth to be prepared for pushback, you too should be prepared when you delete--you should be prepared for potential fallout.

So there it is. Each time, you have to measure the thing out: is the edit going to be worth the pushback?

Just jumping in here, maybe not entirely sure of the context . . .

I don't think we've deleted any posts other than those that are serious spam or have an obvious copyright violation. But J.L. is right, we did create the TOS for a reason.

If a post suddenly disappears, you'd be wrong to assume we hit the delete button. A lot of members delete a post for various reasons -- they want to take another crack at it, they might want to sell it elsewhere, they've decided they don't want it up there, etc.

Good analogy. I leave individual posts up to the poster. It's like their home, if they don't want guests in their home, then so be it. I leave them all in, good and bad. Mostly so the bad can get a new ass ripped.

Grandma writes: "It is utter bullshit to discuss character assassination as if it were a question of freedom of speech. You don't have the freedom to go to someone's house and write on their driveway and house attacking them, put up lying signs. etc."

Since Open Salon staff are our "hosts," so to speak, this is really an issue they have to address. It's a matter of what kind of community they want to have here, of what kind of experience they want people to come away with.

The typical concerns about censorship don't really apply very well here, in my humble opinion. That's because this is a relatively small community and as such has an interpersonal dynamic that is somewhat fragile. To the extent that personal attacks are allowed, people feel the need to choose sides, and we eventually end up with a very nasty and unpleasant atmosphere. People come here to have an interesting and enjoyable experience and instead are treated to displays of insults and foul language, and the actual issues under discussion disappear.

Anti-censorship "fundamentalists" are Ok with that. They would say "if that's what happens, then so be it," and decorum, politeness, and civility are all sacrificed in the name of the lofty ideal of virtually unlimited free speech.

The problem is that you end up not only with free speech but also a venue that many good people no longer want to be a part of, and the interesting and thoughtful posts begin to disappear. Eventually you end up with a snake pit, and the fact that the snakes all have free speech is small comfort.

Kerry: Please read my previous comment. I don't think the editors are deleting posts. There have been so many threads going in the past few days about censorship- I was trying to clarify the difference between a post and a comment. I have probably failed to do so and created more controversy, but that was not my intention. I really just wanted people to see this post in hope that they will go read my Freaky's TERRIBLE Day post that was buried in the feed.....

There's censorship (little “c”) and Censorship (capital “C”). Or, put another way, some matters more than others. But you use the keyword “freedom of speech” and yet your remarks here have not addressed freedom of speech. Freedom of speech (as in the first amendment) is a right against the state to keep them from using governmental force to keep you from speaking politically. Even Fox News (well-known for its rich variety of censorship techniques, from cutting people off to cherry-picking their guests) is not abridging free speech by so doing because they are not the government. Some people tend to think their right to speak freely is an absolute right against everyone to make them shut up and listen in all forums, but it's not. If you spoke out of turn in the Supreme Court, the nation's final line of defense of the Constitution, they would happily censor you and know they were not doing anything wrong (by present doctrine) because even they have admitted that even the government has a right to “time and manner” restrictions on speech.

So people can whine and posture a lot, but the truth is that the only real tool available in this discussion is rational argument based on enlightened self-interest, cognitive dissonance, and the like. Any discussion of their rights being infringed or other people behaving inappropriately should be accompanied by a text that promises behavior other than what they're getting... I don't think you'll find one.

So my position is that #1 and #2 are both censorship, but with a little “c.” If you're talking big “C” Censorship, then neither is.

And that's assuming there's even been an intentional act on the part of OS. I'm sure they're strongly motivated to stay hands off lest they get drawn into every little squabble...

Kent: I didn't use the term "freedom of speech". Not going there....

Catnlion said:
How are you going to learn anything? How are you going to understand the other side of the issue if you don't discuss it in an open and honest way? Every coin has two sides, so do every issue.

Of course! But it's anyone's prerogative to shut their minds if they choose to, isn't it. If someone wants to take their ball and go home, so be it. And we are all playing by the rules as others have stated. As long as we all know the rules and agree to abide by them, we have an even playing field. Sheesh, enough with the sports analogies.

MB great post, great discussion, and welcome to the Blue States!!! I have friends in Raleigh and will be in lovely blue sky, blue state NC for the holidays.

Censorship relates to government action, not to the actions of private property owners.

It is not censorship for a bar owner to tell you to pipe down or leace before tossing you out on your ass.

No matter what the Ms. Walsh, the vixen, or her minions do, it is not censorship. She's not the government.

Unfortunately, the intent of this site just blew its cover. The very fact that it censors comments ruins its potential.
I'll have to stick to my own blog to be purely connected. I tried Facebook (for which I still have hope) and I tried this; excited about its, apparently failed, prospect.
It's ok. We'll all connect soon enough, just not as quickly as we could without censorship of any kind.

...I spoke too soon (alas, I jumped to conclusions about OS censorship based on this post's thesis).
If it truly is only spam or copyright violations being censored, then we can have this debate and not write off OS completely. Let's maybe assume for now that they're not spinning the truth about what's deleted (until our trust has significant evidence of being violated).

...so to add to the debate: how can we decide what violates copyright in a society that seems to be shirking off the notion of copyright altogether?

This discussion is AMAZING. It truly makes me proud to think alongside all of you.
To Mary Joan Koch: I have experienced that same problem as a female blogger. I was first frustrated by the blogosphere during the Bush/Kerry campaign, and I finally lost it and went on anti-depressants (and, not coincidentally, went off of them almost immediately after the Obama election).
But, I would argue, in this new post-Obama world where my hope is revived, I have been empowered to stop trying to face down mysogynists on forums that attract the kind of divisiveness that subsequently attracts trollers and start blogging on my own. Maybe it was a blessing of sorts that so many women are forced to do this that we're getting uniquely individualistic female voices in the blogosphere.
To the point of censoring mysogynist comments here, I think it's probably fine, considering enough misogyny has been exposed in uncensored blogs out there that we know it for what it is and can move past it.

I think the management should have a right to delete blog posts and comments that violate their standards, but I don't think bloggers should be able to delete comments on their blog at will. On one blog, twice I've posted comments that were not insulting but which disagreed with the blogger and had the comments removed. In each case, I thought the comment removed was powerful argument against the blogger's position.

There's a limit to how many times anyone is going to read posts on a particular subject. If there's a lively discussion on a blog, then how do you know when it's been tweaked to eliminate certain arguments? By tweaking, the blogger can skew opposition to his/her points to look weak.