See, I’ve got an interesting conflict here.
Several years ago, I did a store appearance in England, and this guy showed up. He did so solely and specifically to berate me and my work, informing me loudly and repeatedly that everything I wrote sucked. He then proceeded to stand there and berate people standing on line, challenging their intelligence and taste because they were fans of my work. This went on for about twenty minutes, with the store clerks being either too polite or too afraid of the guy to do anything, until I personally threw the guy out because he was bothering the hëll out of people.
I find myself in a similar situation now. On the one hand, I am a firm believer in free speech. On the other hand, some folks have been e-mailing me privately and asking me to make certain individuals on this board go away, arguing that having them around is akin to having a guy walk into the middle of your living room and lighting his own farts.
So the question is: Does throwing people out of this website because they’re obnoxious and insulting (and apparently come here solely to irritate people since they clearly don’t like the opinions of the vast majority of posters) present a conflict with my commitment to free speech?
If you vote “yes,” I’ll let them stay. If you vote “no,” we’ll try to find a way to boot them permanently. Not quite sure how, but it’ll be interesting to try and find a way…and I bet we’d have *lots* of people volunteering to help find it.
You guys decide if I should vote people off the island.
PAD
• 
Interestingly enough, I find a lot of people have totally ignored PAD’s post about the topic. He is NOT asking whether people should be banned because they disagree with him. As far as I’ve seen, he actually welcomes people who disagree with him, provided they can argue their point clearly and logically. What PAD IS asking is based upon what other people have said to him. Quote:
On the other hand, some folks have been e-mailing me privately and asking me to make certain individuals on this board go away, arguing that having them around is akin to having a guy walk into the middle of your living room and lighting his own farts. So should the blog be run by committee? Should we ultimately decide who gets to post and who doesn’t?
PAD, if you’ve actually managed to read this far down, this is my opinion:
I’d say that, no, you’re not infringing upon their right to free speech. As numerous others have pointed out, people may have the right to speak, but you are not required to provide a forum for them. This is your site.
Ultimately, it’s your decision to make. At the end of the day, it’s your name on the site. You set the rules. If you feel that their behavior warrents banning, AND you get enough complaints about them, feel free to ban them. In the end, do what you feel is right.
I vote ‘yes’; it would be a conflict with ‘freedom of speech’ were you to ban this particular person (or any group of people).
If we were physically assembled and you had someone continually chime in, interrupt, harrass – fine. Toss him out after appropriate warnings.
But this is a web forum. Unless someone starts ‘attacking’ the web site by automating a large number of repetitive posts, etc, it’s a trivial matter to just scroll past any articles that one finds offensive, just as in normal society one can politely ignore another. Your other readers should act in a mature fashion and simply choose not to respond to any immature/spiteful posts. We don’t need any protection from any immutable ‘big brother’ restrictions or constraints.
PAD, with the fairly strong liberal convictions that you seem to espouse here I’d see your banning anyone as fairly hypocritical, given the minor/insignificant ‘damage’ that’s involved.
Obviously – as everyone else has mentioned – it’s your *right* to do whatever you choose with your forum. But I’d see your exercising that right – banning someone for the content of their posts – as contradictory to your stated political beliefs, yes.
Brad
I voted ‘no’
I meant to vote ‘yes’. Keep me. Keep uDog (I love uDog).
Keep the faith.
Remove whom you choose.
CJA
First off, is this the Peter David that wrote comic books back in the eighties and nineties? I came here straight from a google search I did hoping to find a discussion on the upcoming Soloman amendment case in the Supreme Court. For some reason this page was one of the top listings which I really can’t figure out as there’s nothing here remotely connected to what I was searching for.
However if this IS the same Peter David, I’ll like to say you were one of my very favorite scribes when I read comics as a kid. Up there with Walt Simonson and Chris Claremont in my book, I loved that run on Spectacular Spiderman with the Black Cat and all, I even bought Hulk–and even paid premium for back issues–when you (if that was you) wrote it which was an accomplishment as I had no interest in the character otherwise.
I quit reading comics shortly after you (he?) left X-factor after a wonderful run that left me with indelible images like Quicksilver explaining why he was such a jerk ‘cuz he lived his life like the guy waiting for some idiot who couldn’t operate an ATM machine. Every time some clown can’t get in and out of one and I’m waiting I think of that instead of strangling the SOB like he dámņ well deserves. Also the joke of Madrox and the jar of whatever it was (pickles?) that even Strong Guy couldn’t open. Laughed like hëll! Never forgot that one.
(If I’ve got the wrong Peter David I’ll slink away embarassed and you all can forget I ever posted here)
Regarding the subject at hand, I don’t know specifically who you’re talking about, but I’ve always has a preference for undermoderated boards as I cut my teeth posting on Usenet (which I can no longer convienantly access as I’ve not had a newserver for years) and my experience with moderated boards is too often they get rid of provocative posters for various reasons and the board becomes incredible dull after a while. Some of the best threads and discussions I’ve been involved in or enjoyed reading were started by ‘trolls.’
I guess I figure a board where everyone thinks the same is pretty dull and ends up being low traffic, and anyone who contributes in any way is worth keeping. I always thought it rather neat how a good usenet board could come together with guys from every possible nationality, religion, political viewpoint, sexual orientation, racial or ethnic group to drive away the obnoxious or (in one case) truly dangerous posters.
I guess I’ve always been amused by those who whine overmuch about ‘personal attacks’ as if one can really draw blood through the ether. That’s not the sort of thing I prefer to engage in, but I’ve noticed lotsa people flame but that doesn’t inherently mean they’re evil. Oftentimes just elevating the conversation level works wonders, otherwise just rolling my eyes and moving on to the next post eliminates the problem entirely I’ve found.
So does this guy contribute in any way? Provoke any interesting discussions? Have anything resembling a good sense of humor? An opposite viewpoint that allows a majority to expound voluminously?
Or is he just an ignorant jerk with nothing to contribute and could even be construed as dangerous to other posters in an explicitly physical sense?
I guess that’s my criteria for deciding whether someone should be run off. I also allow for the fact that some posters do nothing for me but are enjoyed by others thus contributing something to the board even if I skip all their posts.
BTW, how in the hëll to I get to the main forum here? There’s nothing to click on! Admittedly I’m drunk as a lord right now (and thus apologize for running off at the keyboard and the inevitable spelling errors I’ve made that I won’t be able to see until I’ve sobered up) and can’t figure out how to navigate through this system.
(BTW, if I’ve got the wrong guy entirely could someone please direct me to a forum where there’s an interesting conversation on the upcoming Soloman Amendment to be decided by the Supreme Court?)