Comment is not entirely free
One reader has objected to the Naw-Ruz messages to the UK Baha’i community from Prime Minister Blair and Leader of the Opposition David Cameron MP. Fair enough!
So he posted a comment that was gratuitously derogatory to both these gentleman. Not fair enough!
I deleted the comment, so the same reader posted another comment accusing me of double standards. I think he also accused me of lacking the courage to post his first comment. I didn’t post this second comment comment either.
A few reflections on this episode:
1. I support freedom of speech - otherwise I would not write this blog and I would not read other blogs and sometimes leave comments on them.
2. This blog is a personal diary - as the blog’s strapline makes clear. However, I open it to comments. It’s confirming to know that someone is reading and cares enough to leave a comment. It’s in the spirit of the blogosphere, and there’s always the hope of learning from the comments - as I have done on a number of occasions.
3. I’m happy to allow comments that disagree with what I’ve written, especially if they are well written, well reasoned, witty or amusing.
4. But, because the blog is personal, I’m free to accept or reject comments as I choose without giving any reasons.
5. I don’t accept comments that are gratuitously insulting to me or to others. This has nothing to do with denying freedom of speech. Anyone can set up a blog, write to the press, write and publish a book, stand on a street corner and shout. I’m not preventing people from expressing their views in the myriad outlets that now exist. Nor has it anything to do with lacking courage to allow comments that disagree with my viewpoint. I just don’t choose to be insulted for no good reason on my own blog.
The Baha’i writings are very clear about the importance of freedom of speech and about the power of utterance. They are also clear about the need for moderation in speech and action.
Baha’u'llah warns us that “the tongue is a smouldering fire, and excess of speech a deadly poison”. “Material fire consumeth the body,” He says in elaborating the point, “whereas the fire of the tongue devoureth both heart and soul. The force of the former lasteth but for a time, whilst the effects of the latter endureth a century.” In tracing the framework of free speech, He again advises “moderation”. “Human utterance is an essence which aspireth to exert its influence and needeth moderation”, He states, adding, “As to its influence, this is conditional upon refinement which in turn is dependent upon hearts which are detached and pure. As to its moderation, this hath to be combined with tact and wisdom as prescribed in the Holy Scriptures and Tablets.” [Universal House of Justice, Individual Rights and Freedoms in the World Order of Baha'u'llah, 29 December 1988
Technorati Tags: Baha’i, blogging, freedom of speech
No related posts.
18 comments
nicely said ; )
Good on you Barney. Well said. Even newspapers require certain standards be met for letters to the editor to be publishable.
Right on. This was very clearly written, I like it a lot.
I follow the same standards with my blog.
There are many ways to disagree with a person, without having to insult him/her.
not trying to sound like a ditto-head here, but ditto. lol. unfortunately it seems like any time “certain people” are mentioned in a blog post, said post automatically becomes the target of vitriol and pointless rhetoric. that’s partisan politics for you.
Also, Mark Twain said something about speech which may or may not apply here, but thought to bring it up just to lighten up this thread
“It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.”
–Mark Twain
Thank you all for your supportive comments. I’m always afraid that I’ve taken the second of Mark Twain’s options. Perhaps I haven’t this time!
Sounds like quite an adventure and I’m looking forward to experiencing more of it on my own blog. Thanks for raising the discourse on freedom of speech to a level of principle. I have often wondered at why people, especially those who present themselves as educated, intellectual types feel that personal attacks somehow add something of value to their viewpoints. Do they doubt that I can dispassionately weigh the merits of their perspective without bullying and nastiness? Whenever I hear diversity of views descending into personal attacks I just stop listening to anyone who is making them and seek out more meaningful discussion. I hope that whoever made the comments in question exercises their freedom of speech by starting their own blog where they can unload on whomever they chose to their heart’s content. I might even go and read it.
