Dear Liza, David, Michael and Culture Kitchen Readers:

Thank you for publicly stating your reasons for considering banning me from Culture Kitchen. I believe that all blogs should give their readers and posters the respect of making transparent decisions about the pruning of public discourse, rather than practice the secret abortions of public opinion that have become all too common in the blogosphere.

I believe you have already done your duty to Markos and everyone in the “progressive” and Democratic communities by stating unequivocally that my opinion are my own and that you do not necessarily endorse anything I say simply by virtue of it being posted at Culture Kitchen. Since people often take opposition positions in their advocacy, e.g. theist and atheist, you obviously cannot be said to endorse everything that is posted at Culture Kitchen. The mere fact of allowing someone to post an opinion does not mean that you endorse or agree with it. I think you have made this perfectly clear.

If the progressive blogosphere is NOT the place to criticize and rail against Markos and DailyKos, then what IS the place? Should we go directly to the mainstream media with our criticisms, airing our dirty progressive laundry in public? Should we publish our disagreements among Democrats in the Washington Post, as Markos did when he attacked Hillary Clinton last year? Or should we address issues first among ourselves on the Left, no matter how uncomfortable it may be? When Markos expelled me from DailyKos, he effectively compelled me to take my issues with him to a wider audience.

It seems to me that anything that is published for public viewing anywhere can be reasonably reprinted anywhere else. The value added of the Internet is that it effectively makes “one cloth” out of all of the pieces published on the Internet, through linking of pages as well as through citation and quotes. Once we publish something, we have no control over how it may be used or when or where.

So, once you publish an opinion or information at Culture Kitchen or Daily Gotham, that publication can never be private again and its uses are really beyond all of our control. If you say at Daily Gotham that you oppose racism and I re-publish that opinion at the Francis L. Holland Blog, in a new context, that in now way implies that you have endorsed me or my blog, except to the extent that your actual words say that you have. However, it is inevitable that if you post against racism others will repeat your ideas in many forums. And the fact that I announce that an idea is “Cross-posted at Culture Kitchen” no more implies an endorsement by you than a library endorses a book by including that book among the stacks.

However, when a library removes all of the books of a certain author from the stacks, that DOES have a very important meaning – CENSORSHIP. “Banning” at a blog is the digital equivalent of censorship – or book burning - at a brick and mortar library, because the intention is the same: To prevent the public from accessing and considering all of the views available on a particular subject.

I agree with you that correspondence that is intended to be private should remain private. However, I also strongly hold that any demands that a writer refrain from writing about a certain subject and threats to ban (censor) a writer should be made in public, except in the rare cases where public notice would risk libel or invasion of the privacy of a private individual.

Transparency is crucial to the free flow and exchange of ideas. When you privately order me to desist from criticizing a public figure like Markos Moulitsas, or a public blog like DailyKos, you are engaging in censorship of information that is crucial to the public’s right to know. When you consider censoring such information, the public has a right to know what information and opinions are being intentionally restricted and withheld, and they have a right to know why.

Markos Moulitsas is “chairman” of a political force – DailyKos – that is attempting to change our society in fundamental ways. The public has a need and a right to have more information about Markos and DailyKos to decide whether they have the moral authority, standing and judgment to push the Democratic Party in the directions that they propose. This is an urgent public policy matter that is far more important than any individual’s friendship or association with Markos or others at DailyKos. We are speaking about the direction of a nation and its foreign policy, and even institutional personal loyalties (and animosities) need to be subsumed to the larger good.

Nor does the perceived “rudeness” of a particular author justify censorship of some or all of that author’s opinions. The appropriate response to someone whom you or others perceive to be rude is to ignore that person - not to ban that person’s ideas from public consideration. And yet the latter response – totalitarians – is all-too-common at blogs of the Left and the Right. Some of us may be constitutionally or situationally incapable of presenting our opinions in a deferential way, but that does not mean that society can safely ignore our opinions without negative consequences devolving from that policy. Everyone has a right to speak at the risk of being ignored.

Markos believes he knows who should be President in 2008 and he will undoubtedly endorse a candidate in the primaries, arguing that he represents the “netroots”. I disagree that he represents the netroots based on the exclusionary nature of DailyKos demographics. I also believe that an understanding of Markos history, motives and institutional behavior is relevant to the public’s judgment of the weight that Markos endorsement should be given.

Markos consistently criticizes whomever he chooses to criticize, including Democratic politicians and other progressives. For him to try to use his institutional muscle and personal connections to squelch criticism of himself and his views is unjust and repugnant. It perpetuates the monopoly of information and opinion by an “old boys’ network.” The more Markos endeavors to prevent others from challenging his opinions throughout the blogosphere, the more certain is the revolt against the authoritarian and totalitarian impulses manifested in that attempted control.

Too often “progressive” blog publishers feel a need and moral obligation to consider whether the views of Democratic Party blog participants are worthy of consideration by the public. I submit to you that that is a fundamental misconception about the role of a progressive blog publisher. A blog should leave to public the role of sorting out what is true and what is false, not by censoring views and information, but by forcefully and publicly refuting view and information. If I unfairly criticize Markos, then let his supporters and bystanders say so publicly, so that everyone can be better informed. Both criticism and praise will increase publication of Markos’ ideas, but no one has a right to have their ideas, advocacy and public behavior go unchallenged. Not even Markos Moulitsas.

With his half-Greek and half-Salvadoran heritage, Markos, in my opinion, is what is called a “white Hispanic. Because his skin is white, he is only considered a minority in America if he chooses to be so. Marcos cannot be characterized as a “Latino advocate” or “Hispanic advocate” because he rarely mentions these communities in his blogging. Moreover, the pronounced lack of Latino participation at DailyKos leads me to suspect his roots in these communities and his commitment to these communities. I understand that bilingual blogging is frowned upon at DailyKos – a fact that has been raised and that continues to limit access of progressive views to progressive Latino eyes and ears.

As a result of the American context, I am personally torn about issues involving skin-color and ethnicity. Although I value many white people personally, I hate and struggle daily against the white supremacy paradigm, particularly against the white male monopoly of the presidency of the United States. I and people like me have for too long been demeaned and restricted by whites supremacy prejudices and prejudiced behaviors, and I cannot desist from struggling against such behavior no matter where they originate, whether within minority communities and persons or majorities communities and persons. The fact that Markos has Latino forbears ought no more shields him from criticism than the fact that I have Black skin should shield me from criticism. Clarence Thomas has proven to all of us that it is ideas and behavior that count, not skin color or ethnicity.

I leave you with this question: If I ought not criticize Markos in the progressive blogosphere, where SHOULD I criticize him, or is he above criticism?

If you order me not to criticize Markos at Daily Gotham and Culture Kitchen, please do so formally and publicly. When I continue to criticize Markos, please censor me publicly, to allow the public to see understand the “progressive” principle that Markos Moulitsas, and perhaps all progressives, are above criticism.

Cross-posted at the Francis L. Holland Blog.

francislholland@yahoo.com
"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

francislholland@yahoo.com