No theist has ever been banned here merely for speaking their mind, nor will they ever be. There will always be a place for dissent and debate on Daylight Atheism. But there's a difference between disagreement in good faith, however sharp, and people whose only goal is to stir up trouble or make themselves the center of attention. Anyone who has the patience to slog through this whole thread will see that the vast majority of my regular commenters supported the decision I took, which is validation enough for me.

Obviously, I've never expected to please everyone. If you have a problem with my moderation policies, you can go find another site that's more accommodating to you, or you can start your own, as you wish. One commenter has already exercised that option, and more power to him. But as long as I'm paying the bills, there will be policies, and I'm going to decide what they are. I respect people who decide that's not for them and leave without a fuss, but I don't think much of people who would rather sit here and gripe endlessly about it. Of course, neither atheism nor theism has a monopoly on malcontents and the chronically dissatisfied.

I don't expect that this will be the last time this issue comes up, nor that this will be the last time I face criticism for it. But this thread is becoming a distraction from the far more important topics I'd rather have discussed, so for now, we're moving on. If you have any further issues with my moderation policies, contact me by e-mail and we can discuss them offline.

By way of illustrative example, how, on your blog, would you (or do you) deal with comment spam in a way that continues to uphold your principles of open dialogue?

If I were to show up in each and every one of your comment threads, and post advertisement after advertisement for penis enlarging pills, what action would you take? Commercial speech, after all, is still speech.

You still don't get the concept of having principles, do you?

No, I get it quite clearly. I just don't see the need to have a principle that says that anyone gets to come into your house and pee all over your floor.

Now Ebon has not done major damage by his veiled threat to one commenter. But he has added, in his own minuscule way, to a general weakening of that principle.

No, he hasn't. Sorry, but your all or nothing stance is what I see as dangerous here. We don't allow people to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater for a reason...or do you similarly see that as an erosion of your free speech rights?

Even you ought to be able to see that if you actually do have an open, rational mind.

Thank you for your condescension. Yes, whenever someone disagrees with you, it's either because they are stupid or closed-minded...not simply because they understand what you are saying and simply disagree or have a good reason to disagree. Sheesh.

Instead of jumping immediately to the defensive position, why don't you take a few moments to consider the ramifications of any "rules," not only those applying to blogs, that limit or curtail your, or my, or Ebon's ability to speak freely about the issues most important to us.

As I said before (now who's not reading?) anarchy only works in very limited situations.

As atheists, we need to be extremely sensitive to such rules, because many of those very rules are aimed at us.

And you continue to ignore the difference between just and unjust rules and restrictions.

Think about that for five minutes before you start to type a knee-jerk reply.

Did you even put one thought into the multiple objections I raised that you're now ignoring?

If you call yourself a rational person, give some consideration to my argument before digging into your keyboard. Then, if you still disagree with me, come up with a cogent argument.

I already did!

Your argument boils down to a false dichotomy, that either Ebon allows all speech or he's some draconian free-speech hating Nazi (waterboarding? c'mon) that has no right to ever speak about free speech or open dialog again. Sorry, but open dialog has to be a two-way street. You can't have open dialog with someone like cl, who is hell-bent on not being a fair player.

I also brought up the fact that with more traffic, comes more chances for issues to arise, which you so blithely and incorrectly dismissed as fallacious appeal to popularity, and have now ignored.

You've also ignored my question about what you would do if a theist banned you or even asked you to leave. Would you get all uppity and protest, or would you leave?

Instead of making comments about me and what I'm doing or thinking or whatever, why don't you actually address what I'm saying? It's really easy to simply ignore your opponent and make statements about how they would get it if they just opened up their mind and actually read what you wrote. But, we both know it's a bunch of bunk when you're leaving unanswered objections and questions on the table.

Lastly, do you really think that you are impervious to someone coming onto your site and making themselves so much of a pest that it stops comments? I might be persuaded to take that challenge.

You still don't get the concept of having principles, do you? Every violation of a principle contributes to its erosion. The concept of free speech -- not in its sense of a governmental right, mind you, but as a universal principle which some of us hold dear -- is a meme. That meme survives and evolves if, and only if, we keep it alive. Now Ebon has not done major damage by his veiled threat to one commenter. But he has added, in his own minuscule way, to a general weakening of that principle. Even you ought to be able to see that if you actually do have an open, rational mind. Instead of jumping immediately to the defensive position, why don't you take a few moments to consider the ramifications of any "rules," not only those applying to blogs, that limit or curtail your, or my, or Ebon's ability to speak freely about the issues most important to us. As atheists, we need to be extremely sensitive to such rules, because many of those very rules are aimed at us.

Think about that for five minutes before you start to type a knee-jerk reply. This dialogue isn't a contest between you and me; there's no winning and losing here. No points are awarded. If you call yourself a rational person, give some consideration to my argument before digging into your keyboard. Then, if you still disagree with me, come up with a cogent argument.

That goes for anyone else, too.

Are you actually making an argument based on popularity?

I'm making the argument that in smaller groups, it is much easier to "police" behavior without having to enact rules and regulations. I guess using arguments based on reality makes me "thick-headed?" So be it.

Some of us, at least, are talking about principles here.

And, we've already pointed out that no one is being denied their speech rights, so boo hoo.

If you want to throw popularity into the mix, then you ought to become a theist, because goddism is a much more popular stance than atheism.

