Self-censorship is censorship. Advocating self-censorship is advocating censorship.

[BainsBane]

79. Is the entire jury system invalid then?

Should people be allowed to post anything here?

There is no question that virtually all speech is constitutionally protected. That isn't the issue here. Rather it is what is in keeping with community standards. A jury decided the rude pundit's blog entry wasn't, just as two juries decided my use of violated community standards. I didn't appreciate those hides, but there wasn't nothing I could do about them. The same constitution that protects the Rude Pundit protects my right to speech, and that of every other member on DU who has had hidden posts.

I really don't care about the Rude Pundit. I haven't read much by him, and from the entries that I've read as a result of this controversy, I can see I'm not missing much. Stripping away the insults, his essential point was an objection to the Cheney's editorial and their hypocrisy toward Obama. I certainly have no objection to that basic message, but it's not exactly insightful. The only thing that distinguished it from any of a thousand other comments saying just that was its vulgarity.

I find fascinating what some people decide is censorship vs. righteous hides. Stuff is hidden here all the time. One of the common kinds of hides is for people who object to sexism, racism, and misogyny. Yet those hides don't generate that hides for sexism, racism, and misogyny do. That tells me one thing. People are more comfortable with bigotry than they are with confrontations to bigotry. In fact, to look at this controversy, it seems people believe that bigoted slurs about subaltern groups are so justified, they should be protected above other forms of speech.