The freedom of speech on i.com

Share/Save/Bookmark

The freedom of speech on i.com
by javaneh29
06-Jan-2009
 

The right to freedom of speech has been a long and hard battle in many ways and in many societies and for many centuries it has been a topic of great debate and controversy. It is a fundamental principle and the inherent right of a democratic society. The right to freedom of speech and expression allows both individuals and groups to impart news, ideologies and information without censorship and without boundaries, by any method it sees fit without exception and  including the use of any medium, such as the internet.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) article 19 accepted by European, US law and some African states  allows  'the right to right to hold opinion without interference'. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), states that everyone has 'the right to freedom of expression'. 

''Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. '' UDHR 1948.

Closely linked, the freedom of thought or belief (article 18 UCCPR)  is valueless without the right to express those thoughts externally/ publicly and vis versa. There are many arguments concerning the use of freedom of speech extending back over centuries and they are so extensive that Im not going to go into them: all available on the internet if you want to look them up. We only need to look at what has been going on in Iran be it under the previous regime or the present to understand what the many  and various implications of censorship of this right means for society and individuals. The use of 'freedom of speech' as a 'safety valve' to help prevention of revolution as argued by Thomas Emerson from Yale is a lesson the present Government might consider, but thats a whole new subject for another time.

Ultimately though if we believe and agree to the right of the principles and application of this cherished right to freedom of speech for everyone, we have to accept even those views with which we disagree, or find distasteful, including extreme religious and political expressions such as those of various and numerous dictators and totalitarians and including other bloggers here amongst us, and agree that they also have the same right. The UCCPR and UDHR include no exceptions... article 18 and 19.

The 'freedom of speech is not 'absolute'  however. When in conflict with law or other human rights limitations freedom of speech is subject  to the application of the 'harm' and 'offence' principle. The argument debates that 'harm' i.e physical injury or criminal activity holds greater risks to others than 'offence' and therefore the limitations of freedom are speech when applying the 'harm' principle are more clear.

Joel Feinberg (The Philosphy of Law 1985)  //www.iep.utm.edu/l/law-phil.htm#SSH2a.iii  argues 'offence' principle is both subjective and objective in that subjectively it may cause ''shame, disgust, anxiety, embarrassment'' and objectively that may lead to the ''the existence of a wrongful cause of such a mental state''. Feinburg goes on to say that the motives of the the speaker are one of the aspects that have to be considered when applying this principle. Other factors include extent, value and duration, the intensity of the offence taken and the number of people who take 'offence'. It also lies on the 'ease' with which it can be avoided.

The point of raising this issue is with direct reference to and with concern for some of the blogs we find here in the community of I.Com, which are unacceptable and offensive to many of us. JJ has the editorial right to censor blogs. Is it fair or not to ask him to exercise that right under the conditions as outlined above???

Javaneh

Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by javaneh29CommentsDate
Forget Ahmadinejad or the weddings off!!
1
Nov 14, 2009
The Human Wall... in NY
1
Sep 22, 2009
Migrants at sea are not toxic cargo!
2
Sep 15, 2009
more from javaneh29
 
default

i.com ??!!

by Iranian (not verified) on


MS. Javaneh, What is this i.com??!!
May I bring to your attention it is IRANIAN.com not i.com.

Please don’t miniature IRANIAN to minuscule i. It is a kind of insulting that you are having such a big heading for your blog but no place for IRANIAN.


Khar

For TheMrs

by Khar on

you wrote: This site is turning into the kinds of arguments I have with my lover. NEVER ENDIIIIIIIIIIING. Let's moveeeeeeeeee on.

50 ways to leave your Lover:


Jahanshah Javid

Question

by Jahanshah Javid on

What would Bahaullah do if he saw someone had made fun of his picture in a blog and wrote false things about him?

A) He would issue a fatwa ordering Bahais to find the blogger and kill him.

B) He would demand the blog be removed.

C) He would look the other way and tell the faithful to CHILL!

I'm not a Bahai. I know next to nothing about Bahaullah. But I bet you if he was alive, he would have done C.


Farhad Kashani

Yes, take the freedom of

by Farhad Kashani on

Yes, take the freedom of speech away! Sure, why not!! This is how these leftist ideologues twist definitions, misintrerpret International law and Human Rights principles, to butcher the very same Human Rights principles!

Boy, socialists really know how to kill progressive ideas and civility!

 

 


default

cluster head ache mighiri

by Anonymous. (not verified) on

who send an invitation to you.khob naya inja boro biroon havaa behet bokhoreh halet ja biyad.


