sai16vicky mentioned something in the Dunkirk thread, and it spawned a few responses. Posting them here, as a new thread, in case you feel like chiming in.
Blog vs Bharatvarsh
Posted on August 3, 2017
Subscribe:
RSS feed
31 Responses “Blog vs Bharatvarsh” →
-
This is an interesting area and for me, a very familiar terrain.
As some of you may know I have written over 200 articles for EspnCricinfo and have received over 10000 comments. Most of these are complimentary but some comments clearly crossed the lines. I had expressly told the commenters that criticism of my work was very welcome and most of my new ideas came through this route.
However, I said that personal insults against me, another reader or any player would not be tolerated nor published. This was because I could moderate the comments. Most people followed these instructions.
Over 10 years, I could recall no more than 10 comments which crossed every line of decency. I even resorted to blanking out the text and publishing a blank comment. One guy, sending from US, persisted in sending such a comment every day. It started affecting me personally. So I asked EspnCricinfo to block the IP Address and mailid. After some effort, they managed to do it. I felt bad, but could not help it.
Readers must know that there is a line not to be crossed. I welcomed criticisms always. But personal comments, sinking to sewer levels, have to be dealt with. On the other hand, if some one said that “I favored Indian cricketers’, I pointed out that ten others said “I did not favor Indian cricketers’. I published all these comments. If someone said “You do not have a Statistics degree”, I was quite happy, since even with this handicap, I could make 95% of the readers understand my analyses. And so on.
The bottom line is to respect the blog-space as an invited territory and treat the invitation with respect.
-
In continuation:
Let me also say that I was almost the only EspnCricinfo writer who went through every comment received and answered about two-thirds of these. Many of the writers ended their association with the article the minute it was published. For me, 50% of the work started after publication.
It was something I did right from the beginning. And had to put in a lot of resources to handle these. Almost certainly what Baradwaj also does.
All the more reason why care has to be exercised when commenting. -
“if a blog moderator takes a stern action against a commenter in his own space, what is wrong in a government taking action against such a person in its boundaries?”
The Government doesn’t own the space , we do , they are just gatekeepers.
BR clearly owns his blog.
-
Movies/novels/paintings are getting banned because of their certain political affiliation or world view or bold takes. If BR sir had banned Anuj because of his disagreements with the majority of people here, then the comparison with the dictatorial nature of the government would have been justified. Not now. Anuj got banned because he was repeatedly making abusive remarks on individuals. If a piece of art does the same (i.e. abusing certain individual(s)) and it gets banned then I am sure the supporters of free speech won’t say a thing against the ban. (Putting an individual in different light is not an abuse of the nature that Anuj resorted to.)
LikeLike
-
Sai, I think the difference here is that ‘art’ is meant to provoke discussion. It is as much a reflection of the society in which we live in as it is an expression of the artists’ beliefs. People can dislike it, disagree with it, choose to not consume it – hence the phrase, ‘vote with your pocket’. (Which, again, is why, during the kerfuffle about Remo, none of us were advocating a ban on the movie.) They cannot, and should not, abuse or otherwise threaten the maker of the movie or drama or painting or sculpture. In such a case, the government should be protecting the artist and ensuring that a riot doesn’t take place, not ban the art that caused this.
Now, if the reverse were true – that (taking your example), MF Hussain decided to take that controversial art and insist on installing it in public, the government can safely use ‘law and order’ as a reason to resist its installation. But exhibiting it in private galleries? He is well within his rights, and should be allowed to do so, much though those paintings disgust me. I can appreciate the art without appreciating its theme.
Here, too, Anuj had every right to express his opinions about the posts, however contrary they may be to the general tone of the blog. He doesn’t have the right to insist that we agree with him, or to insult us if we don’t. That would be akin to MF Hussain not only exhibiting his paintings, but walking into our homes with it and insisting we like it – and that we are [expletives] for not hanging it up in our living rooms. If that happens, I’ve every right to throw MF and his paintings out of my house. : ) I do not, however, have a right to insist that my neighbour do the same.
