Blogs, Profanity and Editorial Integrity 35 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
By Mick Weinstein, Editor in Chief of Seeking Alpha
One of the most compelling aspects of blogs is the direct and candid voice of the author. While most traditional journalists maintain the convention of 'objective voice', bloggers tend to talk straight, which is one of the main reasons why many of us now rely on smart, informed bloggers to get to the bottom of any given news story.
Curating and amplifying this direct, candid, real voice of the market blogger is central to what we're doing at Seeking Alpha. But at times this raises some difficult editorial questions. Here's one that's been on my mind a lot recently: When a blogger uses profanity in a post we're republishing, or in a directly submitted article, should we include the bad words, or should we fall in line with traditional media outlets' prohibition from publishing certain bad words (surely you remember George Carlin's 7) - even when simply quoting a source? Letterman shows just how absurd this seemed last week in coverage of the Illinois governor's taped conversations:
A couple of weeks ago SA contributor Paul Kedrosky wrote what I thought was a terrific post on the Citi bailout that used the f-word to define a new category of bank as per the government deal. We put up one of these - F#*& - in the headline, but otherwise published it verbatim, and immediately (I mean immediately) received multiple complaints from both SA readers and contributors who believed that for us to allow such 'gutter language' in the text of an SA article undermined the integrity of the site and our community. Next step, the cesspool that is Yahoo Finance message boards.
This left me questioning our decision. After some internal debate, we decided to pull the article, but I'm left wondering if we would have performed a better service to our readers if we had left the article up, since as I said, I thought Paul made a great point about the bailout that just could not have been conveyed nearly as well with mainstream-media-approved clean language.
We do have a general prohibition against profanity in our terms of use, and we generally delete comments that use profanity, but it seems to me that there are many contexts in which the very words themselves (as opposed to their use as a weapon in a verbal attack) are not at all problematic. Cases in point:
- About a year ago we published a transcript of a trainwreck of a Sallie Mae conference call that ended with CEO Albert Lord saying "Steve, let’s go. There’s no -- no questions. Let’s get the f-ck out of here." We published the full word, as we were simply documentating the event, and to not do so would have been overly aggressive editing. It was actually an important line for SLM investors to hear - in the original.
- When the bad word is used not with sexual or scatological connotations, but rather as an all purpose intensifier (as it most often is in conversational English today), should that remain beyond the pale? Fund manager 'Cassandra' had a fascinating post on the Madoff affair Friday that used profanity in this way - we published it as is and I found myself defending that decision.
- What about inclusion of this mock ad embedded in a post on the automakers?
Do most serious people today find these examples objectionable? Should profanity still be considered over the line in every situation in print? Not at all clear to me.
What are your thoughts on this issue in general, and the use of bad words - in situations such as those mentioned here - on Seeking Alpha?
Update: Ad hominem attacks on the author or another commenter, with or without bad words, will always be deleted. That goes for comments below this post as well.
Related Articles
|
Find People on SA
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 35 comments:
unless of course the profanity is just gratuitous....
On Dec 14 10:45 AM todd su wrote:
> leave the word but alter it...F%$& for instance. saying what
> the MSM won't is what makes blogs popular. emotion, humor and a bit
> of irreverence is the soul of the medium, sterilize it and you effectively
> neuter it...
>
> unless of course the profanity is just gratuitous....
>
>
If Bernanke (as an example) said "where are the keys to my f%$@ helicoptor?" that would be a quote that should be reported verbatim.
For those who normally express themselves in terms suitable for large mixed audiences (I would place Paul Kedrosky in that group), if the best way of expressing their idea contains an expletive, particularly if the most common colloquial expression for the idea contains an expletive, I would suggest you leave it in...
No. And, most people don't find the female breast objectionable, but when Janet Jackson shows hers to the world at the Super Bowl halftime show, it is objectionable to many people because it breaks the "rules". It spreads through the media like a virus because, while it's only a stunt, "how can she do that... in front of all those innocent children????" It's all about the context.
"Should profanity still be considered over the line in every situation in print?"
If you, the editors, want to make your lives easier, avoid making decisions on "gray areas". A blanket policy to remove all profanity is widely accepted and will upset few readers. Most experienced financial writers understand that using profanity in article submissions is a no-no.