Souri

Sorry I come back again :-)

by Souri on

I forgot to mention a good movie about that subject. The Freedom Writers starring by Hillary SWANK, 2007. OK, it is a little bit milky, but the idea is there.

Rosie jan, I believe you misinterpret what I just said. What I wanted to say was : If, we ignore the little "disrespect" and "discrimination", we will end up as did the people back on that time of fascism.

I never said this site run in a dictatorial way or we don't have  freedom of speech here. Where did you get this idea? How would I still stay in the site for so long, if this was my opinion? You said :

"Fascism uses offensive speech but it's also repression of free speech. You can't have it BOTH ways...."

But the reprssion of free speech happened only AFTER that the fascist got in power, when they became strong enough to exert their rules. not before. 

My point is that we have to be very vigilant, because there's a very fine line between "freedom" and "oppression" specially when it comes to the speech !!

Finaly: I'm all with Javaneh, I have been in France from 20 to 40, and have learned there that we must respect people's values while debating their ideas. At least I understood this and try to practice it.


TheMrs

Man halateh tahavo gereftam

by TheMrs on

To ro khoda. To ro ghoran. Jooneh amehehaatoon. Baba dast as saremoon var darin!

New Standard, JJ please censor all discussion on this topic. We're all your bitches aren't we? Teach us a good lesson. Take a nice cyber shallagh and put everyone in their place will ya. This site is turning into the kinds of arguments I have with my lover. NEVER ENDIIIIIIIIIIING. Let's moveeeeeeeeee on.

Second New Standard: Let's all promise to disagree but never talk about it anymore.

Man cluster head ache migiram miam inja.


This Ticket Valid One Way Only Way Jan. 1 2009

Fascism?Sorry Souri, I just said

by This Ticket Valid One Way... on

goodnight but then I saw your last one and I just HAVE to say something:

YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS Souri! Yes, you are correct, Fascism grew in Weimar Germany because people ignored it. They ignored it because they thought Hitler was a CLOWN and they were too busy partying.  YOU PEOPLE HERE ARE NOT IGNORING IT. You are COUNTERING it. That's the whole point. (My point, anyway).

Fascism uses offensive speech but it's also repression of free speech. You can't have it BOTH ways. Here on this website you have the option to COUNTER what you consider offensive speech and if enough people do that, the "Fascism" won't grow. In fact that's where I think some of you should be right now...on the offending posts...countering them...not here, trying to get the publisher to repress free speech.

To repeat, if someone doesn't like the Bahai, the Jews, the Muslims, the Seventh Day Adventists, the Druids, I'd MUCH rather see them be debated and exposed (and corrected, see my looooooong post below to j and j, sometiems you can convince them...) HERE than see them wind up on some neo-Nazi or neo-whatever type site where they're talking to each other in a vaccuum...a very dangerous vaccuum... I thoroughly differ with the publisher that such comments should be ignored, you are correct, Souri, that CAN lead to dangerous situations.  I thoroughly concur with the publisher that this website strikes a very good balance in terms of what is publishable and what is not... it is a very delicate tightrope and this website walks it pretty damn well IMHO...nothing is perfect, I think the general balance is good.. ("Pefection is terrible. It cannot have children"-Sylvia Plath). I have other problems with how ithis website's run, that's not one of them

Anyway, as I said before, good night. If you want to answer me, I'll reply tomorrow. 

kisses,

r. 


javaneh29

Some clarification

by javaneh29 on

First of all I want to clarify two points:

1. I did not have any specific blog in mind when I wrote this, I was taking up the issue generally and was careful not to refer to any particular blog or issue.

JJ made the first reference to the blogger 'covenent', and it served a purpose, as a example.

2. In my previous comment I was not advocating for the removal of that blog or any other. I was not suggesting or asking JJ to censor that blog or any other... I merely enquired  if there might be some way to 'manage' blogs that are offensive. I for one don't understand the basis on which some blogs are edited and not published. I was hoping JJ might enlighten us on that??

Perhaps challenging the bloggers concerned is the best way to 'manage' them. As I said I am open to learning also. I do support everyones right to freedom of expression and speech but I personally 'draw the line' when I encounter discrimination be it any faith, any nationality, either gender, any sexual preference etc.

Rosie jaan ( nice to see you here) 'the sands' may 'shift all the time' azizam and I agree with you on that, however I can and do exercise my own right to stand by my own principles.... it comes from social work background I guess. I can not say nothing or turn my back when I come across offencive expression but  I am willing to enter into patient dialogue.

