To Censor, or Not To Censor...that is the Question

I support the rights of people to speak freely, and do not wish to moderate or censor comments on my blog, but sometimes when I read comments (on my blog and elsewhere on the internets), I wonder if that is a wise choice. After all, this is not a public forum; it is my personal blog. I don't have to give anyone else a space to comment. I could close them or delete them at my convenience.

What are the limitations of "free" speech?

Most people would say that you do not have the right to incite violence, to slander another person, or to commit acts of libel, and I think that most people would say that although lying is not technically illegal (except under oath), it is essential to tell the truth if you wish to be taken seriously.

Part of my personal resistance to moderation/censorship is that I don't want to be the arbiter of truth-telling or determining whether a particular statement qualifies as incitement, slander or libel.

This particular statement, by Mr. Kohen, in my opinion, and the one prior to it that I responded to in the comments section, qualifies as slander: "6. I love it when people try to weasel out of their responsibility for supporting terrorists: "No- not me. I supported the Germans in WWII by going to Germany to help them- but not the Nazis". Right."

Now, anyone who knows me would probably say that if I had been alive in Germany at the time Hitler rose to power, I would have been thrown into a death camp long before the Jews were, because= before he got around to that death project, he rounded up anyone who would have opposed his regime. It's utterly absurd to call me a Nazi sympathizer.

I'm also not a terrorist sympathizer. I don't support people who use violence or fear of violence in order to obtain a political or ideological goal--whether the people who being targeted are civilians or members of the military of the opposition forces (which would probably be more accurately described as resistance). I am a pacifist. This makes me unpopular with a lot of people, especially the ones who feel that the only way to overthrow an oppressor is through force. C'est la vie, it's what I believe. I think the only way to end violence is to break it non-violently, and there are many creative ways to resist non-violently.

---

Then we have the question of "what is the truth?" It seems like a silly question, but is it? Mr. Kohen sent me a whole list of links that claimed to teach "the truth, " but as I pointed out, consider the point of view the truth is being told from. Most of the links he sent were from right-wing organizations and Zionist groups, so I wouldn't exactly expect for them to be objective.

Then there is the question of using holy texts as an unquestionable source of truth. Well, that works if you believe in the holy texts' infallibility, but what if you are an unbeliever? Does that mean that you have to accept something you don't believe in as truth?

There is a reason why separation of church and state is a good idea.

-----------------

The relationship of a blogger to a commenter is assymmetrical--I can write anything I want on my blog, whereas a comment can be deleted.

What are the benefits of silencing another person?

If I allow people to comment and say things that may incite violence, commit slander or libel, or spread untruths (or partial truths), am I complicit?