Anonymouse

Nazy Kaviani

I agree with your suggestion. Specially regarding deleting blogs. Rating is used on youtube; Amazon; BBC and so on. I see no problem with it. Because is it not restricting speech. Rather allows people to say if they like something.

As for its value I question that. I know organized campaigns specially by Israeli to flood BBC with ratings. This has turned the rating system into a joke. Of course there are ways like requiring you have been registered for at least say a week or a month before you get to rate. That will keep the noise out. However ratings to me are a lot better than cencorship. So thanks for a good suggestion.

Rate comments and blogs instead of deleting them

I am against people being able to delete comments. In fact I am also very much against people being able to delete blogs which have already received comments. People's comments do not belong to the blogger to delete. It takes time and energy to engage in a debate. It is a shame when hours of work which have gone into writing comments are wasted when a blogger decides to delete a blog. An open debate on the internet is not anybody's personal property to delete, in my humble opinion.

I think our problem is not limited to offensive comments. We also have a a problem with complimentary comments which add nothing to the discussion and are aimed to falsely increase the comment count on a blog to convey "goodness" and "quality." I believe Iranian.com should institute a rating mechanism for all contributions to the site, including comments. People can rate profound comments positively and vicious and stupid comments negatively. Comments which receive too many negative votes will not be readily displayed, but still available for viewing.

I think ever since we have been able to comment on the site's content, as a community, we have come a long way in our language and conduct, even though there are still a few of us who consistently show slower growth in this area. Instead of silencing them or even engaging in similar language and conduct, how about if we cast our votes about their comments?

My two cents.

Don't be offended

But No,Nada.

Conversation is not one way.

It's Conversing of two.

LoverOfLiberty,

No way!

This website costs money to run. Leaving a comment costs it money. Even if it was somehow free, they are not obigated to accept anyone. You may have a point if you had paid some kind of payment and had a contract that said you can not be censored. But that never happens. Online goods and services have contracts that covers that scenario.

This is not "protected" speech because it is not endangered speech.

IC is not a "public forum", the true sense of which means "owned by the public", like a national park or public highway or the White House.

Maybe IC can be thought of as a private forum open to the public. So what? If you attend a private forum open to public in real life, whoever rented the hall can kick you out for any reason, even call the Police to do it for him. It's true in real life and it's true online.

Think about what you are saying. That FOX News online, or New York Times website, or YouTube(much more public than IC) cannot delete any comments. Not only that, they have to pay the costs for you to make unlimited free comments!

There is absolutely no legal merit to this. If what you say was even remotely true, there would have been 100s of lawsuits by now.

They absolutely can and do delete anything they don't like.

Q,

Q: "Freedom of expression refers to government not passing any laws to restrict speech. It does not mean, private entities are obligated to publish anything anyone demands."

At least in the US, I think a legal argument could be made that a website with blogs that are open to comments from the general public might be considered as a type of public forum.  I am not aware of any cases by which this line of argument has been tested.  But, if such websites are legally considered to be a public forum, then comments therein could possibly be a protected form of speech. 

Perhaps we are in uncharted legal waters here.  But, if it is a protected form of speech, then this discussion is about free speech and a vote "YES" would, in effect, condone censorship.  

I vote for Jasmine Rice over Basmati ;-)

.

Yawn VPK, you didn't get it and probably aren't going to

You obviously think you know what I want.

LOL. Yea, I guess we have that in common.

This of course fits the Islamist mentality of "my way or highway". As they are quick to be offended and incapable of dealing with reality. With control of speech comes lack of credibility.

It is Islamists like you who are scared. Of reality; of having their pack of lies exposed. So they use any means possible to stifle speech.

It is blind ignorants like you who are so messed up in the head, that cannot seperate their political hatred with any discussion on other issues. They see their enemy wherever they look and that's why their pants is constantly wet. That's no way to live!

With your argument then IC should represent JJ's point of view only. So you advocate having more Fox news types.

Of course, you're wrong (see what I said about being blinded by hate.) The fact that policies are set and controlled by the site own is a reality you can't BS your way out of. Here, let me blow your mind:

Even if Javid does what you suggest, it's only at his discretion, not yours.

One point of view and the rest spin. Pathetic.

No. He can allow other points of view at his discretion which is what he is doing already. So it's not "one point of view", even though it is controlled by one person. Thanks for calling him Pathetic, by the way, I'm sure he appreciates that!