And princess, again I have to disagree with you. I dont know about the States, but I live in a society where we can't do and say absolutley anything we choose. We have laws against discrimination at work and in public. OK this is very broad but never the less, discrimination cases are a pretty regular event in our law courts.

 Javaneh


Souri

Thank you Faryam jan

by Souri on

I know I talk too much sometimes. I know I seem exagerating when it comes to the "respect" of the other's values. But I repeat it here again, even though it seems stupid to some : The fascism began like this. First it was just the jokes about the Jews, then it grew and grew because peopel ignored them. Then when it became Hitler, they were scared !!


default

what am i missing here?

by rosie unplugged (not verified) on

the motto of the site is nothing is sacred, the publisher wrote the ground-breaking article in defense of the bahais, you told me that, faryarm. is it CONTRADICTORY that this blog of covenant's should appear here or is it perfectly logical...two sides of the exact same coin???? really, i'm serious...

what i DO feel though is the LAXNESS and DISMISSIVENESS of some of your replies, j. of course souri's right...you wouldn't tolerate an attack on your daughter or on ANYONE else's daughter for that matter either...i said recently, i'll repeat: as the
leader of this community, regarding SERIOUS issues, you should hold yourself to a HIGHER standard of civil discourse than the rest of us...and that includes being CAREFUL in choosing your words of explanation..especially when people are so upset...this...flippant thing of yours...it's not really good...not...kosher, so to speak...

ah home sweet home
good night all,

r.


faryarm

Souri jaan..

by faryarm on

Souri jaan..

So much of what we are arguing about, seems like a loss of moral clarity...previously  an integral part of  proper  human conduct  and decency..

What has led to such moral dementia? 

Why has our collective Vision become so blurred that we have to actually defend age old Iranian/human values ...

Faryarm 

 


Souri

Ey baba JJ, asabaanim nakon digeh..............

by Souri on

You don't have any religion, nor prophet, you don't care about the government and so on, but I know how deeply you hold your family in you heart ! You want to tell me that you don't care if I insult your family member ? If I post a distorted picture of your parents or sister or daughter ?

Aslan, let it be baba jan. I don't want to go trough all this. You call this freedom of speech ? It's fine with me. Go ahead.


Tahirih

Dear "on and on" , or ?? did my last reply hurt?

by Tahirih on

so just say ouch:))


This Ticket Valid One Way Only Way Jan. 1 2009

Tahirih... (j and j)

by This Ticket Valid One Way... on

first of all, I'm ROSIE. ROBIN. ROXANE. Remember me, friend of the Bahai? Second of all, I wasn't addressing your comment to j. regarding the avatar. I was addressing j's comment to Javaneh regarding the TEXT of the blog.

Now Tahirih...my long post explained my views regarding my willingness to debate someone who quotes HITLER about Jews being inferior, AS A JEW, and making a lot of PROGRESS with that person. And my total opposition to those types of blogs being censored. Is "someone insulted my prophet" REALLY the ONLY response you have tfor me...and if so, are you SURE you are responding to ME and to what I wrote?

I'm sorry someone insulted your prophet. Really. I wouldn't do it. I had two articles on Bahaullah in progress when I left ("O pope, rend the veils asunder!") I did not say the content of either of the posts (the anti-Semite's or Covenant's) were intelligent. My discussion of the derivation of "idiot" from "idios" (vs. polis/demos) has nothing to do with intelligence. It is part of a comment to j. regarding the function of journalism within a democracy. Pls. re-read.

 I stand by what I said 100%  Rather talk to the person with Nazi sympathies HERE than have him wind up talking to people on some neo-Nazi website.  Once again, do you REALLY hope to sway me ohterwise with your post? Pls. think about it, Tahirih...meaning...with all due respect...please think.

Roxane

 


faryarm

J J , Why should mutual respect ..

by faryarm on

JJ

Why should mutual respect and civil discourse go out of fashion? and if it has, why should  we not strive for it?

even if it is for your Cat...( a plug for the ASPCA :) 

Faryar 

 


default

or my car

by on and on (not verified) on

or my car.


default

Re: New Standard

by Derakhshandeh (not verified) on

Here's the new standard for free speech: insult me, my family, my religion, my god, my prophet, my country, my culture, my government and my cat; but don't do it on MY website.

