At what point does your property become a public space? If you, as a communicator or a distributor of certain topics, place yourself on your property in such a way that as many people as possible should hear
you, is it still the case that comments from the listeners are their privilege?Is it not also the case that the speaker is not equally privileged to have an audience?
Yes, the audience isn't a given and you can't exclude the outburst, but it wouldn't be censorship if you could or did, since the rules there would be what everyone who attends must agree to. The speaker only has a limited time, and any outburst that takes that time away from the speaker could be considered censorship. Unless there were no rules, no decorum that everyone accepted, then yes, the comments aren't a privilege but a right of the onlookers.
That being said, is a blog the same as a piece of property?
It's similar enough in that, like a piece of property, it has an owner and can be transferred, or abandoned.
What is the alternative to a "right" to comment from the audience? How else could one put it?
A right is not the correct way to put it if its not established in the rules of wherever the blog resides. It's a right as long as the rules are there to establish so, but in lack of such universal rule, it is only a privilege.
One person talks, many listen.
The speaker never said he didn't want comments. Per event, people are there who have eyes, ears and mouths.
Then if there's no rules that they established I image people will function within those guidelines. That sounds like a dialogue or question and answer, where they are in their right to express themselves but it wouldn't be censorship should they be removed or barred from engaging if they were being disrespectful or hurling accusations and lies.
If, on the other hand, a speaker only wants a silent audience, he basically wouldn't need to make his speech public on his property, would he? So what does he want? If he wants comments, he will get both applause and boos. If it's always one and the same person shouting "Boo!", that's annoying, but not very much more. There is not one righteous, serene and wise man on one side (who owns the property) and not the other madman, crank and complete idiot on the other side - those are extremes, you get the idea.
The property could be a journal, or a newspaper, or a conference hall, they are publicly available but they aren't for everyone to express themselves, they are hired and private first and foremost, and at the same times open to the public, but the public is only afforded privilege.
But the one who reserves the right to exclude certain peoples from the space and henceforth to refuse access, one would also have to ask him whether he is prevented from speaking by the boo caller? This may indeed be the case in real life in a public place, where hecklers interfere, but not on the internet. Even there you can get right back in if you stop shouting loudly.
They only have to point out that they reserve the right to exclude any and all comments and users that they don't want, they needn't explain or justify their actions in that regard.
The more public the square (i.e. the more spectators gather and do so regularly) the more this clarity of "own property" blurs, doesn't it? In any case, as long as the event is still going on and the many people are still there. And why is ownership of property equalized with what someone says on it? As long as he does not destroy furniture and decoration, or slapping faces...?
The line between private and public property isn't blurry. Private property is equalized to the owner's domain. In a public venue such as an opera, disruption is closer to censorship than it would be to establish a dress code and exclude everyone who doesn't adhere to it.
At that moment, I have built up a public and to call someone out for being annoying (trying to make me look ridiculous, etc.) would mean for me as a speaker rather learning, like a good comedian, to integrate the queer birds from the audience into my scenes or to think better of whether I really want so much publicity and attention, on the one hand.
On the other hand, I can trust the rest of the audience, because it changes and the annoying orange doesn't need to be silenced by me, but the people in the crowd do get creative, if you give them credit for it. I don't really need to silence anyone if I recognise these and other alternatives.
It's not about having supporters, if we understand that you are owner of your space, it's not censorship to do as you please with your space. Even if you banned and deleted comments, if those comments are still available by some virtue to your audience, it wouldn't be censorship. If you said everyone can comment, and then removed and edited comments without any way for people to see the edits and removals, it would be censorship.
From this point of view, the mute function would rather be an act of weakness or ignorance. Better remain a rare exception. But there are other perspectives as well. So I think, the solution is no solution. LOL Let it work it out organically.
It's something I think needs to be implemented if we want more people to join since it's a basic right of people to chose who they associate with and on top of that many don't regard the comment section as a free public space. People want the option of excluding nefarious actors, if they don't have it they will probably keep to the sidelines.
Why do you think muting is associated with censorship?
They think they are entitled to be heard, and so they think that someone refusing to listen is effectively refusing them the right to express themselves. In effect, they think they are entitled to a receptive audience.
Disrespect is in the eye of the beholder and depending on how an audience and how the speaker reacts, it would not be censorship, but it would still cause quite a stir with all concerned. A lot would have to go out on the part of the disruptor before the tolerance level of a relevant number of people in the audience would break their patience to finally expel someone. I have observed this in real life situations.
Whether someone is spreading a lie would still have to be proven. Notoriously very difficult to prove, but also known to be the easiest thing to say of all those who call others liars who disagree with their own views.
In this blog environment, you don't know all that. The space can be anything in the mind of the person sitting alone in front of their computer, a theatre space, an art stage, a speaker's corner, a self-promoting performance, a podium, a fighting arena etc. etc. - But above all, the user must get the impression that it is a podium or open space with the character of a dialogue (for the sake of comments).
How do you see the permanent exclusion (house ban, to remain in the linguistic jargon of the offline world) of a commentator? Would you say it already carries the potential of censorship?
I see the online space as a huge experimental field where people try to behave humanely without having direct contact with each other.
I don't see any clear rules here. They are interpreted, I think. I am ambivalent about this, I am neither promoting rules nor do I reject them. I play by my own rules, so to speak.
People only have their intellect at hand here. They don't really see anyone, nor do they hear or smell them, nor can they touch them or interpret their gestures and facial expressions. They miss the real atmosphere of a meeting with the individuals and the many.
There may be something going on at a - how shall I put it - metaphysical level and in the cacophony of bloggers, commentators and the rest of the media din, there may be a field that can be helpful alongside all the unhelpful side effects.