This is why print media ie becoming obsolete and replaced by the net.

No, wrong again. Print media are going obsolete because they are slow and expensive. Many online sites are even more one-sided and partisan than major newspapers that are going out of business. Others have a different model, cultivating some debate but always within the manager's parameters.

Contemplate these for a while.

So they use any means possible to stifle speech. As I said go have your private blog. I am so glad that our resident Islamist intellectual shows his true colors.

Looks like you still don't get it. It's not about free speech. Please show me how anybody's free speech will get "stifled" by the policy that Anonymouse proposes (which is in fact implemented in many websites)?

You can't do it, and don't seem to even be interested in this substantive point. It's because this is no longer about reality for you. You're blinded by hate, fighting your own demons and pretending you are hurting the big bad IRI!

Now that's pathetic.

VPK - I was going to answer LOLiQ, but you said it well. Thanks.

.

Speaking for myself, I vote

Speaking for myself, I vote NO.

I mean, I've never even flagged someone in all the time I've been here. The truth is, I don't take any of this banter seriously.

The comment section comprises the social aspect of the site. Admin moderation is sufficient for me. I do wish the IC rules and regulations for commenting were displayed more prominently, and applied in a consistent manner.

If the delete function was installed, I see a lot more blog posts popping up, as reactionary comments to those deleted by a blog author. That means many blog posts would turn into an alternative form of comment posting. That would be messy, to say the least.

My advice? Be big boys and girls. And don't get all worked up in your discussions. This is only a social site, nothing more and nothing less.

Sorry Q, I am with VPK on this!

Q, if you had much wisdom you wouldn't be walking around with picture of someone else on your forehead!  Same goes with No Fear from the other side, BTW!

Control freaks

Islamists, Stalinists, Pahlavists...No Pendareh neeks!

Q

You obviously think you know what I want. You also seem to think you know what other people want or think. Good for you. You therefore are not interested in any other opinion. Be my guest. Have your blog. I will neither read it nor post on it. You will be the only voice. Tanha be ghazi bero; razi bargard. That is the Islamist mentality that you represent. 

With your argument then IC should represent JJ's point of view only. So you advocate having more Fox news types. One point of view and the rest spin. Pathetic. This is why print media ie becoming obsolete and replaced by the net.

"Most Iranians" misunderstand the issue. Just the great Q understands. I will ignore the insult. Should we drop and worship now? Scared of you? Surely you jest Mr. Q. It is Islamists like you who are scared. Of reality; of having their pack of lies exposed. So they use any means possible to stifle speech. As I said go have your private blog. I am so glad that our resident Islamist intellectual shows his true colors.

VPK

Here's a discussion for you VPK: You don't understand!

You are conflating different issues and falsely saying leaving comments on IC is freedom of speech, it's not!

You have both the freedom and the opportunity to say anythying you want, even if IC did not exist at all.

I don't want "yes" only. That is what Shah; Khomeini; AN and all dictators want. Just one voice: their.

The newspapers that these people closed, be it communist, socialist, Islamic or REformist were all basically yes only, one-sided newspapers. Closing the paper is wrong and against freedom of speech but none of them were "balanced" and allowed the opposition to have "equal" say in the content, as you claim IC bloggers should do. You are demanding something absurdly beyond freedom of speech.

You can have your say anywhere on the Internet or even in your own blog on the very same site, but no, you want to damage someone else's content. You don't want freedom of speech, you want freedom of vigilantism.

The freedom of speech as most people understand it today (and many Iranians don't understand it), developed during the Constitutional debate period of American history. In that time just as now, newspapers basically reflected the view of their owners: both pro British and pro Independence newspapers. Just like Iranian publications before and after the revolution, just like reformist publications during Ahamdinejad era, etc, freedom of speech was violated because people couldn't have their own publications that criticized the government not that they had a right to say what they want in someone else's publication. That is absurd!

You, as most Iranians I have met, completely misunderstand this issue, look at it selfishly and consider it a "weapon" against IRI in your own fantasies.

The reality is that nothing you want to say would be restricted at all by this policy. That's just fact, even you can't argue against.

So why are you so scared of it? Could it be that you simply want to slander others with impunity? What's funny is that you can still do that on your own blog, but I think it would make your intentions obvious to all, so you pretend like this is harming your "free speech" rights.