Or:

Here's the new standard for free speech: insult me, my family, my religion, my god, my prophet, my country, my culture, my government and my cat; do it on MY website but click on this piece of consent that publishes a note along with your blog that says these are your personal views and has nothing to do with MY website.


Jahanshah Javid

New Standard

by Jahanshah Javid on

Here's the new standard for free speech: Don't insult me, my family, my religion, my god, my prophet, my country, my culture, my government, or my cat.


default

freedom of speech

by on and on (not verified) on

means exactly that. with no disrespect to you souri jaan, yes, it means ridiculing or insulting or accusing. anything less or anything censored is just not freedom of speech. you might not like it but that's not the point. you could say jesus was a SOB or allah was a pedophile. so what! it might not be nice but since when was iranian.com NICE? being "nice" is not required for freedom of speech.

tahirih. for all that you claim to be so holy, your really not a nice person. what happened to "turn the other cheek" or forgiveness. you are bitter and mean sometimes and sure don't do yourself or or religion any good when you are so bitter and mean.


Princess

Dear Souri,

by Princess on

with all due respect, you say 

 

Freedom of speech does not include rediculing and discriminating of other people, races, religion, gender,......etc etc.

and we say it does include rediculing, and we can't agree on what discriminating is! Simple as that. We don't think the case mentioned is a discrimination case, and thank God for that!  

Tahirih

"One way ticket " this is my only response to you.

by Tahirih on

 Well you are really eager to defend this one aren't you??

You say ;

it's very DANGEROUS to suppress such views, it's FAR more important that they be brought to light and countered.."

What is to counter? there is a distorted picture of my prophet as an avatar!! what kind of intelligent discussion is  in that blog? or how much intelligence the blogger has ? really, kindergarten all over again with a twist of stupidity and  sick mind;)) I am sorry , but I am exercising my First amendment:))

I agree with JJ , the thing behind  this" covenant " is stupid and very mentally ill, wanting to get attention , otherwise there is nothing else to her blog.

Tahirih

 


faryarm

We Need a New Standard: for Speech and "True Liberty"

by faryarm on


Dear Friends,

We need a New Standard and definition for :"True Liberty".

What we have come to know in the west as "freedom, liberty and freedom of speech " has not so far led us to the path of Peace and "True Liberty". 

Our moral compass / GPS maps are outdated!)  ; we have to "update" our moral compass ( or Spiritual SATNAV or GPS :)    with a new maps for accurate and  new directions for a new global society and peaceful coexistance. 

As an Iranian Bahai, I take pride in the fact that it is from Iran again that a new Universal standard has been raised  to humanity.

I sincerely believe, "that a balance must be struck between the latitudes of individual freedom and the promotion of the collective good. "True liberty," Bahá'u'lláh says, can only be achieved by following the path of moderation.70 It is by relinquishing a degree of personal liberty to a commonly accepted set of laws and collective interests that the individual helps shape a social milieu that returns far greater benefits in terms of personal freedom than any sacrifice required. Individual well-being is intimately tied to the flourishing of the whole. It is thus a reciprocated benevolence and selflessness, rather than utilitarian self-interest, that underlies the Bahá'í idea of social life. As `Abdu'l-Bahá states, "the honor and distinction of the individual consist in this, that he among all the world's multitudes should become a source of social good."71 While preservation of "personal freedom and initiative" is considered essential, so too must the relational aspect of human existence be recognized.72 The "maintenance of civilized life, calls for the utmost degree of understanding and cooperation between society and the individual; and because of the need to foster a climate in which the untold potentialities of the individual members of society can develop, this relationship must allow `free scope' for `individuality to assert itself' through modes of spontaneity, initiative and diversity that ensure the viability of society."73

I can already see raised eyebrows by some who  see freedom as Absolute; that as humans we should be Absolutely free to express and to do and say anything without moderation.

Well, it may be fine for those who think that “ this extreme form of  perceived liberty can improve the status quo in the world, in particular in countries where this"freedom" exists". Although more desirable than in places where such "speech" is forbidden, this absolute right to speech has become more a tool for hatred and division and selfish promotion.

There is a more humane and constructive  alternative right in our own back yard in Iran with a New thinking  that will ultimately transfrom our nature and values and in time bring “True Liberty” to the world.

Why not start putting some of this new standard into practice?

“....a reciprocated benevolence and selflessness, rather than utilitarian self-interest..” perhaps?

