But seriously…
boingboing.com just posted their own comment moderation policy, which I think says it very well:

http://tinyurl.com/yqsbja

This site is here because Christopher chose for it to be here. The content on this site is managed by him–including comments. He makes no secret of that, and for better or for worse, he’s free to do whatever he wants with it.

Also, has anyone else noticed that tinyURLS aren’t as tiny as they used to be?

Seriously, the world is filled with blogs and street corners where people are free to speak their minds all the live long day. Managing comments on your own personal blog to reduce the impact of yammering pinheads is not censorship, and in fact makes the world a better place.

I like when blogs have a first post or static link explaining their policies and/or what sort of community participation is agreed upon– a social compact, if you will.

Hmm. This is an interesting question. Like, I think most people would agree it’s okay to stand around your own living room and shout hate speech, or that you have a right to stand out in public and say racist or misogynist things (as long as you do it in a non-threatening way), but that you can’t go into OTHER people’s living rooms and shout hate speech.

So, are blogs private property or public property? I tend to think of ones like this–which I can read simply by typing in the url, as “public” (in the sense that a resaurant or store is public, in which their are owners or managers with a large degree of control over who uses ‘em and how, rather than the sense that a library or park is public, in which greater allowances are made in usage), and those like myspace, facebook or livejournal that I need to be granted access to as “private.”

But that’s just my general perception. I’ve never really thought about it; certainly if one thinks of their blog as their house, then they should be able to say, “Hey you kids get off my lawn!” Or build a fence around their lawn. Or…wait, I’ve lost my own metaphor in there somewhere.

No. Not all dissenting opinions are valid. I don’t know where you read that. What is true is no speech should be censored. That doesn’t mean each one of us is right, or special as Carlin would say.

—More importantly, why does anyone want to be a
—part of a forum where their opinions are given
—equal weight and access to those of racists,
—misogynists, misandrists, homophobes, or just
—the chronically, painfully stupid? Is it
—masochism?

Because that’s the way it should be ? Everyone should have equal access and weight ? No ? You don’t think that by sanctioning the principle of censorship, you leave it for others to use it on you ? Ain’t it dangerous to leave your car with the doors opened ?

If you really think this, then you actually agree with your “racists, misogynists, misandrists, homophobes”. They are the ones who would precisely do what’re doing.