As the Guardian has noted of the conclusion to all investigations into the Climategate “scandal”:
There was no scientific scandal, only scientific stupidity. There was no attempt to hoax the world into believing that climate change exists, just excessive secrecy. There was no panicky cover-up to hide rigged data, for no data was rigged. There was no cabal of scientists cooking up fake evidence of catastrophe. There is, however, a real crisis of the most extreme nature: evidence suggests that climate change is real, urgent and increasing. Nothing about the so-called Climategate affair challenges that fact.
So, all that happened was that climate scientists — in the face of the overwhelming nastiness of the bullying of the libertarian far right — were over-protective of their work, and I have little doubt, their sanity and their families.
I don’t blame them.
I do think it is now time for the Guardian to make appropriate response.
One quite appropriate response would be to ban those identified to be users of such thuggish approaches to debate from Comment is Free, because free comment is the last thing these people want. As Climategate showed, intimidation is their goal. And that is something that should not be tolerated in democratic society — of which these people are not a part.
Is that censorship? Of course not.
It is the exercise of editorial freedom in the pursuit of freedom — and that is very important indeed. After all — freedom only exists when thuggery is outlawed — and its impact is seen all over the Guardian web site every day.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Fully agree with this.
Any comment on that site repeating parrot fashion a recognised and long-debunked climate denier canard, ought to be deleted forthwith.
Such people are not interested in debating what to do about halting our dependence on CO2 for fuel to head off climate catastrophe.
They are simply strutting around vainly in a deranged belief that by being oh-so contrary they’re somehow right!
The self-indulgent, destructive mentality of modern, US-led conservative thinking which drives such behaviour still surprises.
This comment has been deleted. It failed the moderation policy noted here. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/comments/. The editor’s decision on this matter is final.
Oh dear. It is not permitted to correct The Great One’s definition of science, apparently. It seems that I was wrong, and secrecy is an inherent part of the Scientific Method.
Or was it pointing out that starving people in the Third World thanks to command-economy politics so undermines The Great One’s core values that it cannot be allowed to exist?
This comment has been deleted. It failed the moderation policy noted here. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/comments/. The editor’s decision on this matter is final.
“ban those […] to debate from Comment is Free”
I assume, that after doing so, they shall be renaming it to remove the word “free” from the title? Or is this “free as in beer” as opposed to “free as in liberty?”
Otherwise I’m sure Trading Standards or similar would likely take an interest.
Or perhaps realise that “free” does not mean “everything except that which I dislike.”
“Is that censorship? Of course not.”
Of course it is. How is it not? Silencing those with whom one disagrees because one disagrees with what they are saying is the epitome of censorship.
And that would appear to be exactly what you are suggesting.
I suggest a quote from an article in last Monday’s (5th) Guardian (G2)where Decca Aitkenhead interviewed ‘internet guru’ Clay Shirkey, may have some relevance here. Aitkenhead says –
“Had I never been online before, and had just read his book, I’d probably be so inspired by his account of the creative and collaborative instincts of the online community, I’d be rushing to log on. But if I started out on, say, the Guardian’s Comment is free site, the sheer nastiness of many of the commenters would floor me like a train. If the web has unlocked all this human potential for generosity and sharing, how come the people using it are so horrible to each other?
Shirky smiles, confident that he has the answer even to this. “So, there’s two things to this paradox. One is that those conversations were always happening. People were saying those nasty things to one another in the pub or whatever. You just couldn’t hear them before. So it’s a change in our awareness of truth, not a change in the truth.
“Then there’s this second effect, that anonymity makes people behave more meanly. What I think is going to happen there is we are slowly going to set up islands of civil discourse. There’s no way to make the internet not anonymous — and if there was, the most enthusiastic consumers of that technology would be Iranian and Chinese and Burmese governments. But there are ways of saying, while you’re here, use your real identity. We need to set up the social norms which say in this space you need to use your real names, or some well-known handle.
“Whenever you say that, people cry censorship, but frankly? Fuck off.” He breaks off, laughing. “You know, getting that right is important. The whole, ‘Is the internet a good thing or a bad thing’? We’re done with that. It’s just a thing. How to maximise its civic value, its public good — that’s the really big challenge.”
@PJH
I did not suggest the silencing of ideas
I suggested the silencing of thugs and bullies
Something very different indeed
It some happens in some sectors they have a rather strong overlap
But if those sectors can learn to live in the mainstream of society, respect others, refrain from abuse and engage in civilised debate that’s fine
Otherwise their attempt to silence discussion should be stopped
Because that is what thugs do
(misspelt email before)
“I did not suggest the silencing of ideas”
Indeed you did not, but then again, that was not what I was claiming you were doing – you came across as wanting to silence those with whom you disagree because of how they’re expressing those ideas.