The Human Rights Discourse- in detail //info.bahai.org/article-1-8-3-2.html

 


 



Zion

Is it ever any different?

by Zion on

'The point of raising this issue is with direct reference to and with concern for some of the blogs we find here in the community of I.Com, which are unacceptable and offensive to many of us. JJ has the editorial right to censor blogs. Is it fair or not to ask him to exercise that right under the conditions as outlined above?'

Yes, we happen to find certain things unacceptable, so we must have the right to censor them. Obviously what we find unacceptable can't possibly have any value or any right to exist anyways. Goes without saying.
And we are such good and moral people, and very "progressive" and of course all for freedom of speech... only the "right" kind of speech as we see fit.

Déjà vu anyone?


Souri

It's sad....

by Souri on

Once again I feel so sad to see that I'm among people whom I like and I call compatriot/friends and unfortunately I don't understand their language. For long I always thought (honestly) that comes from my level in English, but alas, no !!

People here talk and write long edition !! to say nothing !!! Absolutely nothing. They talk only to say something, but don't go to the heart of the subject.

I don't see how it is so difficult for you to understand my point ? and Javaneh's point? Tahirih's point and some others who spoke of our real concern ? What's wrong really ? I don't get it.

After a year and half talking together all the time, day and night, you people come here to say that : freedom of speech is a good thing and we should value it ? Now, all the expert come here to teach us what is freedom of speech, something we, the retard did not understand yet ?

Am I speaking Chinese or do I come from Mars, why you don't understand what I say ?

This has been discussed long enough on that Anonymouse blog :very disappointed of this site (391 comments)

Today we are at the step one again ? I say exactly the same thing that I had said there at that time :

Freedom of speech does not include rediculing and discriminating of other people, races, religion, gender,......etc etc.

Is that so nuclear talk that you can't see it at all ?????????/

Do I have to formulate it again with my simple English for you ?

Criticizing : YES

Rediculing, discriminating, insulting, accusing : NON

Does it sound too strange to you ?


This Ticket Valid One Way Only Way Jan. 1 2009

To Javaneh and Javid: ..........j and j and I for Idiot...

by This Ticket Valid One Way... on

Thanks once again Javaneh for always being committed to utilizing the number one available mechanism on this website to ensure that it is run as a democracy, which is blogging. However in this case I concur with Javid that the logical consequences of not publishing certain blogs would be UNdemocratic...however I disagree with you, jj, in fundamental ways as well..

Javaneh, there are always limits to free speech...we don't cry fire in a crowded theater, our culture doesn't tolerate kiddie porn, we don't publish aANY porn in childrens' textbooks, etc.,there is always a CONTEXT..and on this website there are (implicit and ever-evolving, yet real) parameters of civil discourse. The blog in question (which I only found out is the one in question through your rreply, jj, not your blog, Javaneh????) does not violate these parameters, while it states a view offensive to many.

My own view is that this kind of "offensive" material should not merely be published to be tolerated in the name of an abstract ideal of "free speech" but because extreme views of this nature when suppressed from the public discourse take on a life of their own and fester and become far more dangerous...such was the case with Neonazism being born in Germany out of the post-war illegality of advocating Nazism... (I am dead AGAINST the prosecution of so-called Holocaust Deniers as in Canada, e.g...)

these views should be taken SERIOUSLY within the debate and countered. They're important.  As an example, last year someone published a blog with a speech on Jews (I am one) by Ahmadinejad and the question by the blogger as to whether Hitler had a point in saying Jews are inferior. Interestingly only two people commented on that blog. and they were jj and me,  you, jj, with your inimitable flippant style (I paraphrase) "anyone who thinks any group is inferior is mariz," and me with my usual (irritating?) earnestness, actually analyzing the issue at length with the blogger and inviting reply.  Well, he deleted the blog...I wasn't surprised because the previous year he'd used the term "Nazi State of Israel" as title for a blog and I'd challenged him and he'd retracted and apologized to me and...well...what can I say?  Progress, not perfection...but I'm willing to take the time with him because...that's the way I am.  If he can't publish these things will he become LESS of an anti-Semite. I doubt it..he'll just wind up one day on some Neo-nazi site where he won't have his friend Rosie to talk to...see?

