I’ve been out of the loop for a while, with the demands of school and a long scheduled vacation with the in-laws. Posting and reading have, consequently, been sporadic and uneven. While "off the grid", two local bloggers demanded and received their excision from The Lowcountry BlogRoll so lovingly nurtured by Dan, Janet, Heather, and charleston.net. Although the reasons for their removal are different, both reflect a perspective that I find slightly troubling. (As a note, I and they have, occasionally, crossed swords from across the philosophical divide; I do not doubt their sincerity, passion, and commitment to their ideals).
In once case, the blogger apparently objected to the way that the local blogroll framed their post. In another, the blogger did not approve of the comment policy of charleston.net wherein an unmoderated comment that used offensive language was permitted.
One says that she will not allow her site to be affiliated with an entity that allows the use of offensive words. Should her site be banned if a moderator disagrees with the use of offensive language by the poster or a commenter? Should access to the blogosphere be restricted for users of a compendium of offensive words or beliefs?
The other says that he prefers not to be listed in the blogroll because of an inferred framing of his words. In other words (pun intended), he is upset that his opinion forms an opinion in a reader’s mind? Wasn’t that his purpose?
From my perspective, the bloggers just practiced a form of self-censorship. I think they are wrong to have done so.