Posted on 01/19/2006 4:43:16 PM PST by Mobile Vulgus
NEW YORK Jim Brady, the executive editor at washingtonpost.com, notified users of the post.blog that the public comment feature had been suspended “indefinitely” after “a significant number of folks” posted personal attacks, profanity, and hate speech.
Attempts by E&P to reach Brady have been unsuccessful so far. It seems likely the move is related to controversy in recent days over Sunday’s Post column by ombudsman Deobrah Howell. She has been heavily criticized by some political Web sites and bloggers for writing that indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money to both political parties, when most research shows he only gave directly to Republicans.
Then, this morning, Howell responded at the Post’s blog, explaining that she had heard from “lots of angry readers” and wished that she had written that Abramoff “directed” contributions to both parties, adding: “While Abramoff, a Republican, gave personal contributions only to Republicans, he directed his Indian tribal clients to make millions of dollars in campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.
“Records from the Federal Elections Commission and the Center for Public Integrity show that Abramoff’s Indian clients contributed between 1999 and 2004 to 195 Republicans and 88 Democrats. The Post has copies of lists sent to tribes by Abramoff with specific directions on what members of Congress were to receive specific amounts.”
This explanation, in turn, drew an immense and sometimes nasty response to the comments section today, with some critics pointing out flaws in her reasoning and comparisons. A few hours later, Brady announced the blog comment turnoff, without explaining exactly why.
But Brady went on to say that readers refused to follow the site’s simple guidelines prohibiting personal attacks, the use of profanity, and hate speech.
(Excerpt) Read more at editorandpublisher.com ...
The lefties shriek in horror and/or denial when they look into the mirror.
This from wikipedia
Sounds like the Washington Post only likes free speech when it's their own.
Rather than do their job and tell us what's really going on, the MSM simply want to Xerox the GOP talking points and spew them as "news".
What world are the lefties living in???
Nevertheless, at the height of the Sandy Berger imbroglio concerning Soxgate, one of the inmates there said: "I don't care what he did. He's a Democrat and so his motives are pure..."
That's the difference right there: purity of motives.
Shoulder Plus Gloves
Wonder if he learned anything from listening to himself in his office. And more importantly. Did he get a FISA order before bugging his office.
Thats a good idea. Funny.
Let's see...
I'll bet someone could go over to the DUmp, and find one of those "Let's DU this..." posts.
Bet me a burger.
Ask Harriet if
she thinks "conservatives" are
courteous and kind . . .
I'd like a cheeseburger with everything (to go of course). :)
Lookie here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/archive/2006/wapo/
The DUmmies cached the whole thing.
I was listening to O'Reilly on the radio the other day and some irate woman called in to demand that he correct himself about stating that both Reps and Dems were involved with Abramoff. O'Reilly cut her off and called her a kool-aid drinker, then read the figures of the top two recipients. Patrick Kennedy of course is the number 2 recipient.
Sometimes O'reilly does get something right.
So true. If they didn't include "hate speech" in their prohibitions, those prohibitions would make sense. The bad thing about prohibiting "hate speech" is that it can be, and is often, interpreted to mean any speech that significantly criticizes any person, religion, or organization that feels offended by the speech. Bans on "hate speech" are actually bans on free speech.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.