Musings on the art of commenting

Do you love your freedom?

Those of us who spend a lot of time on the internet encounter many different things. Some sites are simply functional or informative. Others express opinions and invite debate - or not.

The blogosphere, by and large, involves some degree of debate. In recent months, sites like the Huffington Post have changed the way the comments are moderated and that doesn't sit very well with the more outspoken readers. Some sites have rules, others don't.

The diversity in approach to comments around the internet made me think of how things are on our very own Palingates. When I started it all those months ago, I was an avid reader of Palin Deceptions, a very moderated blog, and I thought moderation was the "in" thing to do. So I clicked on the corresponding alternative when setting up the blog parameters. It lasted about one week. I couldn't be bothered to moderate the comments and didn't see the point of it. The moderation feature came off and things ran very smoothly until a certain spammer reared his head. Long excerpts from a critique of Don Quixote were posted hundreds of times on several threads. I have nothing against Cervantes (far from it), but these comments were posted as an attack on Palingates, with the single aim of disrupting the discussions. Blogger didn't offer appropriate tools to solve this problem, so we deleted the spammy comments manually and switched to Disqus.

We still don't have moderation, but can cope with malicious attacks without having to waste time and without interrupting the discussion. It was a very good decision. The threads became more fluid, the debate more dynamic and the number of people joining in multiplied over the weeks. Trolls don't last very long and there's no need to ban anybody for dissenting opinions. Commercial spammers are swiftly dispatched and our readers are spared some very corny jokes and raunchy videos from a Swedish site, among offers for laptops, IT solutions and anatomy enhancing products.

Just as a matter of curiosity, these are our internal rules:

• Spammers and malicious impersonators are banned. Malicious impersonators are those who appropriate regular commenters usernames and post comments that confuse the discussion. Others post under several different monickers in an attempt to validate their previous comments. These are called out, but not necessarily banned. Once their game is up, they leave on their own accord.
• Comments containing personal contact details are deleted. In the case of our own regular commenters, it's for safety reasons and anybody who wishes to get in touch with each other via e-mail is encouraged to contact Patrick, who will facilitate it. Contact details for third parties are not published if there's a risk of backlash against the person concerned. Media, government bodies and organisations contacts are OK.
• Flagged comments are considered and discussed a case at a time.
  

The opinions of the blog owners are expressed in the main articles and the comments posted through Disqus express the commenters personal opinions. The responsibility for main posts rests with the named authors and the responsibility for Disqus comments rests with each individual. There is a note on the sidebar explaining this.

On very rare occasions, comments are flagged as inappropriate. We look at each case as they arise. We have to balance some things out before making any decisions. If we delete a particular comment, will it affect the flow of the conversation? Are we disrespecting someone's opinions? In the convivial atmosphere at Palingates, sometimes a "just for fun" moment can create a conundrum for us. We have many journalists visiting the blog, looking for solid information about Sarah Palin. The numbers are bound to grow after we won the award for best political blog. If a comment or a picture attached to a comment is posted for fun but would make a wrong impression, we think it's better if it's not there. In such cases we always contact the person who left the comment or picture to explain why we have deleted it.

We understand that our lack of rules may be confusing at times, but it's very difficult to establish criteria that's waterproof. Most of the time things work very well.

We don't have filters, but every now and then Disqus decides to swallow random comments for no good reason. When we spot these, they're quickly approved. Considering that we have over ten thousand comments each week, sometimes it's a bit tricky to keep on top of Disqus's idiosyncrasies... 99.9% of the time, if a comment disappears, it's not due to moderation.

Palingaters are very busy people and the comments come in thick and fast. It's a very mixed bag. We have networkers, link providers, deep thinking people, irreverent people, short commenters, lurkers, occasional trolls, you name it, we have it. Seriousness, snark, humour, concern for each other are all present every single day and provide the unique flavour of Palingates. I've noticed that when Sarah Palin or her "perfect" family are particularly irritating, the tone of the comments changes slightly and the language becomes a bit blue. Again, each comment is considered individually and addressed from the point of view of adding to the discussion or not. I also noticed that when things get too heated, people post soothing youtube videos, which are much appreciated as a mental health break.