This time it’s “thugs and bullies” – who is it to be next time?
Homophobes/gays because you perhaps disagree with /their/ opinions or how they put them across?
Smokers/non-smokers because you don’t like their opinions on the science in that regard likewise?
Atheists/theists because you believe/don’t believe in a god?
Where does it stop?
I’m sorry, but I fail to see how denying free speech to a cohort simply because you disagree with /their/ use of free speech is not censorship.
And that is exactly how your suggestion comes across.
Should it actually come to physical bullying or thuggery, then that has nothing to with free speech and everything to do with the police, but on a web forum?
May I suggest you bear one of Voltaire’s quotations (or one with which he is usually credited as saying,) in mind?
Of course, since most fora are under the control of a private person/company, that person/company are free to decide what they want to allow/not allow.
Indeed, you have a set of rules yourself, and you’re more than welcome to disallow thuggery and bullying on your own forum, but to attempt to extend your own rules (and thus your own interpretation of them) to any 3rd party’s forum, but still allow you and your like-minded members of the public to still air their views?
No.
@PJH
Have you ever taken a look at CIF? They do censor – just not enough.
The CIF policy has worked fine to-date. To apply the Murphy version will only mean it needs to be called Comment is Free ( so long as I RM concur your view) so we have ”CIF ver.RM”
You do not understand the fundamental nature of the internet and how it can help to undermine deeply repressive regimes ( or are you secretly an apologist for the Chinese version of free speech?)
Would you say that the thoughtful work done on the Bishop Hill blog is the expression of a thug and/or a bully? http://bishophill.squarespace.com/
Or over at Watts Up With That? http://wattsupwiththat.com/
@Charles Crawford
I have no idea
I do not read their stuff and have no intention of doing so
I remain Bishop Hill being persistently banned here though – for good reason, I am sure
@Carol – I have indeed, and I did actually address that point in the closing paragraphs of my last post, pointing out that since it’s CiF’s website, they’re free to do what they want.
My concern was non-related 3rd parties suggesting what (in this case) CiF should and shouldn’t allow outside of CiF’s own T&C’s.
@PJH
Censorship is an essential part of freedom
Only those on the autistic spectrum fail to understand that editing is essential
Anyone with any sense does it persistently – not least because most of us do no wish to cause offence
But editing has also to be enforced on occasion. We protect the vulnerable – on grounds of gender, age, race, sexual orientation, nationality, ethnicity, national origin and more – and rightly so
They must have the right to live unimpeded by those who would pick on them. This is done out of respect for them – we choose their rights over those of their oppressors, and rightly so
Well, I happen to think the right to free comment has also to be protected. If we do not then the right of free speech goes
And I, along with many others, think there is a coterie from the far right who do act deliberately and aggressively on web sites designed to encourage informed comment whose sole desire is to suppress that comment by imposing their will, aggressively
That is in my opinion as oppressive as picking on a person for any of the reasons noted above – it is removing a persons liberty, their right to speak freely without fear, and to express a legitimate view without being intimidated
I see intimidation daily in the comments received here
I see it daily on CiF
I believe if the left are the defenders of free speech – and there’s not a shadow of doubt that left wing libertarians are just that – because unlike those who claim to be libertarians from the right we believe in the rights of all, then we have to say that the right of all to comment without fear of abuse and aggression has to be protected
That does not stop the right commenting
But yes it would prevent commentary from those known to be persistently abusive, whether on the site in question or elsewhere
I believe the value of CiF would sky rocket as a result
And this is not censorship – it is standing up for free speech. It is opposing oppression. And it is saying editorial freedom is OK – after all, I’m not saying any bog should be shut. I’m not stopping any view point being expressed. I’m saying the right to edit is a freedom and a massively under used one on the left
It’s massively used on the right. A friend of mine tells of seeking to place 25 comments, all mildly left of centre bar one on the Telegraph blog. 24 were blocked. The one where he agreed with Simon Heffer on classical music got through
So have no doubt the right censor on grounds of politics – and that apparently is fine
I’m not suggesting that. I’m just saying decency should prevail
And I think that’s completely and utterly reasonable
And if you don’t understand that ask serious questions of yourself. But not here
@PJH
So you would wish to censor my right to comment
How very odd
RH: “So you would wish to censor my right to comment”
Not at all. You appear to have misread my posts, or you are perhaps partaking of a spot of hyperbole.
