NPN: Censorship by Benign Neglect; I'm Back, Sadly.

I ceased contributing to the TalkBackNorthampton blog after the City Council passed the proposed zoning ordinance to banish Cap Video out of town. For better or worse, unless Cap Video complies with the regulation (which it may), the constitutional issue will be decided by the courts in due course. I also found it less than healthy for my own well being to be so wrapped up into such an acrimonious public debate for so long. Having moved here from tumultuous New York City, I had hoped enjoy the relative peace and tranquility that the Northampton area offers.

I did continue to submit comments at the NPN website from time to time, and noticed the continuation of a disturbing tendency on the part of NPN. Because NPN “moderates” submissions, the submissions typically do not appear, if at all, until long after the NPN blog entry has been featured and replaced by new material, and then only if NPN has developed a rebuttal response. So, as a practical matter few, if any, of the public will notice the submitted comments once they are posted by NPN, and only then when NPN has the last word.

The most recent example of this is when in a submission I asked NPN why they were demanding Andrew Schefflo to disclose if he had any ties to Cap Video, which was posted with their contention in response that Andrew never explained why his thinking on the issue switched. I then submitted an explanation that Andrew had in fact explained his shift in thinking when he first spoke up at a City Council meeting, and noted that I posted his comments incorporating his explanation at this blogsite not long after Andrew made them before the City Council. See http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/10/is-children-or-fear-driving-city.html.

Instead of forthwith posting this submission, which cleared up the matter and demonstrated how little attention NPN really pays to opposing points of view, NPN in the meantime instead chose to post at least three rather lengthy features to their website burying the matter of their misadventure, rather than fess up. Even more remarkable is that the last of these three posts by NPN is all about the importance of trust and transparency between bloggers and their audience!

Its is sad to see NPN first sink to the level of implicitly alleging that Andrew was connected to Cap Video without mentioning any justification for casting him in such a light, and then to bury their error with moralistic and ethical rhetoric.

There’s been nothing pornographic about the comments I have submitted; they are all within the realm of political discourse one would assume NPN believes is worthy of respect, not censorship. Nonetheless, NPN appears to be more concerned with spewing forth whatever material they can find which solely supports their viewpoints. After all, in public debate quantity of speech often trumps quality of speech. No wonder one of NPN most common arguments is that the quantity of speech they can find which supports their viewpoints, rather than the quality of such speech, far exceeds the quantity of speech in support of contrary viewpoints. But this "common sense" which they trumpet is hardly in depth and critical analysis. If “common sense” were to rule the day, the world would still be flat, and women and children - who NPN claims to be so concerned about -- would still be the chattels of men.

Its time for NPN to be honest with us -- as well as themselves, if necessary -- and fess up to the truth: they do not believe the right to free speech should be a constitutional right justifying a broad and special scope of protection, and they would have us repeal the first amendment. While this point of view may be verboten in America, internationally it would not be so controversial. Many a democracy, such as the United Kigndom, thrive without a constitutional right to free speech. Further, censorship as a civil right has become more important both domestically and internationally than free speech. See the blog entry below on this trend at http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/09/is-censorship-civil-right.html.

It may be very well time for the constitution to catch up to the reality of the laws and judicial opinions by which we really live and end the intellectual hypocrisy perpetuated by the Supreme Court and NPN, among others. But, having little patience for intellectual hypocrisy, I am back to blogging for better or worse.