Q

Do you want a discussion or a monologue? I want a discussion. In one place with a back and forth. I don't want "yes" only. That is what Shah; Khomeini; AN and all dictators want. Just one voice: their. I want to hear the other side. If I wanted to just hear myself I would go to put a mirror in front of me and talk to myself. Hearing the other side teaches us something. That is the whole point of a discussion. It is only the scared and immature who fear the other side. Because they are afraid of being proven wrong. I welcome knowing if I am making a mistake.

As for people not being able to handle you; I agree. In the same way people cannot handle Sarah Palin; Tea Party and other extremists. I have a hard time with you. Some intellectual; afraid of the other side and a free argument.

This is NOT about freedom of speech! Who'll stop ur free speech?

Don't be afraid and don't live by fear. 

Everything is sacred

Guidelines

I think as the owner JJ has a right to delete comments or kick people out. However this must be used wisely. If not the credbility goes out the window. 

I would say:

• Individual bloggers should not have the option.
• Admin should but must be careful. For example some comments that are spam say pitching a produc should go. But comments even rude and obnopxious related to the issue should remain.
• The worst example of moderation I have seen is on BBC "Have Your Say". That is BBC has its favorite commenters. The says whatever they want. Others are treated like dirt. Typical British arrogance. I don't want to see than on Iranian.

MM, LOL!

knock yourself out! Who is stopping you?

It is completely unsurprising to me that you would find it impossible to refute the facts change subject and concentrate on pointless trivialities.

What I say is what I believe. I have never been in the habbit of restricting what I say to only popular things and I don't see why I should start now.

Q, take a good look at yourself in the mirror before writing these remarks

Wow! such cheezball arrogance. OK, genius, Let's take a good look at "myself."

I'm saying you should give control to the blog owner. How does this help me?

I don't write many blogs myself and not all of those are featured by Javid (compared to professional propagandists like FredCo). I comment a lot more on other people's blogs and articles. Many of them can't handle what I comment on and resort to personal attacks. Objectively asessing this (if that is possible for you), I have the the most to lose by this policy.

But I do think it will lead to better discussions. People can still write their own blog to "respond" to a comment, but they would be less likely to do so.

Absolutely Not

This is freedom of speech. Of course people who do not understand freedom of speech oppose it. Freedom of speech means right to have your say. If you control the comments on your blog then you basically get a rubber stamp. 

This of course fits the Islamist mentality of "my way or highway". As they are quick to be offended and incapable of dealing with reality. With control of speech comes lack of credibility.

That is why I don't visit the BBC "HYS". It is a total joke.  Huffington Post isin the middle. Many comments are regularly removed but it is not as oppressive as BBC. This site IC is great. I hate to turn it into HYS.

As usual, Q puts most people down & expects no response!

As usual, Q takes a broad brush and sarcastically paints a lot of people in the same color:

"It is completely unsurprising to me that the concept of "free speech" is being misunderstood. Most Iranians abroad do not understand it at all. Unfortunately this ignorance is amplified in echochambers like this when the ideas get treated so carelessly and opportunistically."

And expects us to remain as quiet as church mice!

Q, take a good look at yourself in the mirror before writing these remarks, but we will respond to your outrageous comments, one way or another.

I vote Yes

in case you don't want to read through the previous comment!

I vote Yes, because this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Just like when this site went from anonymous to registered comments, this is a step that in my opinion could lead to more civilized discussions.

You asked a good question. People can always control themselves and not use any "ability" to delete comments if they feel strongly about it, so why oppose the choice? The reason is simple, even though people won't admit it: they want to make any comment they want on other people's blogs without being removed. It's a selfish reason.

"Free Speech" totally misunderstood as usual

Anonymouse,

It is completely unsurprising to me that the concept of "free speech" is being misunderstood. Most Iranians abroad do not understand it at all. Unfortunately this ignorance is amplified in echochambers like this when the ideas get treated so carelessly and opportunistically.

Comments on IC have nothing to do with the "free speech" concept. Freedom of expression refers to government not passing any laws to restrict speech. It does not mean, private entities are obligated to publish anything anyone demands. The only thing about IC relevant to "freedom of speech" is that in the you also have the right to start a website like IC and dedicate it to whatever topic you wish.