At the same time, if you want to separate SA from mainstream media, and really give writers an opportunity to voice strong ideas and opinions, allow some profanity. Like the show SouthPark, which regularly exposes viewers to words like dildo and dumbass, it will probably upset some readers; but that's the price you sometimes pay when creating viral content. It's supposed to ruffle a few feathers. And, if someone won't visit the web site or read the content because of a few swear words, f&#@ em.
Personally, I have no problem with it, but others feel differently and it's actually a meaningful issue to them...
Why not drop a strategic dash or two into a word? We'll all know the intent.
As Mick might remember, I objected to this happening back in September, and SA went back to publishing the full word in this entry:
seekingalpha.com/artic...
That was the right thing to do. For me, it's simple. You have three choices:
(a) Publish what I've written.
(b) Don't publish what I've written.
(c) If you want to publish something I haven't written (eg "f*ck") then ask me first, and I'll probably say no, and you'll have to choose either (a) or (b).
If you choose (a), you will upset the likes of The Simple Accountant. If you choose (b), you won't. Your call. But don't publish something under my name if I haven't written it and I don't want you to publish it that way.
As to Janet's breast, it never killed anybody, unlike the assault rifles, RPGs and violent crap (cr*p?) we're showered with 24/7 on mainstream TV.
My opinion is that a writer looks smarter if he or she can make a point without swearing. I take less note of opinions from people who don’t take the effort to find a polite way to say something, and there is usually a polite way to say the same thing, On the other hand, I won’t stop visiting the site because of profanity.
I suggest you take each article on a case by case basis, and decide if it is important enough for the complaints you’ll get, or ask the author if you can make changes to it.
Nobody went away. They cleaned up their acts and continued to have fun that all could enjoy. If you lose a contributor or two, where will they go. And do you care.
Take care of number one, SA.
I think it touches the core of what seeking alpha is, why we come here, and whether or not we'll continue to do so.
I've written this before, I became a regular at SA when Judy Weil's regular commentary was called "Housing Bubble and Real Estate Market Tracker". You guys had the balls (can I say that?) of conviction. That put you light years ahead of other financial websites. A truly diverse crowd of contributors made the site so interesting, and when the comments section opened up, it was like a bar room brawl. And it was all very cool, very pro-first amendment, and the popularity of the site grew dramatically.
Now, my comments get deleted because I write something like "you deflationists are morons" (which they are), while adding substance to back up that claim. So instead of making morons defend themselves when exposed, you think it's better to spare them the ridicule of being called morons? If you want your site to be a safe haven for morons - mission accomplished.
I for one think we've already got enough wishy-washy, useless financial websites and magazines, that are more afraid of offending someone than providing hard-edged viewpoints. Figure out what kind of site you want to be, and be that.
Once you decide how you feel about free speech, don't apologize, or agonize over what the whiners say. You can't please everyone unless you aspire to be completely irrelevant.
.
It is this entire culture of political correctness that is hurting us and irritates me to no end. Obviously if I write something too inflaming, I don't expect it to be published by SA and that is a much different case.
For those too innocent to see the occasional swear word - I must say to you, it is only a word and it's a word that helps many convey emotion and meaning and is generally used in a slang sense, not the direct meaning of the word itself. If you can't handle the occasional swear word perhaps you should grow up. It's a word. "Oh no, Johnny said the "F" word - I'm offended." Please, grow up and stop letting every little thing offend you. God forbid something I write offend someone!
I read SA and I am an author here. When either authors or commenters disrespect each other and others by calling each other "morons", "idiots", or the likes, the contribution is no longer educational - but personal.
I expect and encourage counter-opinion. I am actually hoping that there is someone out there that knows something I missed. But I am not a fool or a fascist because of my opinion.
I personally do not care about four letter words. But openly using these words encourages bad behavior from some. The majority I am sure can handle any word as they concentrate on concepts not words.
If my business was distributing content around the internet, and some find certain words objectionable - I would go with my wallet.
steven hansen
One who wishes to impose their opinion upon others and force them to act in a manner they feel appropriate leans very close to fascistic tendencies.
Where one strongly defends one's point of view and finds the point of view of another foolish, one may choose to confront the one who one disagrees.
Those who deem themselves better than another because of their station, profession, family, education, politics or economic philosophy and as a result believe themselves to be above the crassness of the great unwashed haven't a leg to stand on in a country that claims equality for all.
Those who deem themselves better than another because of their religious convictions are the most offensive. Those who attempt to force others to follow the tenants of their religion deserve much more than scorn. Especially in a country that has no official religion.