Of course this amount of freedom is not to everybody's taste. The trolls themselves don't know how to cope with it. They come from sites where people are ordered "to leave my blog, motherf&*%#r!," which would never happen on Palingates.

We love our freedom and on the rare occasions when we have to look at a comment more closely and make a decision, we always ask ourselves if we are suppressing ideas and opinions. An open forum shifts some of the responsibilty regarding how things are presented, but we're still responsible for the overall "image" of Palingates.

Let me finish on a light note. Poor Track went all the way to Eye-rack to fight for the 1st Amendment and it would be very sad if we didn't show how much we love our freedom and value the freedom of others...

Eye-rack?

The unreality of Sarah Palin's Alaska

As the series Sarah Palin's Alaska continues, with seven episodes aired and a bumper episode to go, many questions were raised, about the narrative and about what we see on the screen. Of course the whole series was planned beforehand and each episode focuses on members of Sarah's family, always showing her in the best possible light (according to Sarah and her fantasies about herself and her family).

We saw Sarah climbing Denali, fishing, kayaking, shooting anything that moves, hunting, riding ATVs, driving her own car... or have we?

Some of her driving raised questions, as Piper was sitting in the backseat without a seatbelt, piping in, criticizing Sarah's driving. Have a look at these screenshots and ask yourself: "Where's the camera?" (The first two shots are from the first leg of the day's travels and Piper was sitting in the front, wearing a seatbelt.)





The idea behind any film, fiction or reality, is to make the viewer forget that there are cameras and great number of people involved in each scene. Are we to believe that there are miniature cameramen especially recruited to film driving scenes? This is how it's usually done:



The car to be filmed is mounted on a low towing dolly and pulled by a camera truck. For safety reasons, there may be troopers' cars in front and behind the car with the "star."

Alternatively, these contraptions may be used, but the car is then towed by a truck and the cameras operated remotely:

Inside the camera truck there's a computarized monitor and the director has full control of each camera:


There we have it: a "natural" driving scene. Piper was told to look bored and say something about Sarah's "driving," so it would tie in with Sarah's little narrative about Piper having changed and no longer being enthusiastic about spending time with mom.

Bear in mind that there is a lot of waiting around for all the gear to be set up and any scene has a number of takes. By the time Piper managed to get her lines right she was probably very bored indeed...

Whether Sarah's car or the giant RV were towed or not, the fact remains that the whole contraption is still a collection of moving vehicles and seatbelts should have been worn. Can you imagine what could have happened if a moose had dashed in front of the whole convoy?

The point of this technical post about a trivial driving scene is to highlight the unreality of this series. There's nothing wrong with using all the techniques available to film makers in order to achieve a seamless result and grab the attention of the viewers without any distractions.

But the whole narrative is dishonest. This series was put together to show Sarah's version of reality. She wanted to show that there aren't any challenges she won't embrace. Any outdoor pursuit, any highly specialized trade (wow!), Sarah can do it. She assigned herself the task of protecting Kate Gosselin and her brood because she's a sharp shooter. Kate left the camping site because that was her script. Kate was the vulnerable city girl against Sarah's fearless frontier woman. She created a tale of hunting in a remote spot, where only one person could be transported on the plane at any one time. The crew with all their paraphernalia must have teleported to that spot, yes? Willow's boyfriend "sneaked" upstairs, past the whole crew, because he was told to do it. Willow smashed Piper face into the cake because... you guessed, she was told to do just that. Willow's car "crash" was all fiction, probably filmed with a double.

In the unscripted bits, Sarah Palin used her "travelogue" to issue a number of jabs aimed at her neighbour, Michelle Obama, bloggers... the list is long. These are some of the moments that can be taken at face value - Sarah unplugged. That's how she unwittingly confirmed the National Enquirer stories about her unruly children.

Another thing she tried to do was attempt to correct her "refudiate" gaffe. She claims that she intended to type "d" and hit "f" instead. What was Sarah trying to type? Redudiate? Repupiate? The fact is, she committed the "typo" on Hannity days before she tweeted it. His voice after she said it barely disguises his embarrassement:



I could go on, but I'm not going to analize each episode from a technical perspective or dissect the narrative of each week's episode. All I can say is that what Sarah Palin chose to show as a normal family, with their troubles and tribulations, was scripted and acted by her prop family and other unsuspecting incidental actors (cousin Matthew, for one) to make her appear normal and loving in her family life and a superwoman the rest of the time. The only real thing is Sarah Palin in full narcissistic glory and nobody seems to have attempted to stop her. Maybe they tried and failed.

