Letters to the editor

This is my blog.

Well, dur. But I mean more than that says on the face of it.

It's my blog. For me. I am my intended audience. I never make any pretence otherwise and only occasionally address anything to anyone else (as if to prove that I am not as consistent as I might be). By focusing so tightly on an audience, I can write easily and fluently precisely what I know that audience will enjoy. If anyone else enjoys it, that's a byproduct. A welcome one, I hasten to add. I love having readers.

Sometimes those readers comment on what I've written or something vaguely connected. Clearly, I welcome that too. I stuck them in there after all.

But here's a curious thing. Because the blog is for me, I believe the comments are for me too.

A sharpeyed, time-rich reader might have noticed that a comment has been refactored. I did it for fun. The comment was for me, so I made it a communication from me. It's a wiki thing, if you like. I've said before I won't be trolled on my own blog and I won't be. Usually, I would ignore a troll. I know enough about how trolling works to know that that really is the only way to deal with them. But it's a kindness to the boy not to leave him swinging.

Now. Someone has told me they feel this doesn't square with my firm belief in free speech, which I've often stated. I don't agree. I haven't banned any users from commenting. Anyone is free to.

I think of it like a newspaper. At first, I was going to say that it was like a letter to the editor, because we do not dispute that a newspaper might edit your letter or refuse it, and yet that is not taken to be censorship as such.

But it is more like this: a newspaper does not have to print an article you write. If it does, it is free to do with it what it chooses. That's how I look at my comments.

Did I just bend the rules?

***

Perhaps. Is there a rule that says that all media must allow any expression whatsoever and may not set limits on it? Is that what freedom of speech means? Must I protest whenever a newspaper is biased, because it will not publish the opposing view?

Hmmm.

Well, of course there is no "must" about it. I make my own rules and they do not have to be solidly inflexible edifices. They can if I choose be as wishywashy as "freedom of expression is a good thing".

Now, if the means of dissenting were denied to those who held the opposing view, this is something I would protest. While each individual newspaper might have discretion over who gets published and who does not, and can edit you how they choose if that is the agreement between you, there ought not to be restrictions on who can have a newspaper. Anything that reduces the restrictions is by extension going to be a good thing.

In this instance, if you feared that your marvellously well-reasoned "Dr Zen is a cunt" might transform itself by the magic of my editor's pen into "Dr Zen is brill", there is a means to express yourself without my totalitarian interference. Call me a cunt on your own blog. I'd defend your right to do so.

posted by Dr Zen @ 12:15 pm