Freedom. Either you believe in it or you do not. If you truly do then embrace it. Accept that freedom means others get to exercise theirs even when it makes you uncomfortable. Most especially when it makes you uncomfortable!
Freedom. Believe in it. Leave all this nonsense about words and images behind.
Right off I object to unwarranted censorship but am pragmatic and know we are not to shout out "Let's get naked" during a Catholic high mass. I am a strong supporter of Freedom of Speech and a strong supporter of appropriate civil behavior.
A good writer, a talented writer, will adjust language usage level according to a target audience. We speak differently to children than we do to adults. We speak differently to a recalcitrant gang banger than we do to a parish priest. Same principle applies at this blog and all blogs.
Profanity works well for some creative writing, for some story telling. We are not telling stories here at Seeking Alpha. At this blog, profanity does not add power to words, does not truly add any value. Use of profanity here is to target the wrong audience.
Topics here are financial in nature, are technical in nature, are of a high level, a professional level. Profanity and professionalism simply do not mix well. Mick Weinstein and other administrators should hold participants to a higher level of conduct, a more professional conduct.
Readers do not need to read, "Bernard Madoff F-worded over people." We know this, we are intelligent and aware. This type of profanity adds no value rather reduces quality of writings. Almost all of us would rather read opinion on what effects Madoff's actions will have upon our stock markets, upon our economy, upon peoples. We know he perpetrated horrific fraud and do not need to be informed of this through profanity.
Profanity at Seeking Alpha adds no value, is problematic and is insulting. My personal insult is not the profanity rather is some participants assuming me to be so ignorant I need to read profanity to realize the impact and seriousness of an issue. I am sure other participants experience the same type of personal insult.
This is the wrong place for profanity. There is no power in profanity here. Most of us expect a higher level of professionalism and we expect to be treated as intelligent and aware people. We are here to discuss, to share information, to learn, to do better. Profanity does not lend well to those notions.
I support Mick Weinstein and staff on this issue; profanity should not be allowed. Participants should both show respect and support Weinstein by not using profanity.
We are professionals, this is a professional blog, our words should also be of a professional nature. Profanity is not a display of professionalism.
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
I have selected your comments not to use as a personal attack rather to highlight how highly problematic is your stance. My presumption is you are writing of Freedom of Speech, unlimited and uncensored Freedom of Speech. A number of other participants are assuming a stance similar to yours which is we should be free to use language as we please.
Based upon this notion of yours and of others, I should be allowed to approach a child, perhaps your child, then begin speaking about sexual activities using vulgarity. This should not bother you at all because I am exercising my right to Freedom of Speech.
I am quite certain if you, others, me, if we began speaking around children using vulgar words, began talking about sex, I am quite certain we would be beaten to death right on the spot by angry parents.
So, if you do not support this freedom to speak about sex, or how wonderful is abusing drugs, or becoming a gang banger, if you do not support freedom of using vulgar words around children, you are a hypocrite, yes? You are adamant about Freedom of Speech but I do know you and others draw a line, a deep and distinct line.
You and others are practicing your own brand of censorship, rightfully so. Mick Weinstein and his people enjoy the same right.
Yours and others attitude of "all or nothing" is, quite frankly, unrealistic and certainly a display of hypocrisy.
We are expected to measure our language usage according to circumstance. This expectation applies here at Seeking Alpha.
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
You said, "I want to be able to mop the floor with their dumb ass, for all to see".
Ah! you reveal yourself. YOU want to JUDGE and show ALL TO SEE that YOU are smarter than the author. It is not about the "dumb ass" author, it is about you as the "smart ass" commenter. Does it make you feel good when you can "mop the floor" with someone who at least tried to make a point (not forgetting that no author posts on SA -- editors at SA select articles)
If anybody is a "dumb ass" it is the editors of SA who select the material you find to be drivel.
If your great intelligence and sharp wit was put to better use, you would be critical of SA for choosing to publish what you judge to be drivel, and mop them across the floor for all to see (how smart you are) instead of the poor sap who tried to make a point and at least had the balls to put his or her ideas out their for people like you to read and use for target practice.
Maybe you could find other ways to boost your self-image and spend less time harassing people trying to engage in a dialog on ideas. An approach such as yours is the death of any online community intended to be an exchange of ideas, because you turn it into and exchange of insults. I so regret having to deal with you in kind, but can't let your egotistical, self-important comments stand.
Get a life, asshole!
