Socio Politico Rants.
I am currently moving house, and I see that there is a lot going on in this site. A few days ago under the "Japan needs to apologise" post, I was pretty mad at a commenter and told her she should not post here again because I do not allow hate rhetotic placed onto this site. (I retracted the ban and she explained herself and it’s all good) But This of course has raised the issue of "How can you fight for free speech but ban someone??"
That’s because the real meaning of freespeech is not, "Anyone can say what they want, whereever they want, whenever they want."
So what the hell is it and how I can ban someone?
I try and answer this in a comment. It’s a bit rough, but this is all I have time for right now.
———-
I just want to make a comment/statment about free speech that is refered to and directed at me.
First. I retracted that Chie cannot write here in case anyone missed
the post. it was probably not the best way forward BUT I retain the
right to ban, delete, and have full adminstration powers to this site.
Since Decemeber 1 2003. Glutter has enacted a "Comment Box Policy" due to excessive flame mongers and attacks.
http://glutter.typepad.com/glutter/2003/12/glutter_comment.html
Therefore there is a "contractual" understanding of the users and
me. I host the site, feel free to comment but certain things are not
tolerated. Such as sexist, racist, bigoted and degrading comments. That
is to prevent not only me, but other users from being overly attacked
or insulted. Glutter although fight for freedom of expression as a
concept. As a site First and foremost aim is that Glutter is a SAFE
SPACE for those who want to discuss and talk about concepts and ideas
without name calling or being attacked. It was always the idea to talk
about contriversal things but maintain a level of decorum.
However I understand that some people will find that problematic,
but this goes into "What is free speech?" and how does it work actually
in a legal and power dynamics sense?
Free speech is a concept and a right that is (in some countries and
well as under the UN charters) a human right that is protected under
law. It’s not an idea of "Anyone can say whatever they want because
it’s a fact of life" It is very much to do with power, and persecution.
"Saying whatever I want anytime," is not actually the concept of
free speech or even "free country,". The way I conceieve it as well as
use it is I try to stick with the institutional points of what it is.
Institutional = Power = Those who Rule and Represent
NOT normal person. Not even the person who is in the "role" but the
role itself (This is important in regards to the currently debate as
well)
For example Yelling bad things about someone at their funeral is
probably protected by freespeech laws, but does not mean other people
don’t have the right and ability to chuck that person out of the place.
More governmentally. Is France a country that is "Autocratic"
because it does not allow the sales of Nazi parephenial? America
"Autocratic" and Anti free speech because it enacts hate crime laws?
Can we really say those two places are not civil societies because
they have certain levels of protection again minorities, people of
color, women, or other extreme hate rethoric?
No. We cannot say that because in that society people do have the
ability to challenge, disagree and disobey orders without persecution.
By banning certain people (Chie is NOT one of them) is no ways is
problematic to free speech because I am not in a position of authority
and people can write what they want anywhere else and I will defend
their right to do so.
however this is my space, and I can enact any kind of policy I want,
because the wider society is indeed "free" and that it is no way
autocratic because I am open to be challenged, and open to change my
mind which I did. If I was truly blindly autocratic, I would simply
delete all the post i don’t like, and refuse to engage in discussion as
I have done.
in the case of this debate, the comment box remains open, although I
really do think some of the retorhic that is currently being bandied
around is VERY problematic. However, under the spirit that unless both
sides talk even if we disagree, we might all come to some understanding
of where the points of contentions are, and possibly be able to bridge
a gap in the future.
However this is an "off side," to answer any of the questions that
was raised regarding my behavoir. Do feel free to continue the current
debate.
Thanks
yan
Yan Sham-Shackleton Online 
yan,
this is off topic from the free speech stuff. today’s NY Times article may interest you: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/27/international/asia/27china.html
i haven’t fully digested the implications, but it offers opportunities for thinking about the nature of the central bureau. i remain convinced that the anti-japanese protests were not truly intended for japan. anyway, keep up the good work.
