So Much for Free Speech

Obviously the editor at Clarksville Online doesn't take kindly to critique.

It struck me after reading their interview with Tim Barnes, Democrat candidate for Senate District 22, that the interviewer showed partiality toward him. He asked what his position was on a variety of issues such as abortion, women's health, the environment, and education. (“I want to be clear that, I was ‘Green’ before it was cool to be ‘Green,’" he pointed out.)

Then the interviewer asked: "What ideas do you bring forward as you go into the Senate..."

This struck me as an unfair commentary by the interview that Barnes had already won the election four days before Election Day.

At the end of the article is a comment section, so I commented that the interviewer seemed biased toward the candidate and the election wasn't over. Admittedly, I'm very passionate that the Tennessee Democrat Party stole Rosalind Kurita's primary victory from her and handed it over to Barnes, so I added something to the effect that if the party wanted the right to change its mind, it should foot the bill for the primary election.

The comments are moderated, but there was nothing exceptionally controversial about what I had written. (I've seen much worse venom complete with swearing on other blogs.)

Well, editor Bill Larsen saw it differently:

I am not publishing your comment on Clarksville Online, here's why. We have a policy for stories and comments of "Attack the issue, never the person." Your comment violated that by accusing our reporter of writing a biased article. Second your comment was off topic, this interview has nothing to do with the Tennessee Democratic Party's actions. If you wanted to discuss the interview, or Mr Barnes issues on a specific topic or in general it would have been perfectly fine. Your pointing out that Mr Barnes has not yet won the election would be fine. If you wish to submit a new comment taking this into consideration, we will consider publishing it[.]

We tried to get a similar interview with Sen Kurita but it never came through.

I wish I had saved the comment as proof, but I never "attacked" the interviewer. Expressing an opinion that he was biased is not a personal attack; it's my opinion. Attack implies inflammatory remarks, threats, and foul language, none of which were contained in my comment. I felt it was a respectful response, but because it wasn't positive or complimenting like the others that made it past editorial scrutiny, it was rejected.

I can understand moderating comments that meet the criteria I listed. There's some pretty nasty remarks posted to all blogs that offer nothing to the conversation but hate. I've done my best on my blog not to get into that sort of writing. I may poke fun at my liberal friends and call them "goofballs" or even "idiots," but I don't condone vicious name-calling directed at anyone. It may be frustrating to read, but I do believe everyone is entitled to their opinion.

But obviously Clarksville Online doesn't hold itself to such lofty standards.