I define a fool by their ACTIONS.
On Dec 15 06:05 PM mark mchugh wrote:
> "No one is a fool or fascist because of their opinion"
>
> I'm just curious, how do you define a fool then?
>
I give your rant a 5 (you'll get better with practice). I really don't get upset when attacked, but thanks for trying.
Very rarely do I attack an author (go look). I am acutely aware of the effort most put into their work. I use my real name when I post, because I understand the concept of being accountable for what I write (how 'bout you?). And I absolutely love the diversity of opinions that SA publishes, and always have. I hope they never change that. I've spent way more keystrokes defending authors, than attacking them.
The people who I have "mopped the floor with" are people who don't come here for discussion, or even to read the articles. They come here to use the comments section to promote their own views. When you read their comments, it is obvious that they either didn't read, or didn't understand the article. In some cases, their comments are longer than the articles themselves. "Backdoor" publishing, I guess I'd call it. OK, if that's how it is, fine. Then, we get little cliques of these douche-bags traveling through the site like a graffiti gang, disrupting any chance of the sublime discussions most of us (I think) want to have. And that's OK too, I guess (I am pro-first amendment), although I think it's bad taste. From time to time, I am inclined to expose these cretins for the mental midgets that they are, in no uncertain terms. And that makes me a bad guy?
If you want to let kindergartners set foreign policy, because their opinions count too, I am very comfortable calling you any one of a number of vicious names (because your messing with my life).
As a nation, we should be embarrassed that we have an economy on the verge of collapse because we failed to expose stupidity for what it was. So I think that it's important to expose stupidity. And when I call someone bad names (which honestly, I don't do much), they have every right to respond.
It's your right to be ignorant, yet want to express yourself. Just don't take away my right to call you ignorant (for all to see).
That's all
Now I am really insulted and really mad. 5?!?! It was at least a 7. That must be damnation with slight praise, and that is nicer than calling me a bleeping, bleeper.
I agree with you completely about backdoor publishing and malcontents cruising the comment sections to disrupt more than to contribute.
You lost me, or perhaps exceeded my intellect, when you got over to foreign policy, but I'm sure that was not an instance of promoting your own agenda.
Glad, though, to hear that you are supportive of authors who try, and that it is more the dumb ass commenters than the hapless authors who are more likely to experience your wrath.
Anonymous Coward
What the kindergarten foreign policy comment was about was trying to challenge the notion that all opinions are equal. I don't know much about airplane engines, so I don't go to pilot sites and try to "set them straight". And if I ever did, they'd have every right to rip me a new one.
I do believe in tempering my language (I think most of us do), but I want the right to be unkind at times. We all come here looking for insight to make money and I think discrediting fools is an important part of helping that process.
And all right, I'll give the rant a 7.
I have often heard of young people reading about financial matters. The forum should respect the idea that finance is for everyone, not putting labels on individuals. Labelling Seeking Alpha as for adults only would be prejudiced, just what a free speaker might be thought to be against.
In the Congress the senators and representatives try to use courtesy in their forms of address in hopes of not descending to out-and-out fights. They are professional debaters and know that there is a much better chance of getting one's message heard, even by those who are of an opposing position, by speaking with more decorum. Gutter speach is for the gutter, and I refuse to believe that is what Seaking Alpha is. I wouldn't have thought so, but if profane language is condoned here and becomes prominent, I won't return. There are other fine sources of current information and advice to turn to.
We speak and write in much the way we are brought up. There can not be a unanimity of opinion about this, but there could be a balance of usage, a happy medium, albeit contrived, to be sure, but it would satisfy those who have the need to express themselves with elegance and exactitude with those who feel the only way for others to listen to their point of view is to pepper it with expletives. Most seasonings are far better the less they are used, but there is a time and quantity and type of dish to use them with. The point about swear words is, less is more, or being grammatical about it "fewer is better." My own taste would be to use none in composition, which I feel in this forum should appeal more to the cerebral than the visceral part of our brains.
Swearing often carries with it the implication of doing violence. That's a major problem in our world. People need to learn to problem solve using well-thought-out strategies, not with violence, even if it seems of the mock sort of a flippant insult. Investing is something like learning about genealogy, a never ending study. As far as you go into learning about it, there's more that you could do. It's best done cerebrally, not viscerally. Epithets are counterintuivite to wise investing. They are knee-jerk reactions.