All this idiotic make-believe with the beautiful state of Alaska in the background - just another useful prop.

UPDATE

Some readers pointed out that the driving scene could have been filmed using the same type of set-up as in the program Cash Cab, where tiny cameras are mounted where needed. It's very possible that TLC did the scene this way, in which case we have to assume that Sarah was really driving while being filmed, not concentrating a 100% and had her 9 year old daughter sitting in the back, unrestrained. It looks bad either way.

The post may not show exactly how it was filmed, but it's an illustration of how unreal the things we see on TV on a daily basis really are. It's an encouragement not to take the end product at face value, especially when the narrative is so dishonest.

Unfortunately, there's hardly anything left on TV that can be taken at face value. Even "live" news reports can be stage-managed these days, but perhaps that's a subject for another post.
.

Sarah Palin's week in pictures

It's been an interesting week for Sarah Palin in Wasilla. She signed books, banned people from her book signing and served Christmas dinner to the less fortunate...

Let the pictures tell the story.

Sarah signing books, helped by Todd and Juanita Fuller

Some people were allowed in and distributed pamphlets, posters, gathered signatures for petitions and had a jolly good time.

(Photos by Bill Hess)

(Photo by Kim Chatman)

Others weren't so lucky. Todd provided a list of people who weren't welcome at the Curtis D. Menard Memorial Sports Center.

There were four names on Todd's list. Gryphen and Dennis showed up, the others didn't.

Gryphen, from Immoral Minority

Dennis Zaki and Shannyn Moore

Andree McLeod was too busy to attend

One person wasn't prevented from entering the sports center, but her signs were confiscated and destroyed. Dawn was threatened with arrest for disturbing the peace. On the plus side, Dawn could display her beautiful t-shirt and got her flu jab!

(photo by Kim Chatman)

...I turned up at 12 in my Sarah Palin LIAR shirt & with 2 signs 1 of which had palingates.blogspot.com & 3 others with slogans. I planted them in the snow at the front door where I stood. After 45 min, bldg security told me to get rid of the signs cuz Palin’s publisher was paying $85/ hr for facility, (can’t remember exact amt )I said no. He said the cops would come. They were parked right there. I said FINE. They can just give me a ticket. Anyway, he took the signs before I could grab them since using a walker slows one down. He crumbled them up after refusing to return them to me. I did make him give me the sticks back.( one was my meter stick) . He asked for my ID. I refused. I told him I could stay out there & sing my slogans & he said I’d be taken for disturbing the peace. I didn’t sing cuz I really don’t & laughter was something I didn’t want to inspire. So, instead, SarahPalin LIAR shirt prominently displayed, I entered what I thought would be the lion’s den only to find an H1N1 flu clinic giving free flu shots. GEEZ. And lucky too cuz I had planned on getting one. The nurse filled out the form for me cuz I didn’t have my reading glasses on the picket line. I pulled my sleeve down for the shot hoping that with my SP LIAR shirt I wasn’t at the mercy of 1 of Sarah’s biggest fans. It didn’t hurt. The next 1/2 hr I spent displaying my shirt to a winding line of people passing by with their books to be signed. I talked with people getting flu shots, ate a few Palin Xmas cookies & let those in line see that yes, even in Wasilla, there was a real live person who considered Palin less than legitimate. Had I known there was a flu clinic going on, I would have been more aggressive about letting brown uniformed security man get my signs. Other than that, mission accomplished, at least on a personal level. (Comment by Dawn on Shannyn Moore's blog.)