At least make some semblance of sense when you argue here. This is nothing but non sequitor.

The bottom line: Ebon no longer has any credibility when it comes to discussing free speech or open dialogue.

Ah, I see. If you ever say to anyone that they are a pest and a nuisance, then you lose all credibility to ever say anything ever again that touches on free speech or open dialog. Way to see the world in black and white terms. If I were like you, I might point out that that tends to be a theist trait.

Instead, whenever we atheists are muzzled -- by the government or by private citizens -- we can thank Daylight Atheism for helping to propagate that. Way to go, Ebon!

OK, so Ebon has just cause, but that doesn't matter to you, you simply want someone to blame if someone bans you for unjust cause. It's not the fault of the person being unjust, it's Ebon's fault? Nice try.

Are you actually making an argument based on popularity? How thick-headed are you? Some of us, at least, are talking about principles here. If you want to throw popularity into the mix, then you ought to become a theist, because goddism is a much more popular stance than atheism.

The bottom line: Ebon no longer has any credibility when it comes to discussing free speech or open dialogue. Instead, whenever we atheists are muzzled -- by the government or by private citizens -- we can thank Daylight Atheism for helping to propagate that. Way to go, Ebon!

Second, if you actually read all the comments above (I know, it's daunting, so I won't hold it against you if you haven't) you'll see that I have one of several blogs where CL visits and I "handle him".

Yes, I can see how often cl visits your blog....when did he last visit? Is it because you "handled" him or because you don't get the same level of traffic that Ebon gets? Let's face some facts here. Your blog and Exterminators added together (and hell, add in mine and cl's as well) don't get the same level of traffic that this blog gets. Anarchy can work until you start increasing the size of the population, at such point it starts to break down and some order must be established. I could claim that I've "handled" cl at my blog as well simply by telling him to lie someplace else. Is that considered moderation by you?

The process doesn't take a 24/7 effort as someone above suggested it must to the Exterminator (author of 'NoMoreHornets') nor does it require some comment policy, comment moderation, or any other such foolishness.

If he was constantly at your blog, writing comments of 1000+ words each time, constantly whining, flinging poo, etc. you don't think that would be a problem? And, if you had enough commenters to the point where someone is going to engage him either out of wanting a chuckle or a sense of fairness or just simply not wanting his BS to go unanswered...

Wishing ill? No, I'm wishing as long as he make his bed this way that he lie in it for my continued amusement.

So, yeah, wishing ill. Ebon has always had a moderation policy, so what's different now that makes you wish to see Ebon's blog go down so that you can enjoy some sense of Schadenfraude? Are you jealous that his blog is so successful?

Why don't you invite him over to your blog

LOL! First off, there's two camps here, the camp that views blogs as public forums and the camp that views them as private, comparable to a room in their house. Being of the former camp, your comment is meaningless to me since, as a public forum, no one requires an invite to my blog.

Second, if you actually read all the comments above (I know, it's daunting, so I won't hold it against you if you haven't) you'll see that I have one of several blogs where CL visits and I "handle him". The process doesn't take a 24/7 effort as someone above suggested it must to the Exterminator (author of 'NoMoreHornets') nor does it require some comment policy, comment moderation, or any other such foolishness. As I said before, it doesn't take much, so this comment policy is laughable in that it's a bright red flare fired into the air to signal frustration and desperation for failing to handle something which is quite simple. Wishing ill? No, I'm wishing as long as he make his bed this way that he lie in it for my continued amusement.

Third, I should have written "damage", not damage, since that's another source of dissent here and what I was mocking in my last comment. Again, two camps - the camp which sees a blog or blog post as some work of haute cuisine where diners must sit quietly with napkins on laps and pinkies extended as they sip their chardonnays and use the correct fork at the correct time, and the camp which sees the whole thing as a family free-for-all in the kitchen. I'm of the former. Is it going to distract from my meal when crazy uncle CL starts blathering out nonsense, pick his ears with a carrot or start taking his pants off? No. In fact, it might actually heighten the experience in some amusing way. So no, I don't see CL's work as damage.

And finally, I'll leave you with a clue. I had a wildly successful cartoon strip in college where I roasted students, professors, and anyone on the college staff, especially the college president. Most everyone I roasted fussed and fumed which made the whole thing funnier, made me more successful, spurred more strips, and made them all the more ridiculous. Only one escaped this, and that was the president. How'd he do it? He completely ignored the strip.

I'll stop now, because I don't want to run the risk of going on for 5000 words. :)

Since the First Amendment doesn't apply to blogs, censoring cl is not a First Amendment issue. This is really a property law issue. The blog is Adam's and Adam may do with it as he pleases. If he wants to moderate, moderate he will.

However, if he actually posts on free speech issues, he can and will probably be called on it. As he should be.

I've watched this comment policy argument on other blogs, and they certainly generate a lot of heat, though rarely much light.

If anyone cares what I think, I fall on the side of que sera sera, laissez faire, and caveat emptor, to the extent they can be applied to blogs. What gets said, gets said, leave it alone, but if you engage, then buyer beware.

Though I have little problem preventing someone from pissing on my lawn.

I hope he perpetually manages to skirt the rules enough to do his damage...

To do his damage? You mean his damage in vandalizing threads with OT carp, whining, evasion of questions, etc.? You want this? Why don't you invite him over to your blog to monopolize your threads then instead of wishing ill on someone else's blog?