I just now had my say and didn't need a swear word to get my point across, just as I read the comments above, some of which were without the swear words. It can be done.
it all makes good sense, and i particularly liked your comment about a cerebral rather than visceral approach to investing.
it is well accepted that when the heart or stomach take control of the investment process from the rational, calculating side of the brain, losses are just around the corner
if SA is about investing and investing process, the editors (who are the real problem more than the authors when it comes to posts containing the vulagarities and expletives -- because if SA editors don't select it, you won't see it) might consider that publishing highly emotional articles, they tend to encourage emotional investing, which is not the best approach to investing
SEEKING ALPHA TERMS OF USE
seekingalpha.com/page/...
Selected Portions of Terms of Use:
Our blogs and content are intended to serve as a discussion center for thoughtful users who make their own investment decisions … We also respectfully ask that you not engage in: … Personal attacks against an author or another user … Profanity or vulgarity …Seeking Alpha editors, at their discretion, may remove comments that violate these standards … Online Rules of Conduct … When you post a comment on the Site, You agree to … Post comments in both tone and content that contribute in a positive and high quality manner to the substantive exchange of information and the subject matter of the Site … You agree not to …Post any comment that is … abusive, offensive, harassing, derisive, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hatefully, racially, ethnically or otherwise tortious or objectionable. …
SEEKING ALPHA EDITOR IN CHIEF BLOG ON PROFANITY
Blogs, Profanity and Editorial Integrity
by: Mick Weinstein December 14, 2008
When a blogger uses profanity in a post we're republishing, or in a directly submitted article, should we include the bad words, or should we fall in line with traditional media outlets' prohibition from publishing certain bad …
A couple of weeks ago SA contributor Paul Kedrosky wrote what I thought was a terrific post on the Citi bailout that used the f-word to define a new category of bank as per the government deal. We put up one of these - F#*& - in the headline, but otherwise published it verbatim, and immediately (I mean immediately) received multiple complaints from both SA readers and contributors who believed that for us to allow such 'gutter language' in the text of an SA article undermined the integrity of the site and our community. Next step, the cesspool that is Yahoo Finance message boards.
This left me questioning our decision. After some internal debate, we decided to pull the article, but I'm left wondering if we would have performed a better service to our readers if we had left the article up, since as I said, I thought Paul made a great point about the bailout that just could not have been conveyed nearly as well with mainstream-media-appro... clean language. …
We do have a general prohibition against profanity in our terms of use, and we generally delete comments that use profanity, but it seems to me that there are many contexts in which the very words themselves (as opposed to their use as a weapon in a verbal attack) are not at all problematic. … Should profanity still be considered over the line in every situation in print? Not at all clear to me.
LEGAL ISSUE:
I’ll bet the SA corporate attorney would have a minor heart attack if he read the Terms of Use and then read the Editor In Chief’s blog on profanity.
Why? -- because a reasonable person (as in an arbitrator or a jury) may determine that the Editor In Chief’s blog statements in conjunction with examples of profanity in articles selected for publication shows that SA willfully and intentionally violated its own unilaterally imposed Terms of Use, in which case the enforceability of the other provisions of the Terms of Use on authors, readers and commenters would be much in question.
It is doubtful in my mind that a jury or arbitrator would buy the literary value argument put forth by the Editor In Chief as a way around the clear language prohibiting vulgarity and profanity found in the Terms of Use.
For example, the Terms of Use grant SA perpetual rights to hold, publish and redistribute posted comments. What if that redistribution were challenged, or if damages were claimed as a result of the circumstances of the redistribution?
If SA doesn’t keep up their end of the bargain in terms of things like vulgarity, profanity and professional tone; and if it fails in that regard willfully, intentionally and with public announcement of that intent and admission of that past practice, they may have a much reduced legal enforceability of their rights described in the Terms of Use.
Comments and articles are submitted subject to the Terms of Use, which are binding on all parties (creating both rights and duties on each side of the contract – Seeking Alpha and the authors and commenters). The Terms of Use are clear about prohibition of vulgarity, profanity and intent to create a professional tone.
They can’t have it both ways. There is either a contract or not.
It would seem that SA has defaulted in a major way on its own unilaterally imposed Terms of Use and may have difficulty maintaining the perpetual rights it claims.
You raise a very interesting point.
I am not a legal expert, but I would surmise that SA hasn't violated the TOU with the profanity issue.
