Reader rabid: Free speech, hate groups, and hookers

It’s been a wild couple of weeks here in Cringeville. Free speech and hate speech, privacy and prostitution, online censorship and the dangers of a digital monoculture — all provided excellent fodder for my faithful readers. Here’s the best of what they had to say.

My post about Facebook’s ban (or lack thereof) on Holocaust deniers (“Facing the haters at Facebook“) inspired some heated discussion. The vast majority of readers strongly favored free speech, even at the cost of offending others. Cringester N. M. writes:

… banning anything – even if it’s repugnantly offensive, is a dangerous action to take in a (allegedly) free society. I think it is extremely upsetting that people can hold such beliefs, and it goes against everything I think of as good and right in the world, however, I am certain that those very same people would love to censor my freedom and liberty as well.

[ Got amazing IT tales, real-life experiences, lessons learned the hard way, or war stories from the trenches? Submit it to InfoWorld’s Off the Record blog. If we publish your story, we’ll send you a $50 American Express gift card. ]

On the other hand, commenter “Cubbage” says he ditched Facebook after it banned photos of breast-feeding mothers last fall. Now he thinks Facebook is being, well, two-faced:

The problem I have with Facebook’s stand is that nursing babies are banned but hateful people are welcomed. Come on, either be a censor or get off your high horse.

Some people felt my post about NPR and its censoring of an online film review (“Not that there’s anything wrong with that“) was not IT-ish enough for this column. Sorry, I think online censorship is an important topic for everyone, geeks and normals alike, even if it touches on subjects that make some folks squirm.

Much as it deeply pained several of my more conservative readers to admit it, nearly all Cringesters who got in touch with me felt NPR was right in neutering that review, which implied certain prominent U.S. politicians were gay and in the closet.

Reader K. K., who says his politics make Dick Cheney look like Barack Obama, says:

…one of the fundamentals of a decent society is a respect for the privacy of others. I don’t see any good reason to reveal the personal business of others, unless it impinges on something of legitimate public interest. …Self-restraint, respect for others, discretion — these are the characteristics of a gentleman and those who violate those principles are worthy of contempt. I have little use for the leftist propaganda organ NPR but in this situation they got it right.

L. S. argues adds that a politician’s sexual predilections should have no bearing on how they legislate, closet case or not:

Just because that public stance is in conflict with their private behavior doesn’t mean it’s hypocritical. Why? Because the private behavior is immaterial. … these corrupt bastards are supposed to be in Congress (or wherever) creating and passing legislation for the nation at large, not for themselves. Only if they were passing laws for themselves (and it’s arguable) would they be hypocrites for supporting laws that go against their sexual beliefs or behaviors.

Responding to my post on Craigslist replacing its “erotic services” ads with those for “adult services” (“It’s hard to be a pimp in 570 cities“), reader Vavavoom accused me of being a member of “the hypocritical right wing moral majority,” which is easily a first in this lifetime. He (she?) and others also come down firmly in favor of allowing consenting adults the right to pay for sex. I got news for you, my friend: One way or another, we all pay for sex.

On that note, reader M. W. asks “and how about when your smutty double entendres are banned, will you wake up then?”

Smutty double entendres? Moi? Oops, it appears my predilections are showing. Sorry about that.

Finally, during my lament about Google outages (“When Google fails, the Internet ails”), reader B. C. points out an obvious fact I somehow overlooked:

Dude, it’s free…. Much as we enjoy pissing and moaning as a culture, there’s still a need for realistic expectations. Periodic, and altogether sporadic, outages on a free service are not what makes a bad day…. One can’t control the weather, traffic or wag fingers at outages for even paid services because deep down it just ain’t possible. Best guesses and their overlooked best efforts are just that.

Here’s another thing we can’t control: how readers will react to the stuff that appears in this space. And that’s a good thing, I think, because it keeps me on my toes. Thanks to all for their fine contributions.

Isn’t it time you displayed your predilections? Post your thoughts below on these or any other topics, or e-mail me direct: cringe@infoworld.com.