La Shawn Barber has had it with annoying trackbacks, and I don't blame her. I don't like them either, but I'm sure she gets far more than I do because of her status as an outspoken black conservative. Lots of bloggers don't allow trackbacks, but if you do, prepare for annoyances. Anything from spam trackbacks, trackbacks from abusive posts, parasitic trackbacks that link to posts not mentioning the post they've tracked back -- and all of these take up space at your blog.

Whether to have trackbacks at all is a personal decision. How La Shawn might deal with them should be no one's business but hers. Anyway, her policy is simply not to allow (in addition to spam and non-referring links) libelous or insulting linkings to be appear as trackbacks on her blog:

4) Trackbacks leading to offensive, ad hominem-laced, and/or libelous posts where I’m the subject will be deleted. Habitual offenders will be permanently banned.

5) If a trackback leads to a non-offensive post, but you allow commenters to libel me, the trackback will be deleted and habitual offenders permanently banned.

Not to La Shawn's critics (Pandagon and Atrios). They seem to think they have a right not only to savage her and libel her, but to require her to help facilitate the insults and the libels.

Huh?

Let me try to make sense of this if I can. Here's Pandagon:

Permanent banning from having LaShawn Barber readers attack other blogs for her being wrong? Glory be, what's this world coming to?

Anyway, Pandagon continues:

I tell you - back when I started blogging, we had to deal with real trolls - people who sat around posting upwards of a hundred comments a day on every post you wrote, almost never doing anything other than attacking you personally. As it is, the standard on the conservative side of the blogosphere for "attacking" seems to have devolved to "disagreement".

I've been deleted and/or banned from several conservative blogs for simply disagreeing, not because I was "vulgar" or "profane", but simply because I showed up, had a different opinion, and dared to actually put it on their site.

You've also got to love the fact that a site owner, in Barber's eyes, is now responsible for other people not hurting her feelings in their comments. (And yes, that's ultimately what this is all about - preventing conservative bloggers from ever having to hear anything about their positions other than the degree of agreement between you and the linker.)

There are certain sites that I hold responsible for their commenters - LGF, for example, which despite Chuck J.'s implorations to the contrary, does everything in its power to promote rabid and violent hatred as a matter of course.

Most other sites, though, I just don't care. Pandagon is hard enough to enforce, and we're not a comment machine like other sites. Trying to enact Barber's policy on a site like Atrios or the Washington Monthly, for example, would be a headache of the utmost degree, particularly given the definition of libel that includes a lot of shit that's in no way libelous.

I guess the big question now is how offensive do we need to be before no liberal blog is allowed to trackback to LaShawn Barber again? And when can we start?

This "if you don't allow trackbacks you're stifling dissent" approach is almost comical, but the reason I'm taking it seriously is that it touches on the old idea of forcing blogs to allow so called "fair comment." It's a terrible, unconstitutional idea that won't go away, and I have zero tolerance for it.

Why, I wouldn't even impose the rule on the link-avoiding James Wolcott, whose penchant for refusing to link even to the very words he criticizes I've complained about before. (And who, much like the stiflers of dissent on the far right, allows neither comments nor trackbacks.) But Wolcott is the opposite extreme. Most bloggers -- left, right, or center, at least link to stuff they criticize. Interestingly enough, I've been criticized for linking to to stuff I disagree with, which only demonstrates the huge spread of opinion on the mechanics of criticizing blog posts.

The bottom line here is that La Shawn is perfectly free to treat trackbacks any way she wants. Deleting trackbacks she deems insulting or libelous is in my view a moderate, reasonable approach to what I am sure is a major pain in the ass. There's no right to freely advertise your insults on my blog.

People who feel shut off or censored can criticize her the old fashioned way.

In their own blogs.

If they don't allow me to trackback, I won't feel censored.