UPDATE - Commenter William Henley, at C4P, disputes the photographic evidence shown here and issues a charming threat to detractors of Sarah Palin:

Sandra, you are lying out your a**. I was at the Wasilla book-signing. As a matter of fact I was there at 10 p.m. the night before and was in line at 05:30. I was one of two people who sat out there all night. The second person (Amy) got there at midnight. I was there through-out and not a single protester with signs showed up at anytime. No single person was there handing out oblabla/hitler pictures. You are nothing more than a lying bi**h and need to go to one of the sights that care for what you are lying about. Just as one of the security heads told me, if anyone started trouble they probably would not have survived. I and many others at the signing were carrying our sidearms. Mine happens to be a police special 357 mag. and I know how to use it and rather enjoy using it for the right reasons, i.e. protecting Sarah Palin and family.

(H/T to gunsmoke)


Sarah turned her hand at food serving at the same venue a few days later. She wore gloves, but somehow she never seems able to find a hairnet for these occasions. Maybe hairnets don't come in big enough sizes to contain her generous mane...

Yum..

Todd looks tired...

Sarah signing yet another copy of "Going Rogue"

Yes, all in all, it was a busy week for Sarah Palin. It provided a lot of material for the bloggers, as usual...

We can't wait for the New Year!

palingates censored at Sarah Palin's book signing in Wasilla

Celtic Diva has just published a post about Sarah Palin's book signing in Wasilla and what really went on inside the sports complex. Kim Chatman was there and reported on the lone protester who had her signs destroyed by Sarah's security people.

Palingates was censored...

+++

DAWN, YOU ARE OUR HERO!

Sole standard-bearer Dawn amongst the Paliban!

"Celtic Diva" Linda Kellen Biegel explains in her post:

"While we have now heard about the "banning" and are all wondering who else is on the list, no one has heard about the censorship part deux: according to the Anchorage Daily News:

'At the Wasilla signing, many people talked about "Sarah" like she's a member of the family. The only signs in sight had to do with conservative causes or Christmas.'
There's a reason for that: the lady pictured above had her three signs taken away from her (one of them said simply "palingates.blogspot.com"...the URL for a popular anti-Palin blog ), while whatever Conservative signs the media saw were allowed to remain. (I verified this when Kim (Chatman) handed her the phone and I got a chance to talk to her for a moment.)

So, to summarize...the reason the ADN only saw "Conservative or Christmas" signs is because the Palinistas took any signs with a different point of view...even if it only had the location of a website with a different view.

In protest, this brave lady stood by the door with her shirt in full view and took quite a bit of flack. Kim said it was all she could do to maintain control when she heard people actually ask:

"Why is that woman allowed to have that shirt on?"

Kim's reply:

"Have you ever heard of "freedom of speech?"

Anyone else thinks naming that group "Conservative Patriots" is a complete joke? Who is calling whom a Nazi?"

Thank you, Dawn, Kim and Linda!

+++

UPDATE:

The Quitter Queen has tweeted again, and her fantasy right-wing rhetoric certainly will appeal to the right wing-extremists who showed up to her book signing in Wasilla:

.

The pitbull and the bloggers

A pitbull was in his backyard, doing his pitbull stuff... until a porcupine invaded his territory. The brave, but stupid pitbull, immediately challenged the porcupine!

Bad decision...the porcupine won this short contest.

A vet sedated the dog, and then removed a total of 1,347 quills. The pitbull survived, and hopefully learned a valuable lesson.

Pitbull=A certain quitter governor
Porcupine=The internet
Quills=Bloggers

Ms Pitbull should learn to ignore the porcupine...
.

Sarah Palin's 1st Amendment rights

.

Sarah Palin v anonymous bloggers (updated)

Sarah Palin's relationship with anonymous bloggers has not been a friendly one, to say the least. Maybe she should refer to them as progressive or liberal instead of using this blanket term "anonymous bloggers".

There are countless right-wing individuals who write under pseudonyms or creative screen names. Sarah Palin's description of anonymous bloggers was much ridiculed. In her fantasies, are the progressive ones wearing their bedtime attire, tapping their keyboards from some dark basement and the conservative ones wearing suits, writing from plush offices with panoramic windows? In her mental picture is the first group afflicted by skin conditions and the second have flawless complexions?

But I digress...

Let's focus on her grievances concerning the bloggers she accuses of spreading falsehoods. Has Sarah Palin sued any of these people? Even if the identities of the people spreading such falsehoods are unknown, she would still have the recourse of filing a John Doe suit for defamation, libel, whatever. The ball would be on her court to prove the allegations to be false. She would have an excellent case against the Trig Truthers. The Babygate blogs fall outside the political arena and concern Sarah Palin as a mother and some members of her family.