I do not wish to censor your right to comment (especially on your own blog,) otherwise I could be accused of hypocrisy[1], I simply do not wish to see the /effects/ of that particular comment you make in your main post come to fruition.
There’s a subtle difference. The comment affects no-one, acting on the comment affects whole group of people.
And before you start again with the thug/bully rhetoric again – unless it’s inciting hatred/violence, I really don’t believe comments on a forum could be construed as bullying/thuggery. Not in the ‘real world’ sense anyway – it’s simply a metaphor, and a poor one at that.
Attempted libel/name-calling/similar mischievous dialogue/behaviour can be, and usually is, dealt with using existing T&Cs, which in this case CiF no doubt have.
Simply being on the other side of your argument should not be a reason to gag people.
[1] I do hope that’s not what you’re implying 😉
The Guardian says “There is, however, a real crisis of the most extreme nature: evidence suggests that climate change is real, urgent and increasing. Nothing about the so-called Climategate affair challenges that fact.”
Whereas what this reporta actually says is “The Review examines the honesty, rigour and openness with which the CRU scientists have acted. It is important to note we offer no opinion of the validity of their scientific work.”
I seems the Guardian is just as zealously pro-AGW as others are against.
I’m sorry Richard but I have to disagree with your views on censorship.
“And I, along with many others, think there is a coterie from the far right who do act deliberately and aggressively on web sites designed to encourage informed comment whose sole desire is to suppress that comment by imposing their will, aggressively”
The only person I can see imposing your will is you… by censoring comments you don’t like. It’s your blog so that is your right. However, if you truly seek informed comment (and I trust that you do), then you should recognise that censoring comments you personally disagree with, you are strangling debate.
“That is in my opinion as oppressive as picking on a person for any of the reasons noted above – it is removing a persons liberty, their right to speak freely without fear, and to express a legitimate view without being intimidated”
So are you saying that anyone expressing a political view contrary to yours is illegitimate and intimidatory?
“And this is not censorship – it is standing up for free speech. It is opposing oppression.”
This sounds a bit like “I’m not in favour of censorship, except when I agree with what is being censored”. I’m sorry Richard but it is hard to take such doublethink seriously.
@PJH
I’m sorry – I think I read you completely correctly the first time round
And you’re utterly wrong on the thuggery / bullying. When a number of CiF writers have told me they’re deterred from writing for CiF again by the thuggery and bullying in the comments made on that site then the problem is real and needs dealing with
And please stop the nonsense that I am gagging any opinion – the fact that I am engaging in this debate here is ample evidence that I am not -it would have been a damned site easier to delete all of you. I didn’t if you made reasonable comment and so long as I am unaware of you making comments elsewhere of the kind I detest – that is comment deliberately intended to intimidate to suppress debate
My proposal has nothing to do with gagging comment – or limiting free speech. It says there are certain standards in society that must be respected if free speech is to flourish and some on the libertarian right seems intent on undermining them. That is anti-democratic and I think it is a form of the commonplace bullying found in far too much of society – assisted by the anonymity of the internet
@Alex
It never said one conclusion came from the other report
And I suggest you well know it
@John Brady
See what I said to PJH
I am not saying I wish to censor opinion
I am saying bullying is unacceptable
And should be stopped
Since some seem incapable of operating without it they should be stopped automatically
But that is not the same as saying those who can present right wing libertarian views respectfully should be stopped
I am not for one minute saying that – and have not said that once – however much I detest their views
The fact I am engaging with you is probably evidence of that fact
Stopping bullying is an act in defence of free speech
And using editorial freedom to ensure those who would be oppressed by it have the courage to speak is a libertarian act – standing up for the right of the individual
I suggest those who bully and abuse betray their own cause – and reveal their agenda to be far from libertarian as a result
Sorry to lower the tone here, but does anyone remember the old childhood adage “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me!” Think about it!
[…] commented yesterday on right wing libertarian bullying. As if on cue this morning someone from the right wing libertarian camp turned up with these […]
@Richard
Respectfully that comment is crass
Discrimination, intimidation, harassment and much more rarely require sticks or stones
They are communicated verbally
They destroy lives
If it is your desire that we have a world where we may discriminate, intimidate and bully by all means promote your childhood adage
In the grown up world we know that these things really do matter
I submitted two comments here last night. What happened to them? Other comments have appeared since then.
@Martin Audley
They failed moderation
@Richard Murphy
Thanks Richard, I welcome your reply.