"We respectfully ask that you not engage in. ..... profanity....at their discretion, SA editors MAY (not shall) remove comments that voilate these standards. " This seems to be more of an guideline of SA usage expectations, or quality standards, not a explicit agreement .
In the online rules of contduct section, SA defines what users AGREE to, which doesn't include profanity. It does mention vulgar and obscene, which deal more with explcit sexual content. My interpretation is that it's not binding users to an agreement not to use profanitity.
If the TOU explicited stated that the user agrees to not use profanity, (as it does for vulgar and obscene), then I might think one could make a strong case that SA had violated its TOU.
The TOU says SA reserves the right for its editors to decide (discretion) if material is unfit for publication. If so, SA may, or has permission, to remove content. So, SA might do remove something it thinks fails to meet standards, but doesn't state it shall or must, hence will remove such violations in every instance.
Obviously, SA's policy has been that not any/every usage of profanity conflicts with standards of professionalism . However, the concept of professionalism and "high standards" are quite subject to intrepretation, and different among individuals. This is why Mr. Weinstein is raising this issue. SA has't explicitly stated what is considered offensive/profane for the highly subjective. Since SA goes to exetreme lengths to cater to its readers, the editor in chief wants to obtain a consensus opinion of its readers to better define what the quality standards should be.
This is just my opinion, and for the legality aspect, I know nothing about contract law. But interesting enough
Ever read Barrons, The WSJ, Bloomberg, the Financial Times, even the New York Times? If SA authors wished to publish for these Icons, they would find a lack of understanding for their "Journalistic Integrity".
Even the Tabloids do not excuse this type of press.
If an SA Author feels that the Article is better served with expletives, he/she could pre-announce that the Article contains same. But, since the Article would Not be published in the Professional world, I do not see how it could possibly enhance the Author's future prospects outside of SeekingAlpha.
Who amongst the Newsletter writers uses expletives to get their points across?
Once it is in print, it will be forever associated with that particular person on the Internet.
Either SeekingAlpha is a Professional Financial site or it is not.
IMHO
Before anyone starts, I know this is not a forum, however, with the recent introductions to facilitate commebt streams etc, there is a burgeoning social aspect coming to SA, along with followers come Tribes.
As previously stated, if someone has to sink to calling a contributor or a commentator a f**kwit or a moron, there is obviously a lack of thought before engaging keyboard. The topics can elicit emotional thoughts & responses, however the tone should reflect the purpose of the site.
I admire the open handedness of the editorial staff with regards to commentary & would prefer that it stays that way; i.e. unmoderated. However scum rises to the top & unfortunately any open system is open to abuse. In particular there seems to be a huge amount of link-baiting, I have experienced this on a couple of comment streams associated with my articles. They are obviously engineered to excite a knee jerk reaction & or a click on their website selling all sorts of ghastly stuff. Mr Shark, I hope you are reading this.
In conclusion, the best communities are self moderated, in that members don't let themselves be drawn into fistfights on the net .... I suggest a few people search Google Images for "arguing on the internet"
There are several on SA who's modus operandi is attack. Attack. I find those attacks quite awful. Its the right of the attacker to do so and no one should complain. It is the glorious cost of freedom. A cost that is very minor when compared to the cost of political correctness or censorship.
The comments section is already on the road to ruin, it seems. Allowing uncivil discourse will not help matters. What is the upside ? Is it that some moron gets to use profanity because it makes him or her feel better ? Not worth it.
On Apr 08 04:07 AM User 371080 wrote:
> The first amendment protects unpopular speech. Popular speech by
> definition doesn't need protecting. Either you believe in freedom
> or you do not. One can also believe in freedom and believe in exercising
> good judgment. Its disturbing that a country that hails itself for
> its freedoms is awfully afraid of people exercising those freedoms.
> Makes the statement by the former resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave
> "they hate us for our freedoms" look even sillier.
>
> There are several on SA who's modus operandi is attack. Attack. I
> find those attacks quite awful. Its the right of the attacker to
> do so and no one should complain. It is the glorious cost of freedom.
> A cost that is very minor when compared to the cost of political
> correctness or censorship.
Irrelevent profanity is simply something you don't want your grandchildren to learn from you or from your fellow-contributors. Reading the Madoff piece which Mr. Weinstein left alone, I truly do not think it gained any impact or authority by the repeated and silly use of one piece of very bad language. The author had something to say and he or she should have been asked to clean the piece up for publication. That has little to do with free speech and plenty to do with publishing standards which should apply even on the Internet