A lawsuit against any one of these bloggers would be the perfect opportunity to weaken the arguments of the political ones as well. Once she emerged, victorious, from a court of law, she could call a press conference where she would be able to state categorically: "I told the world that these anonymous bloggers were spreading malicious falsehoods and today justice prevailed!" Or something like that.

Proving that political dissenters were spreading lies would be much more complicated, as her political record is in the public domain, so she would be disputing their opinions and interpretation of the facts, not the facts themselves. But if she won a Babygate lawsuit, because she lumped all bloggers in the same category, she would be able to claim a moral victory against anonymous political dissenters without having to take any direct action in court. Neat, eh?

Why didn't Sarah Palin jump at this fantastic opportunity to kill two birds with one stone?

Because she would have to win the lawsuit. In order to do that she would have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, by producing documents and evidence from individuals under oath, that the bloggers were indeed propagating lies about herself, her family and the baby in question in a public court of law.

I'm sure she must have all the necessary evidence to win such a case...

UPDATE: I decided to place a comment I received as an update, because it raises an interesting point.

"A gentle correction that makes your point even stronger: the plaintiff in a defamation suit does not have to carry the burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt." The burden of proof on a party who brings a civil case is far lighter, making it yet more inexplicable not to bring a suit if a blogger supposedly had done something actionable."

Link to a conservative anonymous blog, in the interests of balance and fairness.
.

Anonymous blogging

I have gleaned some material quoted in comments on various sites regarding internet anonymity and added a bit of research for quick reference.

Anonymity

Many people don't want the things they say online to be connected with their offline identities. They may be concerned about political or economic retribution, harassment, or even threats to their lives. Whistleblowers report news that companies and governments would prefer to suppress; human rights workers struggle against repressive governments; parents try to create a safe way for children to explore; victims of domestic violence attempt to rebuild their lives where abusers cannot follow.

Instead of using their true names to communicate, these people choose to speak using pseudonyms (assumed names) or anonymously (no name at all). For these individuals and the organizations that support them, secure anonymity is critical. It may literally save lives.

Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society. (EFF)

Is anonymous speech a right?

Yes. Anonymous speech is presumptively protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Anonymous pamphleteering played an important role for the Founding Fathers, including James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, whose Federalist Papers were first published anonymously. And the Supreme Court has consistently backed up that tradition, ruling, for example, that an Ohio law requiring authors to put their names on campaign literature was a violation of the First Amendment. Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled that protecting anonymous speech has the same purpose as the First Amendment itself: to "protect unpopular individuals from retaliation ­ and their ideas from suppression." (Cyberslapp)

"Anonymous speech on the Internet lets people make criticisms that are difficult to state openly, and share information and support about topics that might be stigmatizing, such as addiction or sexual abuse,"" said Ann Beeson, Staff Counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union. "Unless online anonymity is protected, whistleblowers who want to criticize their employers, parents who want to criticize the principal of their children's school - and many others - may be afraid to speak out. That would be a loss for our country." Beeson pointed out that the Supreme Court has repeatedly found that anonymous speech is a right protected by the First Amendment. (ACLU)

A blogger describes her experiences (2006)

This outing thing is really getting out of hand.

This is the way she informed me that she’d figured out who I was.

And she has. Congratulations, Ann, you guessed right. You know who I am, and where I work. And you’ve been very clear that you don’t like pseudonymity, and you’ve been just as clear that you don’t care for me. You’ve also made it clear that you’re not above threatening to out people you don’t care for when you’re angry. So, what’s your next move?

You could sue me. Of course, as my Civil Procedure professor used to say, “You can always sue. The question is, can you win?”

And what do you hope to recover after all that? A few bucks? A little vindication? Any victory you might have would be singularly Pyrrhic, I would imagine. Your reputation will suffer more from a suit than it would from my comments.

All at a cost of thousands of dollars in legal fees and costs on both sides. More likely tens of thousands of dollars.