(Re: MF – I resolutely stand behind the man’s right to paint what he wishes, and to exhibit the same in art galleries, and I abhor the vandalism that occurred; my problem is with his double standards – when his film, Meenaxi was in trouble with Muslim organisations for the song, Noor-un-ala, the artist pulled the film from the theatres stating he had no wish to offend. That bothered me – he didn’t mind ‘offending’ the sensibilities of thousands of Hindus, but when it came to the Muslims, he caved. For the record, I loved the film.)
-
A blog owner owns the blog, whereas government only represents the people. And the people includes the entire spectrum. Government is not for only one section of people. Hence the reason why their issuing a ban is a problem. Because then the government ceases to be a representative of all people.
LikeLike
-
Sai16vicky : i gave you a good enough difference in my first interact. BR did not and can not force any one to behave as he wants to- but he can choose to have discussion in his own space with the people he wants to. Those whom he does not want to talk to , can talk to someone else.
A govt can force people to behave in a certain way if it wants. It is not easy to relocate to a different country. That is like a parent saying that if you do not behave in a certain way, you have to leave the house. You may be okay with a parental form of a government, that’s your prerogative. Not going to argue over it, just highlighting the difference.
LikeLike
-
I read through all of Anuj’s comments on that Dunkirk blog. As someone who is opinionated and very vocal in either my agreement or disagreement with BR’s views, and of course making sure that disagreements are just disagreements – they shouldn’t come in the way of restricting others’ freedom to enjoy any form of art as they do, I feel that I am slightly disappointed that he was banned without being warned!
Meaning, why not tell him that, he was being disrespectful to the readers in the first place, and then if he continued with his bad behavior, then ban him?? Some people need to be told right…
Say what folks?
LikeLike
-
I will not bring government here. It is too big and it is also not a permanent entity. People can vote and get rid of governments.
BR is not wrong but the point is someone can easily change the identity and computer or whatever and enter the blog once again.
LikeLike
-
@Ananth: This was the LAST place I thought I’d meet you at. I can confidently say that it’s an honor for @brangan’s (and the rest of us here at the blog) that you are here! Thanks for your fantastic articles over the years (and the constant action on feedback, replies to comments, etc).
LikeLike
-
Anantha Narayanan: I remember people asking you whether you find time to eat or sleep. 🙂 Second praneshp – it’s indeed an honour to have you here, sir!
LikeLike
-
jaga_jaga – It was not just his comments on the Dunkirk thread but a lot of other threads, esp Jagga Jasoos thread where he was repeatedly requested by other commenters to refrain from personal insults and name-calling.
LikeLike
-
The responsibilities of the government are so far-reaching, wide and deep that no one should bring in the government’s actions into this matter. Also, the governments change and the restrictive actions and the targets change. Let us not forget that they also have the responsibility to maintain law and order. Maybe they apply this selectively but let us not compare these. That has to be a different forum.
I have always worked on the basis that a blog space should be an enjoyable meeting forum for a nice exchange of views. For the forum to thrive, there has to be criticism, arguments, disagreements, the projection of alternatives and so on. However, it is the responsibility of the owner of the forum to maintain the pleasant atmosphere. Having said that I tend to agree with @jaga_jaga. Maybe a suggestion to tone down the language first. But, in practice, I know that this rarely works.
@Praneshp: Thank you. This is my first comment here although I have followed Baradwaj’s excellent blog space for a few years. Both his engrossing books adorn my library.
LikeLike
-
Jaga jaga: as pointed by Rahini elsewhere, this happened not just because of the Dunkirk thread, but also Jagga Jasoos thread and elsewhere. And sooo many commenters had engaged with him and asked him to frame his words better, but to no avail.