This becomes clear if people just think about it for 5 seconds, but that, as you know, is a lot to ask of some people around here.

Javid didn't used to have any comments on his site that was not any kind of "violation" of free speech. Javid could decide to make his site strictly about "pro IRI" or "pro Pahlavi", and delete any opinion to the contrary. Javid could decide to strictly allow comments only about Kashke-badenjan, it still has nothing to do with free speech.

Noam Chomsky wouldn't be stupid enough to say this either. When he made the statement quoted in comments below, he was talking about a holocaust denier who had used his own funds and found his own publisher to publish his own book and it was being banned only as a matter of national law.

Saying that making comments on IC is a "free speech" issue, is like criticizing the New York Times for not publishing antisemetic articles on "free speech" grounds.

I have seen many elegant explanations about this and have written my own here on IC a few times, still people don't get it!!! This, unfortunately, includes even the IC site owners and editors and Javid himself.

A while ago, Javid featured a cartoon of NIAC in Islamic clerical clothing on the front page, which was meant as a joke by the artist. I asked him why this is acceptable, even as a joke, he said "freedom of speech." So then I asked him if he would feature or even allow publication of a cartoon that depicted President Obama as a Monkey (as many doing the same to Iranian officials have been done). He totally skirted around the issue saying "that wouldn't be funny anyway."

In my humble experience most Iranians vocal about this issue see "freedom of speech" in purely selfish terms as a license to slander and attack with impunity. If they are in a secure position or if they are anonymous and hence couldn't possibly be a victim of slander, then they are all gung-ho about not having "any" restrictions. The minute they themselves feel any scrutiny, they change opinions with the wind.

The truth is that far from "freedom" many kinds of speech are routinely censored here on IC and probably most publications in the world. These are amongst the "least desirable" speech meaning almost everyone would be against them. Examples: pornography, spam, child abuse, animal cruelty, etc., etc...

Nobody in their right mind would say these must be "allowed" on IC for "free speech" grounds. Nobody would even say "we have to tolerate it, but we can at least respond to them using our own free speech." Yet remarkably many people on this site are making exactly that argument right now!!!

These things are censored as a matter of Javid's taste and also our own collective taste that constitutes a "norm" for this community. "Allowing" or "not allowing" these things to be published is not a free speech issue, the fact that Javid, as the owner, has that choice is the real free speech.

The fact that anybody can make their own publication is the remedy that legal freedom of expression provides. Even that, however, is subject to agreements between private entities such as your publisher or your website ISP, which is why YouTube and Google can remove any comment they don't like and nobody could say they are "restricting" freedom of speech. They have no obligation.

Freedom of speech only comes in when the individual and the company and everyone involved is in agreement and want to publish something but the government doesn't allow it, which it can according to limits that already exist for freedom of speech.

That being said, a completely different issue has emerged in the recent years regarding the Internet and whether a big company like Google can dominate the whole space so that you have no other choice but to go with it. Antitrust laws are supposed to be guarding against that.

Free Speech

I am sorry, but I have to agree that free speech applies to all, not just those whom we agree with, and that this is a public website, so as they say, if you cannot take the heat, get out of the kitchen.  Having a moderator like JJ is different- JJ is acting as a third party who removes comments based on website policies that are clearly available to all up front. Violations are of the policy, not of any particular opinion.  So disagreeing vehemently is one thing, publicly slandering and threatening people is another, and that is where free speech ends.

I agree with Chomsky, and in my humble opinion, this option should not exist. Moderation by the administrators makes more sense to me.

So far 6 No and 1 Yes. Here's ur chance 2 think outside the box!

Admin jaan

Thank you for your explanation.  I get it now that it is technically acceptable but it depends on JJJ's final decision.  As for the policy, I didn't mean those (although none are being practiced consistently, especially the videos and articles as comments) but my question is why bloggers are not given the choice of comment control?  The ones you posted said what users shouldn't do, not why we're not trusted with the delete button.

All,

You are somehow comparing the ability to delete one's condenscending comment with Free Speech.  Even if that were to be true the Free Speech is not being practiced because one person (Mr. Javid) is deciding what is the Free Speech.  One person deciding for all.

This is about rules and personal choices which is the cornerstone of Free Speech and democracy.  None of you have said so far why you think giving bloggers this option will make everyone to delete comments enmasse?  Do you put yourself in that category?  Given the option you'd delete most comments?  Or are you worried about others not behaving like you? 