IMPORTANT AND URGENT UPDATE: The dark and ugly forces of tyrannical trackbackicide have struck again. Just look at what happened when I published this post:

2005.08.21 19:38:55 ###.###.##.## Ping 'http://www.pandagon.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1153' failed: HTTP error: 403 Throttled
2005.08.21 19:38:55 ###.###.##.## Ping 'http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/08/20/trackback/trackback/' failed: Sorry, trackbacks are closed for this item.

I'm feeling, like, way censored.

(As the activity log says, throttled!)

MORE: Anyone who still thinks La Shawn's rules are too severe should read the The Classical Values Eleven Rules of Etiquette for Commenters.

Oh what the hell. I'll reprint them again, as a public service:

1. No commenter will henceforth be allowed to opine on Adolf Hitler without having read at minimum Mein Kampf in its entirety, nor on Karl Marx without having read Capital. (No, I'm afraid The Communist Manifesto isn't enough....)

2. Commenters shall not discuss Bill Clinton without having read My Life, nor shall Hillary Rodham Clinton be discussed by any commenter who has not read Living History. NOTE: The Clintons' older books (Between Hope and History and It Takes a Village) will NOT satisfy this requirement!

3. Considering the recent misuse of this blog to launch a troll attack, henceforth no one will be allowed to criticize Glenn Reynolds without reading The Appearance of Impropriety. Nor may they comment on Law or Outer Space without having read Outer space: Problems of law and policy. To avoid any further appearance of impropriety, I must also require them to have seen Dr. Helen Smith's (aka the InstaWife's) movie Six.

4. Similarly, in the event that any politician or public person under discussion has written a book, I must insist that all commenters first read such book or books before making any comments or pronouncements agreeing or disagreeing with that person. Rules 5 through 7 expand upon this general rule, spelling out specific requirements for certain well known celebrities.

5. There shall be no further discussion of George W. Bush by anyone who has not read George W. Bush: On God and Country.

6. Commenters will be not allowed to discuss Mel Gibson unless they are willing to execute a Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury that they have seen The Passion. (NOTE: There are many older Mel Gibson films, but be warned, they will NOT satisfy this prerequisite!)

7. No other Hollywood figure or celebrity may be discussed unless the commenter is willing to certify to having seen at least two (2) of that celebrity's films. In the event that said celebrity is either a news, radio, or television personality, commenters must be willing and able to supply proof of familiarity with the celebrity's show. At this time there is no requirement as to how many hours must have been spent watching (or listening to) said shows, but I might be forced to impose such a requirement if this "honor system" is abused. (A word to the wise!)

8. No one may discuss Machiavelli (or use the word "Machiavellian") without having read Machiavelli's Discourses. (Sorry, but The Prince is just lowbrow introductory High School stuff, folks!)

9. There will be no discussions of either morality or immorality except by people who can demonstrate expertise in either or both fields. Similarly, there shall be no discussion of homosexuality by persons other than homosexuals, nor heterosexuality by persons other than heterosexuals. (While no official reading list has been yet announced, beware, as I will reserve the right to spring a moral/immoral heterosexual/homosexual pop quiz at any time!)

10. Issues pertaining to race and racial differences may not be discussed except by members of the race under discussion. Merely being a human being is not sufficient to prove that one is a member of a particular race.

11. No blogger shall ever speak ill of another blogger! Considering that even disagreement is taken by many to be a sign of stupidity, by others as evidence of outright evil, I must request that there be no disagreements of any kind posted in any future comments. Further, commenters are cautioned to be very careful of agreeing (whether with me or anyone else) if there is a possibility that someone who disagrees might interpret such agreement as disagreement with his or her own opinion.

I reserve the right to make changes and additions at any time as needed, but for now I will allow commenters to continue to make remarks without subjecting them to an official Knowledge Background Examination or other relevant personal inquiries.

ADDITIONAL RULE (with special exemption): No man may discuss abortion or the abortion issue unless he has had one. (Sorry folks, but I'm afraid this means only Glenn Reynolds.)