LikeLike
-
Anantha Narayanan: Let me add to the chorus. I keep getting your posts by email, but lovely to see you on the blog. 🙂
-
The comparison between Government and a blog may appear smart but is deeply flawed. We are talking about two different worlds here a blog although contributed by Real world people is still part of a Virtual world whereas a government is part of real world. Its like you are playing Civilization/Age of Empire/Stratgey game in a computer But comparing the decisions made by the player to that of decisions made by Real world leaders. That comparison will never make sense. Coming to the real world, Tolerance is a very Subjective thing. The question is Whether the government should promote tolerance or Take a Hammer and hit everything that appears a nail. A democratic nation thrives only through Tolerance and Mutual respect Not through Enforcement of Rules and bans. You can ask Can BR be Tolerant just as you are expecting Government to be tolerant. Again BR is managing a Virtual Blog not a nation. As I said that comparison will never make sense.
LikeLike
-
My few cents
This is the difference: GUNS.
When a Govt bans, the law-breaker will have to face Guns carried by cops. Every Govt law/edict/ban etc is backed by a gun. When you ignore or transgress that Gun will come at your face.
When Brangan bans someone, they dont have that threat hanging over their head, or around their neck.
Having said that (everyone’s fav phrase 🙂 ), I do think Free Speech has limits. In that it doesnt encroach on another persons freedom. Much like Individual property rights, you are free but you cannot encroach freedom on anothers property.
MF Hussain is made out to be a victim in same light as Rushdie. However difference lies in fact that MFH was taken to the courts rather than being issued a fatwa or credible threat to his life from an authority. For the sheer fact that Hinduism doesnt have such kind of authority (thank god for that ..whichever god you choose)
WRT Nude images of Hindu gods, hinduism as a religion doesnt care. But politically its freedom shouldnt be taken as license to penalize hindus community for goodness.
It is penalizing goodness because on the contrary one cannot dare do it to other religions.
A govt comes into picture when some gross inequalities in how we approach things surface.
So my individual preference is for the Hussains and Rushdies to express themselves freely wrt Hinduism, Islam, Christianity et al.
And for the practitioners to take them to court when it hurts their sentiments.
Govt and Courts have the right and responsibility to resolve that dispute.
Having said that (again), I prefer society as a whole allows all our gods and all our atheist symbols to be mocked at, made fun of, ridiculed.
And that holds good for critic of artists too (they are not gods…and even if they are, well they deserved to be drawn in nude and made fun of, for that precise reason)
Summary:
Brangan as long as he doesnt threaten “banned” folks with a gun isnt same as a govt.At least, he isnt there yet 🙂
-
“what is wrong in a government taking action against such a person in its boundaries?” – Per se, there is nothing wrong and constitutionally the Indian Govt has the power to impose reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech. But let us get into how in practice these restrictions work out to be unreasonable.
Ideally speaking, the govt is supposed to demonstrate that these restrictions are reasonable. But govt circumvents this need by its favourite trick – imposing a set of rules/procedures which give considerable powers to the administrator to stymie your free will. This could be Mr Censor Scissorhands or it could be a corrupt Customs officer refusing to let you export on some non existent pretext (yes, it has happened, ask people who regularly make exports through Mumbai Air Cargo). Since the administrator is given full discretion to decide whether or not something contravenes or exceeds the ‘boundaries’ that you speak of (in practice, the ‘rules’), he can impose it wrongly and always say “My bad!” after the damage is done. An unrepentant Nihalani won’t even say so and simply shake his head in silent protest when the SC overturns his actions. The problem is less with the principle itself – though that is also problematic – but the way the Govt implements it.
In the case of Anuj, he was given a really long rope to demonstrate his ability (or lack thereof) to engage respectfully with the participants while still vociferously disagreeing (something which I have also done in the past). That is, he was allowed to showcase his work (so to speak) and it was decided after giving him many a pass that he was not willing to follow the rules whether they be written or unwritten. I do agree that he could have been perhaps given a warning by BRangan himself (or maybe he was and I am not aware of) but he is also adult enough to not pretend that everyone taking issue with his tone is just a sickular/pseudo intellectual as applicable. But what happens when a film comes to the Censor Board (which is BEFORE its public release and by the way it is not officially a censor board though it has been given considerable powers to snip the content)? The censors decide that the film does not meet the guidelines and bar the film from public distribution. That is, the public is not given any say in this matter. There is no AAP-style referendum to decide whether perhaps a film could be released. There is no debate in the public sphere that concludes that a film has offensive content. No it is Mr Sanskari Babu deciding on behalf of 1 billion people that this film is not fit for public distribution (as opposed to Mr Rangan allowing the comments to be displayed and for other participants to find or not find them offensive in his private space – the blog).
