Well, I have to say that one man's fear is another man's satire. And no, I don't think that "blog censorship" can happen here and would seek to reassure you of that as well. I've been active on the net since 1988 and the only thing I've ever seen prove true again and again is the adage, "The Net sees censorship as system damage and routes around it."

This may not take place in the very instant we desire it, but it does happen over and over at varying time scales.

That said, I'd only observe that Mr. Keen has a right to his opinions and a right to write those opinions in the manner of his choosing. If they please or rile others, that is as it may be.

It should go without saying that Mr. Keen's opinions in no way, to my view, reflect or oppose the opinions that may or may not be held, at this time or that, by Pajamas Media. Alas, it evidently must be said. It should also go without saying that my own opinions on my own small page do not represent the opinions that may or may not be held by Pajamas Media. But I guess that must be said as well.

I've had over three decades of experience in editing books, magazines, and radio programs. I won't pretend, as so many in the MSM are wont to do, that my own opinions and views do not color and shade my choices in various matters. But I will say that I am very aware of the tendency and consciously measure my decisions with that metric. Being really "fair" and being really "balanced" is a difficult task that we can only approximate and never achieve. Still,this is our stated mission at Pajamas Media / Politics Central and something we are all working towards. Will we achieve it and find a balance pleasing to all? I doubt it. Will we have a roster of writers that everybody will find 100% to their liking? If we achieve that, we will have failed. For now, all I can do is beg your indulgence for a few months longer as we try to assemble a very delicate structure and, by the way, cover a major war at the same time. (That wasn't in the original plan or on the original schedule, but I -- for one -- think we are doing a very good and deep job of it.)

As Editor in Chief I am more than pleased with Keen's specific work for us.

As Editor in Chief I do not apply an opinion litmus test to anyone.

And yes, I've seen the opinions and the views of others around the sphere, but I don't think it is in general a good thing to starting vetting people according to whether or not they cleave to other's opinons about proper opinions and proper postions.

You have to, it seems to me, always be aware that BDS is a virus which can leap from one poltical mindset to another more easily than you think.

Neither am I prepared to apply a litmus test to advertisers. Once you start down that road, it seems to me that you find yourself in a like-minded cul-de-sac where it is nice and warm and comforting, but really -- in the long run -- not very interesting.

But as Editor in Chief I deeply value Classical Values and thank you for expressing your concerns. I may be dumb but I'm not deaf.

Keen's comments really expose him for what he is-- a Jacobin. His post is very hateful, and anyone with both lobes working can see it. The way things work, he will most likely discredit himself in a flurry of ill-planned and prideful nastiness- A la Green Glennwald, Frisch, etc. We don't need to ban him- let him ramble on madly. If he can do good work in certain areas then he is an asset. PJM doesn't necessarily agree with their affiliates, but that's ok-- just part of the deal.

In some ways, if he has become posessed by a lie, he will eventually destroy himself. The way I see it, when we don't love our enemies, we tend to victimize them. Naturally most of our enemies are people too, and victimizing people is generally against the law. (Depending on the severity, I guess.)

Thus I can see he is another man running along the path to his own ruin, full speed ahead.

Look, I mean, I don't even want to insult the guy. Just look at his points-- that an ERROR is what we want? Its altogether a loaded argument from all sides. There's really no way to come at it that justifies any part of the argument. From what I can see, its a load of underhanded insults/compliments and what he is actually saying is that censoring dissenters is the ultimate goal, whether it be done via a 'mistake' or directly. But whatever way is most expedient.

I guess I'm exaggerating a bit, as he didn't actually SAY that. But the implication is strong. You're not paranoid, dude-- if he had his way, there would be this kind of censorship. This is why he needs to be connected to the rest of the world, so he can break himself against the harshness of reality.

This is precisely why I'm leary of a lot of 'progressives' - soc'ism, and its supposed good intent is mostly a cover for wanting desperately to be right against the harsh face of uncaring natural laws that have little to no tolerance for error.

This is why, though I am a Christian and definitely Conservative (and also a bit libertarian) I can agree with liberals. The path I've taken to my conclusions is different, but the conclusions are similar. The kind of stuff that the founding fathers wanted for our country- though not draped with the language or banners of Christianity-- its freedoms and responsibilities are in line with a great deal of New Testament (and Old Testament) ideas.

We might differ on some points, as I for instance, believe firmly that Marriage only describes the unique relationship formed between a man and woman, whose purpose is procreational, but is not restricted to those ends. I however do not believe that it is a solution to lawfully restrict marriage-- if its such a question whether or not marriage is what it is that we need to make a law-- then we've got some real hard thinking to do. Its like making a law that states that the color blue is between x and y wavelengths in the visible light spectrum, since people didn't learn that in kindergarten (apologies to the colorblind-- that's another issue entirely.)

I'm also anti-abortion on principle simple because I see fetuses as unique, unborn creatures-- so to 'abort' them is to kill them. And I'm not comfortable with that kind of killing. I am, however, willing to talk about where and when such a killing is appropriate and when it is not. In that way, it is similar to executions for me (though to me an innocent is involved in one, and not necessarily in the other.)

But I'm willing to talk about these things, strange, since I'm supposed to be the hidebound, braindead conservative backward bigoted Christian Jesus-freak. The reality of it is, people are either able to reconcile to one another through forgiveness or they are not.

As I see it, there are many people who are capable of this, and most of them seem wiser, more balanced, fairer, more just and kinder than those who can not. These people who are, I will disagree with them on many points. But because they can reconcile to me, that is, forgive me for possibly being wrong without having to correct me- we can talk, debate, have acquaintance or freindship- and our disagreements do not keep us from relating to one another.

This blogger/writer seems quite incapable of this, or at least he has turned an idea into an idol here- and worships it whenever he can.

Don't worry about the whole thing, dude. There are good people in this world, and they are in all of the most unlikely places.

Mr. Van der Leun,

Many, many thanks for your thoughtful comment. One of the things I should restate is not only am I against any form of government censorship, but I'm against suppressing ideas I disagree with -- even at my own blog. Just as I never asked anyone to pull the Coulter or Santorum ads (I know there's a method to blog particular PJM ads if a blogger finds them objectionable), I'm not asking that of ads for Keen. I think wide-ranging debate is the best solution to these types of disagreements.

The problem here is that censorship advocacy involves a bit more than an ordinary disagreement. By advocating blog censorship, Keen does more than disagree with me on a particular position; he argues that I (and other bloggers) do not even enjoy the right to disagree.

I have spent three and a half years writing this blog. Obviously, not everyone likes it, and a lot of people disagree with what I say. But when someone comes along and says I don't have the right to say anything because blogging is simply wrong, that negates not only my existence right now, but a pretty large chunk of my life.

Anyone who doesn't like this blog, please don't read it. Go somewhere else. If you hate my politics and think my writing sucks and you'd be happier reading Foucault, feel free to say so. Go ahead and trash me; that's part of the medium.

But pulling the plug on the blogosphere is another matter. I think it's more than a disagreement, but all I can do is disagree.

Eric,

You are paranoid.

You are ridiculous.

You are right.

The Net doesn't always work as it's supposed to, it doesn't always "correct errors". Distribution is no longer as distributed as it used to be, what with a narrow range of backbone pipes and all. It's become easier to block up, and thus censorship has become easier.

And besides, there's always pressure on one's ISP

The only real answer is to raise the roof. Get others involved on your behalf. Some government flunkie doesn't like what you're saying and gets you shut down, make sure people know about it. Set your lights on bright and stun 'em with scrutiny.

The Imperialists can censor a few, but they don't have the resources to censor many.