Everything is sacred

Anon: Please dont take this personal, but....

The moment you start getting botherd about the comments to your blog on IC, let alone contemplating the "control of the responses to your blog", that is the time you should ask yourself if you are taking this entire business of blogging too seriously.

Most if not all of us have got real lives completely separate from this site, where we deal with real issues and people. This is where we should be focused on.

This site has been useful to me in few aspects. one aspect is I can see the depth some can sink and the heights some can ascend in their political and personal philosophy and aspirations. this is only achieved due to lack of "filtering" of any kind. I do not want this to change.

Drupal native support

Anonymouse,

By barrier, I mean "Drupal native support". That's the box I wanted to stay in to make upgrades easier. But we have not managed to do that in a number of areas where we had to make major modifications. I said this is no longer a barrier. So, it can be done. I can do it on my own. There is no technical "problem". The only technical issue is a question of should it be done?

Think of it like a race car. You can make standard engine modifications supported by the manufacturer, or you can make custom ones that are non-standard. If you do the non-standard ones and later decide to replace your engine with a brand new one, your modifications will go away. If you sell the car or stop working on it, another mechanic will have a hard time figuring out your non-standard modifications. If you plan to replace the engine down the road anyway, maybe you should wait to do the modifications later on the new engine, if you don't really need them right now.

The policy is listed at the bottom of every page where commenting is available:

Post new comment

* Comments containing profanity or personal attacks will be removed. Repeat offenders will be blocked.
* Do not post articles as comments.
* Embedding videos is not recommended and may be disabled.

In the interest of

In the interest of promoting free speech, I think it would be a mistake to allow a blogger the ability to outright delete comments on their blogs.

And I say this because that ability could discourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

So, my vote is "NO!"

[Although I am not a fan of Noam Chomsky, I whole-heartedly believe in what he said about free speech: "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."]

Vildemose what is your vote?

I don't understand, why do you think everybody is going to act the same way if they're given the comment control option?  It's a personal choice, I may delete Sargord's ass while you may like to keep his comment and shred him to pieces!  It's your choice.

This is really such a minor thing and I don't understand how we're making it to be so that it suddenly would turn us into mini dictators?  We're ALL dictators then, the only difference is that we don't have comment control!

We're all adults and our minds are already made.  All this option does is to prevent an individual to pick a fight in someone else's house when the house "renter" doesn't want to.  

Everything is sacred

comment control to what

comment control to what end?

I agree if a blogger/writer from the outset decides to disable comment option on his/her blog. No comments on a blog should be an option.

But moderating comments on a public blog such as IC will not help communication, interaction, process of learning different POV, building one's debate skills, conflict resolution skills,  or general debates. Every blog will be an Island onto itself.

just my 2cents.

Admin jaan staying inside the box no longer a barrier?

I'm not sure if you meant staying inside or outside the box when you've made so many changes and exceptions to the box.

Regardless, the main question is if it can be done and you said technically it can NOT be done for the forseeable future, right?  Because you need more software development and that's not something you can easily buy at your local Iranian store, right?!

As far as comments and various website almost all websites have now comments section.  Some are like i.com where you can post directly and no waiting, like CNN for example, but CNN articles get literally thousands of comments on each article and the comments are one or two lines and not like here with all the hagglings!

BTW limiting the comments section word count would be my other suggestion, but that is not the subject of this blog. I don't want to compare the content of i.com with other websites just what others offer.  Obviously i.com caters to a minority, Iranians.

As for the policy issue that resides with JJJ (not technicality discussed above) what is the policy?  That leaving users free to engage each other (with whatever means necessary :-) is democracy and we're supposed to be practicing (practice as in football practice before the game) it?  People seem to think that if the blogs have comment controls it'd make the site boring.  So do you know if it is democracy issue or the boring issue?  If you don't know that's ok, I just want to know what is known. 

Everything is sacred

flagged comments

MM,

No part of this is automatic. Any logged-in member can flag comments and provide a reason. As soon as this is done the system generates an email currently sent to JJ as chief editor.

Flagged comments go into a queue that has a record of all flagged comments. There an editor can either delete, modify or unflag them based on site policy. JJ can delegate this to other people but has not so far done so.