However, it’s a question of venue.

I’ve seen all kinds of stuff being said on certain ‘blogs and forums, what wouldn’t be tolerated elsewhere.

So if we take the ‘houses’ idea, clearly a lot is being said behind closed doors.

But in more public venues, there are those who have to enforce the broader social norms and ensure those not following those shared, polite values are kept quiet.

As I’ve said before, this isn’t censorship, it’s citizenship…

So…?

Clearly then, we agree.

And as I mention in the opening paragraph, there’s a certain confusion as to what this newfangled free speech thing is all about.

I’ve had this discussion before many times, mostly under exceptionally heated circumstances because there are those that think they have the right to say just what the hell they like and not be in any way either responsible or liable to question for those views.

That rarely exists in the really real world, so why should it exist here on this interweb thing?

That is such a loaded question, when you are dealing with issues of free speech and censorship, but I thought I would respond with my own take on it.

While I am usually of the opinion that every individual has the right to ‘be heard’ so to speak, I find that there are times which I simply cannot ignore, when perhaps some type of censorship is indeed called for in an open forum.

I don’t think the question is really whether or not someone is ‘entitled’ to their own views on a specific subject, but more importantly whether they should be allowed to ‘express’ it in a manner that could be considered abusive or offensive. And I for one, would not hesitate to purge a comment on my site if I found it to be such. That is my right.

As far as the matter of ‘Digg’. I think their solution only offers to hide the problem rather than to take an active role in resolving it. As you said. The comments remain. And where there’s fuel…there’s fire.

But that’s just my opinion!
- Anna