Comments 5

  1. To the person who commented that a certain high level politician needs to be aborted:

    Since your comment was obviously a very poor attempt at sarcasm or humor, we were going to leave it up and simply say as much, but then we thought — why the hell are we trying to protect someone’s right to comment, when their statement is so lame and possibly even offensive? So, we decided just to remove it.

    You can do much better. If you’re upset about it, whatever.

  2. I think a site owner has a right to set parameters for the use of his/her property. In fact, I expect those sort of rules to protect the integrity of the site.

    The offering of a post-birth abortion is simply horrifying. It suggests that we humans can create a “master human race”.

  3. Yep, we assumed someone would claim censorship. Yet, we didn’t remove the comment because it was objectionable, as much as it just didn’t meet the standards of intelligent discussion. Again, you can do much better.

    Just like a newspaper, an editor gets to decide what letters appear and do not. That’s not censorship. “Censorship differs from editorial selection,” according to most credible descriptions of the term.

    Perhaps someone who would say that a person deserves to be aborted, even if in jest, could be thought of as a Nazi.

    Just sayin’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.