LikeLike
yan- i was raised with free to be you and me:
i think you’re absolutely justified in imposing standards. canada also has anti-hate laws.
LikeLike
Yan, Nice to see you back safely.
I have a question regarding to your policy.
You said “but certain things are not tolerated. Such as sexist, racist, bigoted and degrading comments.”
OK, then how about the following message?
but they’re not looked favorably by the people who really mattered in this situation, the Jap govt. Plus, it levelled up chinese’ infamous reputation …
Posted by: Stephanie | April 20, 2005 01:37 PM
Don’t you think the word “Jap” smells racism. Stephanie maybe did not even realize the strong sense of racism in the word. I was glad you rephrased the word to “the Japanese government” when you responded to her comment. I know you either dislike or hate Japanese, but the policy is the policy, and you must stick to keep enforcing it fairly. I wished you would have said to her it was not right thing to say. I am Japanese and I do not tolerate any racial word like that. I don’t support Koizumi nor current Japanese Government, but still I don’t want anyone call Japanese “Jap”. I’ll fight for it. I hope there is no double-standard on your blog policy.
Yoshinori
LikeLike
Nori,
I agree that “Jap” is a racist word and it should not be used. Had Stephanie said that and called you a “Jap” I would not hesitate to tell her not to use it and a apologise to you.
however, she wrote “Jap government,” and that’s just lazy typing. Because she is talking about the Japanese Government and if you look at the context of what she wrote, she’s surely not being racist.
But if you really feel that it’s an issue. Talk to Steph about it (Notice I also too lazy to write “enie” on the name as well.) You’ve been very vocal about this whole thing. I have faith in you to fight your own battles and defend yourself about this issue.
As for policy. Yup it’s equal. It’s what I try to do even if sometimes I lose my temper as well and probably should be banned from my own site.
Ya?
yan
LikeLike
Thanks, Yan. Your response really made me happy. I figured out Stephanie did not mean racial from the context of her message. I prefer “JP” instead of that word.
I just want to let as many people as possible know how one Japanese think of this issue. I am neither left or right, but about middle. As I wrote unless we talk, we will never understand each other and there may be wide gap of the perspective on this whole issue between Chinese and Japanese. But it is much better than no communication. I believe we can narrow the gap of mistrust if we step forward one by one.
Yoshinori
LikeLike
Freedom speach means that people are free from the government restricting what they say. But this site is not the government’s, it is Yan’s. She can permit or ban any speach she wants. If people don’t like that, they are free to start their own blog.
Because she favors reasonable discussion, she allows different views. But if she chooses not to that is not censorship. It is her right.
Ted
LikeLike
Ted, with respect, I noted your comment and Yan already explained it well. Thank you. Maybe, I should have not used the word, “Freedom of speech”. Instead, “Freedom of expression” was sort of appropriate one. I did not know Who Yan was at that time when I wrote the first comment. I thought “Nominee for ‘Freedom Blog Awards,’ Blogs defending the Rights for Free Expression” seemed to be contradicting to what happened in the discussion in my personal point of view. And next day I found out she was the owner of the site. That’s why I thought I would not make any comment anymore since I knew I had no rights to step in somebody’s house and complain. She rules this site. But I came back a couple of days later because I began to know she was a reasonable person after reading other topics and wanted to post some.
LikeLike
Thanks for the reply Nori.
I wasn’t trying to attack you. I think you have some good points. Thanks for your comments. I don’t know Yan, but I appreciate her running this site and allowing discussion. She has been posting on some controversial issue, so I’m sure she will attract passionate comments. But in the end it is her site and if she doesn’t like me, or anyone one else, she can ban us. But PLEASE Yan, don’t ban yourself. Your passion is the reason people come here 🙂
LikeLike
Ted, Thanks for reply. Yes, I agree we need Yan and this site with all these wonderful participants. Nori.
LikeLike
Quick note – I know stephanie personally and am quite certain that she wasn’t aware of the pejorative nature of the term “jap”.
LikeLike
Tom, Thanks for your note.:-)
LikeLike