While I agree entirely with your comments, Barney, it is often helpful to understand where the other point of view is coming from. In a culture of dissent and suspicion of authority that goes back to at least the eras of Hobbes, Locke, Jefferson, and Mill (as listed by the Universal House of Justice in their letter of 29 December 1988), it was justifiably, and many believe to this day, essential to criticize and cite every weakness or error of those in authority or in opposition to one
This also reminds me of this quote:
“Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it.”
(Abdu’l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 268)
Thank you to all those who have contributed to this discussion. These comments are helpful, supportive, well reasoned, and add to our understanding of the nature of free speech as Baha’is understand it.
Jim neatly summarizes the history of the culture of dissent and oppositional politics - a culture which still exists and is assumed by many to be the “real” way of being democratic - and contrasts this with the new approach taught by Baha’u'llah. I wholeheartedly agree that the change of culture entailed in moving towards the new kinds of relationships envisaged by Baha’u'llah is a difficult one and will take a great deal of time. My work as Secretary for External Affairs puts me in the middle of the old culture all the time, so I see it with all its warts. Sometimes I feel like I’m drowning in it. It’s wonderful to “come up for air” and take part in Baha’i consultation in National Assembly meetings (for example) - as imperfect as we are in this art of the new world order.
An excellent book on all of this is Michael Karlberg’s “Beyond the Culture of Contest” (published by George Ronald).
Dear Sir,
You are proprietor, Master of Ceremony and above all editor-in-chief of your virtual publishing house. I
Dear Darius,
Your comment seems a good example of what I was asking. How does making a personal judgement on how tolerant Barney is have anything to do with principle? Whether he is tolerant or not is an issue of character as I understand it but is not relevant to the discussion of what the limits of personal expression or criticism are from a Baha’i perspective. I don’t pretend to have all the answers to this important question as we strive to toward creating a new civilization, but appreciate the opportunity to explore it. As someone who wants to learn, it would be more useful to me to hear your understanding of relevant principles or Writings that illuminate this matter instead of your personal views of Barney as an individual or anyone else for that matter.
Darius,
My reading of this discussion tells me that Barney only quoted Baha’u'llah’s writings in the compilation prepared by the Universal House of Justice. I find neither twisting nor turning in his discourse…I thought the quotes were very direct and clear.
To whom it may concern,
( with your permissions Sir )
I would love to clarify and crystallises the discourse, in regard to Baha
Darius, it is exactly this kind of comment that I do not appreciate on my blog. It is not in the Baha’i spirit of courteous and appropriate speech, nor is it constructive. I will not hesitate to delete or block any further such comments. If you want to express such views, please do so elsewhere.
This discussion is now closed.
Barney,
while I of course agree with you regarding insulting and derogatory language I, personally, take a more lenient approach.
So while I’ve also been the target of some ugly insults (interestingly enough, emanating from some who have commented above me), I leave the comments be. I do this for two reasons, one, censorship is a very slippery slope. And two, the personal insults that people leave on my blog do much more harm to their author than to me or my blog. Every visitor in the future will see what they said to me and what my response was. Then they will decide for themselves.
Were I to edit or censor such comments myself, I would deprive this from my readers.
Finally, I must say that you are among the very few Baha’i bloggers I respect. You seem to ‘get it’ more than the others. The blogosphere is about sharing, openness and transparency. So while other bloggers (again, some of who are just above me) censor my helpful & innocuous comments on their blog, I have yet to see you do so. That speaks much about your character.
Believe it or not, I’ve even had one blogger (who may appear above in their comments) take my comment and interpolate it to their liking! I suppose the irony that this was done regularly by Covenant Breakers is lost on them.
Best,
B
I feel that a reason for not showing certain comments on one’s own blog can be that it simply hurts to showcase ugliness in the shape of cynicism or disrespectful remarks when ones intension is for the blog to make an enriching contribution. What we sometimes call discussion is not necessarily enriching or fruitful.
Having said that, it is a reality that we all have shortcomings and it can be good being confronted with that. The art is of course to benefit from such confrontation instead of just feeling depressed. To me, life, love, and the bahai writings teach me that art. Happiness wins.
Warmest greetings to all.
Leave a Comment