And all because you couldn’t leave well enough alone and had to find out who I was. Because it’s pseudonymity that you find so appalling, that you think can be abused. (Feministe)


It would appear to me that Mike Doogan acted impulsively in his need for revenge once he obtained the information he wanted so badly. Mudflats had been critical of some of his actions and instead of defending his position with valid arguments, he retaliated by divulging AKM's identity on his official website. The implications of his actions are immense and the consequences will be far more serious for himself than for AKM. He didn't stop to consider all the possibilities before he opened his big mouth.

Mike Doogan defended himself in an interview with Alaska Dispatch: Doogan said that from his point of view, as soon as she began to influence public policy she gave up her right to remain anonymous. "If this was a group of people sitting around the living room, relentlessly attacking public figures, that would be one thing. But she's been doing that on the Internet--which goes everywhere--for the better part of the year, and she's allowed to do that anonymously? Where's the benefit of that to our state or our country?" (Alaska Dispatch)

The answer to his question becomes abundantly clear by reading the first part of this post.

Perhaps he should have acquainted himself with the Constitution of his country before embarking in such reckless conduct.
.

Fighting back

I have collected a few contact addresses in connection with the Mudflats outing. Depending on our locations we can choose to send details of this incident to one or more of the following:

Alaska

rep.beth.kerttula@legis.state.ak.us,
rep.david.guttenberg@legis.state.ak.us

Ethics committee
Representative_John_Coghill@legis.state.ak.us
Representative_Berta_Gardner@legis.state.ak.us
Senator_Gary_Stevens@legis.state.ak.us
Senator_Thomas_Wagoner@legis.state.ak.us

aclu alaska

US citizens

www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
US Atorney General

http://www.eff.org/about/contact

From anywhere

http://citizensforethics.org/about/tipline


There are enough contacts there so we can all participate in the process of bringing justice to AKM and take steps to protect all bloggers should anybody else decide to follow in Mike Doogan's footsteps.

Helpful information to assist in making our case: anonymity issues
.

Doogan broke a federal law by outing Mudflats

I have combined two comments by an incredibly knowlegeable lawyer so as to look at Mike Doogan's actions from a legal viewpoint. The comments appeared on Shannyn Moore's site and they are worth reading as a post. As a matter of fact, the comments on Shannyn's blog are wonderful and include Doogan's idiotic responses to e-mails from one of his constituents.

Now, the law:

"In matters concerning public interest and/or public figures, there is a first amendment privilege to comment, criticize, satirize, you name it. Further, even if what is printed is false, it is constitutionally protected unless published with actual malice and disregard of falsity. Simply put, the First Amendment protects the right to speak and strictly limits anything that inhibits that right. That’s because someone in Doogan’s position can’t decide what is “true” and what is “false.”

So even if Mudflats were not entirely accurate (and I have never seen anything which was not substantiated), she had the right to speak and to do so anonymously. The fact that Doogan disagrees that she should be able to do so without identifying herself shows only one thing: he is utterly ignorant about the constitution. His opinion that people should identify themselves is meaningless–he can think whatever the heck he wants but the Constitution trumps his personal opinion.

The man Doogan was acting on behalf of the state. He made a determination that someone should exercise her constitutional rights only in the manner he deemed appropriate, not in the manner in which she had the First Amendment right to comment. He also made someone who had taken pains to keep her identity private a public figure.

This is a violation of federal law and of the state common law right to privacy. The fact that he did it on state time and in his capacity is what is called “state action” for a section 1983 civil rights claim.

The point is that, acting in his capacity as an employee for the state of Alaska, he violated someone’s constitutional right to speak and to do anonymously. This is a big lawsuit and filing it will do a whole lot more than anything else to stop it ever happening again–and will get Mudflats the compensation she deserves."

Mike Doogan is in deep trouble...

Link to Shannyn Moore

1st amendment abolished in Alaska

Rep Mike Doogan thought it was a good idea to use his e-mail newsletter to constituents to "out" fellow blogger AKM Mudflats, sending her full name to all and sundry.

What he did was wrong on so many levels, I won't try to list them, but in the present political climate in Alaska, his actions can be described as criminal.

Sarah Palin has declared open-season on progressive bloggers in her press release about Celtic Diva's ethics complaint. It resulted in a barrage of intimidating hate e-mails being sent to Linda because she chose to exercise her rights as a citizen.

