Posts
Following a link from Binky's new blog Free Mark Steyn!, I joined the Facebook group Defend Free Speech in Canada - The Case of Mark Steyn. I immediately saw a shocking report at the group's discussion board.
David Reese from Alabama submitted a comment to the Law Is Cool blog, which has provided a platform to the Muslim law students trying to strong-arm Maclean's magazine. The powers that be at the blog altered his comment—twice—and then banned him.
Mr Reese’s comment was too pointed for their tender sensibilities, so they doctored it. How pathetic is that.
Here is what Mr Reese has to say at Facebook:
Here, http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/22/steyn-fans-spam-law-is-cool/#comments, I wrote,
"A question: given the remarks made by many in Canada's Muslim communities toward homosexuals, when can we expect your complaints to the HRC regarding same?"
My comment was edited to read,
"A question: given the remarks made by many in Canada's Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Sikh and Hindu communities toward homosexuals, when can we expect your complaints to the HRC regarding same?"
Later, an unnamed honcho at Law Is Cool responded:
Dave: Complaints of this type are regularly submitted (his post was edited for singling out a single community, whereas the issue is much broader)"
Still later,
And one more update:
My comment NOW reads: "A question: given the remarks made by many in Canada’s [Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Sikh and Hindu communities] toward homosexuals, when can we expect your complaints to the HRC regarding same?"
And the eds have edited their own tut-tutting addendum:
"Dave: Complaints of this type are regularly submitted. His post was edited for singling out a single community, whereas the issue is much broader, and parentheses have been entered around the edited text. He has now been banned from this forum indefinitely for continuing to comment on a closed topic. (contact the admin to resolve this if needed)"
Here we have further confirmation of Kathy Shaidle’s observation earlier today: These complainants have no idea what they’re talking about. They claim that their exercise of free speech has been frustrated, but won’t allow a commenter at their blog to say what he wants to say in his own words. When the commenter protests their high-handed and paternalistic attitude, they respond by banning him for, if you can believe it, "continuing to comment on a closed topic".
I agree there are valid reasons for editing comments—e.g., ad hominem attacks, slander—but Mr Reese’s comment was a simple and direct response to the post. Moreover, the blog gives no warning that comments may be summarily altered without notice.
If they will not allow something as trivial as a blog comment to stand as it was submitted, these clowns obviously have no comprehension of what freedom of speech means. They do not know what they are talking about when they prattle on about how Maclean’s violated their right to free speech. They have no credibility whatever.
As I said yesterday, "I shudder to think that these men will ever practice law in Canada".
Previous related posts:
