Morrissey and his links to paedophiles? - thecolemanexperience

An anonymous person writes:

An enlightening read:

Morrissey search - thecolemanexperience

 

[davidt]

So I should apologize for something I don't think was wrong? No, I'm not going to, even if you and hundreds of people insist I do because of their personal moral outrage.

Morrissey has had links to the subject of pedophilia in the past in the press. Sorry, that offends your moral view but it is a fact.

I choose to link to and not link to a lot of items by anonymous and logged-in users every day, that argument also makes no sense.

I didn't demand censorship.

I've never once mentioned that the link should be removed. The damage is done. I questioned your judgement in posting the link on the front page of the internet's foremost Morrissey news website. I stated the opinion that I think you should acknowledge your error, apologise and move on.

And who am I to determine what is baseless and what is not? What a strange question. Am I not permitted to make these judgements? Granted, I can't decide what is published and what is not, but I can enter into a debate about your judgment in choosing to publish a particular post, surely?

Or should I remain silent?

That you think this link was not a violation of your Terms of Service is utterly laughable. You really didn't think there was anything remotely defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libellous or hateful about the piece? Really?

You didn't interpret your Terms of Service, you ignored them.

Do you always ignore your Terms of Service? Do you allow every anonymous post to grace the front page, so long as it mentions Morrissey? Have you ever rejected an anonymous post that mentioned or linked to an opinion of Morrissey? If so, why? And did you consider this to be an act of censorship or editorial discretion? If it was the latter, why didn't you apply it in this case when the situation was clearly crying out for it.

Acknowledge.

Apologise.

Move on.

With each response you look progressively more desperate and foolish.

You've done great work with this site, David. I don't agree with Morrissey's SoLow missives. But you're wrong in this instance.

 

[bored]

You guys can go back on forth about this for the next decade and no one is going to change their stance on it.

It is time for everyone to realize that they have said their piece and just move on.

 

[Anonymous]

So I should apologize for something I don't think was wrong? No, I'm not going to, even if you and hundreds of people insist I do because of their personal moral outrage.

Morrissey has had links to the subject of pedophilia in the past in the press. Sorry, that offends your moral view but it is a fact.

I choose to link to and not link to a lot of items by anonymous and logged-in users every day, that argument also makes no sense.

Oh Asian boy, What are drugs are you on?
Tooled-up Asian boy has come to take revenge
I'm just passing through here on my way to somewhere civilized
And maybe I'll NEVER arrive
Maybe I'll NEVER arrive

 

[Anonymous]

 

[Anonymous]

So I should apologize for something I don't think was wrong? No, I'm not going to, even if you and hundreds of people insist I do because of their personal moral outrage.

Morrissey has had links to the subject of pedophilia in the past in the press. Sorry, that offends your moral view but it is a fact.

I choose to link to and not link to a lot of items by anonymous and logged-in users every day, that argument also makes no sense.

Okay. A few questions and I'll get out of your hair.

What are your Terms of Service for?

Do your Terms of Service apply equally to all (people and posts) or is it entirely at your discretion?

Do you believe the piece you linked to was not in anyway defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libellous or hateful?

Why would rejecting the paedophile post be classed as censorship when all other rejections are simply acts of personal/editorial discretion on your part?

And I'm done.

 

[davidt]

The terms of service are more for members posting on the site and general guidelines and yes in the end it is myself and to an extent the mods who apply and interpret them. If someone who is extremely strict about the terms reviewed all the posts on the site, quite a few would be removed from the site including all bootleg downloads, fan videos, anything remotely insulting to other users. "Vulgar", "obscene" and "hateful" are certainly open to interpretation. My interpretation is that words and ideas generally aren't considered that. It's more about preventing abuse, such as linking to / posting pornography.

Posting about Morrissey is treated a bit different since he is the topic of the site and a celebrity so things that might be considered "defamatory" or "libelous" may still get through. Again, in this instance the content wasn't even posted on the site, the link was. Perhaps you can also look to see if the site violates the terms of the host of the site, WordPress?

In talking about censorship, I was addressing the many users who were strongly requesting removal of the article from the main page.

Thank you for your input and questioning. I think it is natural many people don't agree with everything I do and may strongly object at times, I appreciate that you are expressing your points. I have read just about everything people have said on this topic and tried to address the main points. I understand that highlighting the post is something most people would not have chosen to do, if they were running the site.

Okay. A few questions and I'll get out of your hair.

What are your Terms of Service for?

Do your Terms of Service apply equally to all (people and posts) or is it entirely at your discretion?

Do you believe the piece you linked to was not in anyway defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libellous or hateful?

Why would rejecting the paedophile post be classed as censorship when all other rejections are simply acts of personal/editorial discretion on your part?

And I'm done.

 

[Anonymous]

The terms of service are more for members posting on the site and general guidelines and yes in the end it is myself and to an extent the mods who apply and interpret them. If someone who is extremely strict about the terms reviewed all the posts on the site, quite a few would be removed from the site including all bootleg downloads, fan videos, anything remotely insulting to other users. "Vulgar", "obscene" and "hateful" are certainly open to interpretation. My interpretation is that words and ideas generally aren't considered that. It's more about preventing abuse, such as linking to / posting pornography.

Posting about Morrissey is treated a bit different since he is the topic of the site and a celebrity so things that might be considered "defamatory" or "libelous" may still get through. Again, in this instance the content wasn't even posted on the site, the link was. Perhaps you can also look to see if the site violates the terms of the host of the site, WordPress?

In talking about censorship, I was addressing the many users who were strongly requesting removal of the article from the main page.

Thank you for your input and questioning. I think it is natural many people don't agree with everything I do and may strongly object at times, I appreciate that you are expressing your points. I have read just about everything people have said on this topic and tried to address the main points. I understand that highlighting the post is something most people would not have chosen to do, if they were running the site.

Thank you for your reply.