As
a person by happenstance born in America, I have
more and more often found myself ashamed of the
conduct of many citizens, corporations, and certainly
the government of what has been called “the
Great Experiment.” I feel an urge to apologize,
but it’s a bit hard to know where to start,
and while an apology for stupid, ignorant, or possibly
even careless behavior might have some meaning,
I suppose we all know the conduct I’m worried
about is none of these—it’s far more insidious
and calculated.
But I write about what may seem an unrelated matter,
the inclusion over the last month or so of the rantings
of Hurley, and my two cents on what to do about
your dilemma. I had been tempted to post a direct
response early on, but it was too difficult to get
beyond the aforementioned embarrassment, not to
mention anger, incredulity, and general disgust
at him and our whole political process and “choices.”
But then I started noticing the effect it was having
on The Blanket, and so while I still hope
this particular batch of BS will fade with our election
of today, I have a feeling the battle is not over
for you.
So, what to do? I have considered myself lucky to
find your publication and look forward eagerly to
the newest postings. It is a rare place I can not
only find news I would not otherwise be allowed
to hear, but reasoned voices discussing issues from
a completely different perspective from my own.
It is refreshing, thought provoking, sometimes moving
and often a good laugh. But do not think for a moment
that my treasure is not another’s target. You
are, and whether or not Hurley is knowingly part
of the attack, he is a precursor I urge you to take
seriously and learn from.
My observations:
-
Painful as I expect it is on occasion, your policy
is honorable and what it must be. I believe you
MUST give a forum to all voices of dissent to
the best of your abilities—else you have
become one of “them.
-
However,
I would also point out that technically Hurley,
for example, was not a voice of dissent. He bellows
the Bu[ll]shite party line, which we all know
is hardly a downtrodden voice or incapable of
managing to eek out its point of view on a million
other forums. Still, intellectual honesty and
slippery slopes I think require that views such
as his not be barred ab initio just because
they espouse the party line. Were a party liner
to be responding directly to a posting of dissent,
for example, surely such a voice ought be heard.
However, to avoid what I see as a very real threat
of being distracted, divided, or even taken over
by initial postings of the major powers (what
small town lawyers facing big firms refer to as
being “papered to death”), I propose
that it might be wise, before it gets out of hand,
to formulate a uniform policy with respect to
such initial establishment postings. Perhaps as
simple as clearly reserving the right, should
volume require it, to create a separate category
and “page” location for these postings,
such that they are not denied, and can be freely
accessed when one is in the mood for that kind
of thing, but are not permitted to become a distraction
or otherwise impede the mission of your publication.
Bottom line—I simply suggest that all those
organizations known by initials have playbooks
listing more than one way to quell voices of dissent,
and the louder your voices become, the more likely
you are to be a worthy target. Plan for it.
-
I
would remind your readers that while American
politics and policies are distasteful and might
in-and-of themselves seem a distraction from causes
you champion, sadly they are very relevant. However,
there are of course many fine forums for more
US-centered voices of dissent, and Lord knows
there is plenty to dissent about, so I hope you
will seek to protect yourself from being overrun
even by well-meaning allies, again whether this
be by a “separate” forum category or
page, or perhaps some sort of “referral”
or links to other sites better able to handle
the load should it begin detracting from your
core mission and those who rely upon you as their
only forum.
This is all a very tough call, and I do not envy your
position, because you do not want even the appearance
of censorship, and only a fool would seek to isolate
himself from learning about his enemies. Still, some
formats or plans are no doubt better than others.
I could of course be in the throes of a vast over-reaction,
but then again, maybe Hurley should be viewed as a
nice reminder to fine tune the ol’ policies—and
check defenses. Just because you’re paranoid
doesn’t mean they aren’t after you. Hey,
maybe Hurley is due a “thank you!”
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
