Jackson Jambalaya

"The US constitution's First Amendment rights only cover Americans, but I believe that in a democracy the competition of ideas and free speech should combat beliefs that it does not agree with - more speech and debate, not censorship."
Joichi Ito

Continuing their relentless march to total irrelevancy.

Of course.

I think the biggest commentary is the filth and vitriol was allowed for some time at the online locations that now require a FB login.

In my observation, those who have to go to a FB type of moderation are too lazy to monitor comments in the first place with a live human being. I've been there when you were moderating the comments and can say it is a tremendous amount of work. Especially with the phone buzzing, second after second after second.

Additionally, their readership must be prone to some pretty awful statements to have to go to these extreme measures. It would appear that JJ once again sets the bar for comment freedom vs. censorship!

So does this mean we will eventually see the comments submitted on Sunday the 11th here?

Very intriguing - the C-L ran a story on Phil Bryant's transition plans Sunday. This morning there was a pleasant comment by a supporter of Bryant's opponent followed by a very nasty, slightly unhinged/deranged attack on the first commenter from someone at Alcorn State (I think named Brenda Scott, who may or may not be a local union organizer), and a third comment.

Now only the third comment remains, with no indication of what happened to the first two. The first one merely wished Bryant well, so I am totally baffled why that one would have been yanked by the censors at the C-L.

Call me cynical, but there is a major upside to this from the CL's point of view: no more annon missives calling them out on the sloppy reporting. I guess my days of posting KF links directing folks to the rest of the story are over.

If I couldn't remain anonymous...I would not comment. I do not post to be mean, tacky, or uncivil. In fact, I rarely post.

For me, it is a non-negotiable issue of privacy.

You're comfortable with someone having the censor's button as long as it's you, then.

I've got no problem with that...it's your sight. You don't owe people to make it a forum for any blather. But if you were the size of the C-L, could one person in their spare time, do that moderation? And if they were picking and choosing to guide the flow of discussion, as you say you do (again, a policy with which I have no problem), it seems to me like this blog might lampoon them for that.

Their Facebook solution is not one I'm crazy about, but it seems like it might be their best of the options once they've decided not to have it be a free-for-all.

I do admire the chutzpah it takes to declare your loyalty to freedom of speech in the same post that you talk about how you decide which comments to allow, and right on the heels of calling out the C-L for "hypocrisy" with regard to the sales tax.

Sounds like I'm ragging you, I know, but I don't think I am. That's the kind of stuff I read this blog for. If you don't make me nod in agreement or shake my head in anger once a week, I'd probably get bored and stop checking it.

The CL allows John Mayo to write for their paper. Need we say more?

&##$&%&*&#$@$%&$**&%@$%$^@&!!!!!!!!

There I said it!!

Signed
Anonymous

Typical statement the paper has issued concerning their improvement.

The moderation that you do requires skills and knowledge that no employee at any newspaper has anymore.

Who wastes the time to correct the nonsense and lies that sites like the CL tolerated? Most of the reporters would have difficulty figuring out which comments are false.

Well...you can have a fake facebook page folks....its not that hard to do...

Kangaroo's suckups notwithstanding, Hampton has lied through his teeth when he proclaimed that articles written by Ledger staff are always credited to one person. He knows better. Many of them are merely unsigned editorials and others have names attached but are either ghost written or are miracles concocted at midnight by a group of tokers, at best.

Who gives a shit what names appear appended to posts on Hampton's dying, cyber Ledger pages. He'll see a decided lack of interest at best. But, since there's nobody to terminate his employment for stupid decisions (like most real jobs in America) he's free to start yet another social experiment.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

But you must have a Facebook account to use it!!!

Whatever happened to to journalists in protecting their confidential sources from discovery. Sometimes people who "speak out on these blogs" work for the people they are speaking against and if you now publish their info well you are gonna loose those people.

KF I am glad you wont be doing that anytime soon!!!

well, it looks like i will have to create a fake FB account in order to post to CL. i use anonymous posting because MY comments are MY opinion, but when i post about government related stuff that concerns my area of the state it could have an adverse affect on my job and certain contracts we hold if they know who said it!

The Clarion Ledger for years has had editorials that you had no idea who wrote . I pointed this out to the pompous one and possibly there are more actual names on editorials now but not all. I find it ironic that they demand to know the name rank and serial number of anyone who writes a letter but as for the editors of c l they have been able to hide behind their verbiage whenever it suited them . I noted the sun herald on the coast use to have a great column running all down the page called Sound Off where people did not give a name. Talk about some interesting honest comments. People just will not speak out often if they have to put their name on something . As Kingfish says it's about the comment not the speaker.

Not so sure about your assessment K'Roo. He deletes over fifty percent of my comments here. What's the difference in that and Hampton?

Mycroft, I don't zap posts for viewpoints or actual opinions. Its usually for fowl language, personal insults, defamation, and unsubstantiated information that could get me in trouble or subjected to a lawsuit. 90% of the zapped comments only have one or two offending sentences. I've had some that were great long comments, made great points, then at the closing sentence they went way over the line. Whenver someone has sent me an email asking me why no approval, I reply.

None of this applies to Shadowfax.

Shadowfax is SUCH a nerd.

KF: why would your artsy policy not apply to Shadowfax? Sounds like you completed the Donna Ladd course in censorship.

I know Shadowfax. And if you knew Shadowfax, you would not say Shadowfax is such a nerd. A nerd is an anon poster like 6:08 who stands under the bleachers and shoots spitballs while giggling at himself.

"Mycroft, I don't zap posts for viewpoints or actual opinions. Its usually for fowl language, "

Yes, I've seen several comments here where someone is called "chicken" or "a turkey" ;-)

2:03 - you took the words right out of my mouth......

You Ducking Finch!