AKM had her reasons to remain anonymous and what Mike Doogan did placed her in a precarious position. I cannot imagine how he or anybody else will benefit from his actions in a legitimate way.

Bloggers have every right to their opinions, whether their identities are known or not. The internet is a very democratic medium. There are many people from the left and the right who use screen names to write about the politicians they like and the ones they dislike.

Their real names are not important and the freedom to make their opinions known should not hinge on publishing their real identities.

Mike Doogan's stupid move will not change AKM's opinions, but it may affect her ability to express them.

It is a shame that some politicians in Alaska have no regard for people's civil liberties.

AKM Mudflats
.

Thanks for the truth

A stay-at-home mom from Wasilla whose e-mail information about Alaska's governor took on an Internet life of its own during last year's presidential campaign has won a "Special Recognition" award from the Alaska Press Club.
Anne Kilkenny, 60, is the runner-up to this year's Howard Rock/Tom Snapp First Amendment Award, which the Press Club describes as recognizing "Alaskans who demonstrate exemplary advancement of First Amendment values."

Here are some highlights from the famous e-mail:

"She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help."
"Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything publicly about her."

"She is solidly Republican: no political maverick."

"As Mayor, she had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from Senator Ted Stevens."

"There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more knowledgeable and experienced than she."

Thanks, Anne. You helped prevent quite a lot of spin and tall tales about Sarah Palin being the only version of her persona to reach the electorate.

We would have found out the truth sooner or later, but you made it happen sooner...

Full story from Alaska Dispatch.
.

Quotes

The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen. ~Tommy Smothers

Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

Books won't stay banned. They won't burn. Ideas won't go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas. ~Alfred Whitney Griswold

A free press can be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom a press will never be anything but bad. ~Albert Camus

If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. ~John Stuart Mill

Censorship offends me. ~Author Unknown

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky

You can cage the singer but not the song. ~Harry Belafonte

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. ~Voltaire
.

Free speech for all

You've probably seen this Conservatives4Palin claim to victory on Immoral Minority.

ADN Will Cease Linking to Deranged Nutcases

Just an update - a couple of weeks ago, we pointed out that Mark Dent of the Alaska Newsreader, a product of the Anchorage Daily News, was providing links to screwball blogs that espouse loony Trig Truther conspiracy theories and engage in vile personal attacks on the Palin children.

At that time, I put together a complaint to Pat Dougherty, executive editor of the ADN, pointing out the problems at the Newsreader and providing evidence of this behavior for two blogs in particular - "Palingates" and "Immoral Minority". I also pointed out the propensity of the Newsreader to provide links to primarily anti-Palin sites, with little balance in the way of pro-Palin commentary.

I heard back from Mr. Dougherty today - he told me that the complaint had been discussed internally and that he agreed with its substance. So it appears there will be no more ADN link-love for the fringe tinfoil-hat wearers, and hopefully a little more balance at the Newsreader.

Thanks, Mr. Dougherty.

What can I say? I have every right to criticize anybody or anything I want, be it Sarah Palin or the Pope. That goes for all bloggers, journalists and anybody who has an opinion. People can choose to read what I and others write and form their own opinions, agree, disagree, make comments or not.

I grew up in a country under military rule, at a time when dissenters were arrested, tortured or simply disappeared. When I was at university, I made some remarks about the quality of our library and tried to mobilize fellow students to request an upgrade of said library, to expand the catalogue so we could conduct proper research, etc. There was an article in the law of that time designed to silence students who made any unwelcome noises. I received threats and decided to disappear before they could punish me for such a terrible crime. I didn't want my family to spend the rest of their lives searching for me. That's when I moved to England.

Today I blog from France. Other people do it from Alaska, some write from Nebraska. We are fortunate to live in countries that value and defend free speech. There are places where internet access is limited and their governments attempt to control people's thoughts.

I have never rejected or deleted a comment on any of the posts on palingates and never will.

To the people who don't value freedom of speech and want to gag those whose opinions differ from their own, all I can say is, should they succeed, they would place themselves at risk. They may find themselves silenced by the same arguments they used to silence others.
.