Javaneh, you can't just "draw a line", these are lines in the SAND and they are always shifting...the way I read this Covenant's blog (if in fact it is the one you were referring to) is linked with a legitimate concern for their possible racism against black Africans...and well...people countered it and clarified and offered clearer translations and contexts..and...

well...one can ignore or rail against or choose to debate...I prefer the last choice...

it's very DANGEROUS to suppress such views, it's FAR more important that they be brought to light and countered...and so, that is where I differ from Javid..It's far more than merely a question of ignoring "idiots"...jj., the origin of the word idiot is classical Greek, it means a person who limits themselves to their own private affairs, the sphere called the "idios" as opposed to participating in the political sphere, the polity, the "polis", which in Athens was run by the "demos" (the people, i.e. democracy, rule by the people, albeit only a minority of the people at that time, men who were not slaves...)

IF you still believe, jj., that the function of the press (media, journalism, I'net, this website...all of it...) is still the "fourth estate", that is the check and balance of the DEMOS, the people, over ALL other checks and balances in a democratic POLIS, then...

ANYONE blogging here on ANY issue of explicit or implicit political content is inherently not an idiot, because...(s)he is participating in the governance of the POLIS by the DEMOS right here, on these threads. and...

now I think of it, I even wrote to you jj, on that thread that you should perhaps consider featuring such objectionable blogs specifically to open them up for debate...so...in some sense...on that one anyway, I was more of a "first amendment absolutist" than even you...

my two cents, j. and j.,

ah, home sweet home..

r.


Princess

Look Azizan,

by Princess on

the blog section of this site is like a street - the most democratic structure there is. Everybody has access to it, and everybody can pretty much say and post anything they want, as long as they don't kill, or talk about physically hurting anybody. All sorts of people from all walks of life pass through a street. They can talk about anything they want, and in some cases they can even stand in a corner and shout about anything. 

My point is, if you see a disturbed person standing on a corner and insulting Iran and Iranians, for examples, you have the following options:

1. stop and swear back at the him (won't take you far)

2. stand there and try to logic with him (good luck!)

3. ignore and walk away until they finally get tired and go home (a possibilty)

4. call the police (in which case the police can only come and arrest the guy if he's breaking the law, and (sadly :)) insulting Iran and Iranians, does NOT constitute breaking the law; insulting, yes, but breaking the law, no!  

All I am saying is unless the person, through what he says or does, is not of direct danger to the society or himself, has the right to do and say and believe what he wants. What you do is YOUR choice!

Just bear in mind that once you start limiting people based on the fact they offend other people's beliefs, where do you stop? According to that logic, rightly or wrongly, to a majority of the Muslims in this world who believe in the words of Muhammad, the mere existence of Baha'ullah and his teachings are offensive. Does that make sense? NO! Because if they they take offense by Baha-ees, the fault is in their way of thinking and not in the Bahaee's and their faith!

Live and let live. Please let's accept that there are always going to be people who think differently and act differently from us. Why does it seem to be so much more difficult for "the people of faith" to grasp this? Maybe because freedom of speech is essentially about having the freedom to question ANYTHING, even things that people hold sacred

 


default

freedom of speech

by never going to go away (not verified) on

I see what your trying to say Souri jaan but the difference is that there isn't really any "injustice" going on at all. Execution of child IS injustice and evil. Freedom of speech is either 100% or it's censored. No two ways about that folks. there is no such thing as "controlled" freedom. Ali P is absolutely correct. Isn't it time to put this to rest once and for all??


default

Javaneh

by Derakhshandeh (not verified) on

JJ has repeatedly said he doesn't care. He says so in this blog. Maybe if there are blogs addressed to i.com's "investors" they may do something :-) maybe they ask JJ why their investment is being dragged through mud like this and start micro-managing JJ and start pounding some reasoning into his thick skulled head! LOL ;)


javaneh29

Iranian reader and others

by javaneh29 on

Iranian reader and others with the same sit on the fence attitude  .. how do you deal with issues you dont like in your real life? You walk away without protest? you turn your back when you come face to face with vitriolic abuse and  public humiliation of minorities, be they individuals or groups ? Are you really advocating silence in the face of BLATANT DISCRIMINATION????

We may not have 'editorial experience' but so what? Does that make it ok for us to say nothing? turn our backs too?

Ok everyone has the right to say what they want but equally everyone has the right also to say somethng in response to it, make suggestions about how to manage it in a community such as this is and to hope that it might have some positive effect.

I  for one am not suggesting that any one should be barred from creating a blog about anything they choose to ..... but I personally draw a line when it comes to an expression  of a view point that deeply offends an individual or a group.  I am not able to walk away under some pretext around 'thats life', ' shit happens' or inexperience and hell, I might learn something too. Expression of diverse views and argument  is useful and informative: its what development and growth is all about.

 

Javaneh