That brings me to the last aspect of distinction here. This here is a blog and it is Mr Rangan’s private space. He has all the powers to decide how to or how not to moderate it. Like just because my house is visible from the main road doesn’t make it a public space. It’s still a private property and I can decide who to let in and who to turn away. But films are distributed in public spaces (the SC itself has held cinema halls to be public spaces in the national anthem judgment if I am not mistaken). When the govt decides not to allow something to be done in a public space, it must take care not to trample upon the fundamental rights of the citizens. That is the basic distinction – BRangan’s blog is like a private road in an estate while the cinema hall is a national highway. If you want to stop some vehicles from entering the highway, you better have a good reason why rather than a nebulous “against Indian culture”,
-
The first comment from Rahul sums it up really well…”Anyone banned from this blog has the option of starting a blog themselves and talk about what they want. But that option is taken away when the government comes into play”
-
Anantha – wow – what a pleasant surprise. Keep doing the good work @ cricinfo – really a pleasure reading your statisticles™. Please let them know that I hate the redesign, but somehow soldiering on. Now if only you put aside your hatred for SRT u can be a bigly data scientist – I tell ya 😀 😀
LikeLike
-
… starting a blog themselves and talk about what they want.
Seems most of us don’t really read the trackbacks leading to a few blogposts here. 🙂
LikeLike
-
@Uncouthed Village Youth
I think you have either not read my articles seriously or skimmed over those and missed the comments also. The fact that I had cricketers and sportsmen other than Tendulkar as my favorite players should not have made you think that ‘I hated SRT’. Au contraire, I admired the professionalism and on-field behavior of one of the greatest sportsmen of all time: SRT.
I think you have erred in unnecessarily posting a provocative comment on an unrelated blog. You are being unfair to me as well as Baradwaj. It is his blog space and he does not want unnecessary discussions on unrelated topics. This is my last response to this type of comment.
Thanks for the compliments, however, possibly left-handed.
-
My apologies to BR! I thought that was the only thread where Anuj was bad-mouthing people! Thanks for the clarification Jyoti S Kumar, and Chotesaab!
LikeLike
-
While the distinction between private and public/govt spaces makes a lot of sense, I also believe that the scale of ownership is the critical difference here.
Government in some ways is owned by everyone in the country. Though the bans are enforced by the few ruling members, it is not hard to extrapolate that they have support from large swath of society in doing so. So pretty much it comes “x” people want to ban something and “y” people don’t want it banned.
While the blog is privately owned, the situation would actually be similar if it was owned by more than 1 person. Let us assume that this blog was owned by not just BR but co-owned by multiple film critics. Would all of them agree with BR’s decision to ban the commentator or will someone object on the premise that he/she doesn’t get offended by offensive comments and so there shouldn’t be a ban?
LikeLike
-
A very fine distinction, indeed, Balu.
There was a similar response to one of my articles the lines of “You do not own this space. This is EspnCricinfo owned. How can you not publish my comment or ask me to tone down.”. A very valid query indeed.
My response was “This entire cricket ground is owned by EspnCricinfo. However they have allotted the 9 square metres around the ‘Thirdslip’ area (my observation point and website name – until it just disappeared down the tube) to me. Only I have control over this small patch. I want to keep it clean.”
-
@Anantha – I am sorry my ham handed attempt at satire didn’t work. It was meant to highlight the kind of idiotic comments you get in your comments – as an in joke.I have read all your analysis thoroughly and enjoyed each one of them for the way they challenged my long held assumptions while confirming others. At times,I would try myself to write a program to emulate your tables and graphs. Apologies again for the way my comment came out.
@BR- Please mail this to Anantha if possible.
-
I do wish people were not blocked from the blog.
I understand where this decision came from, but I do seek out for and enjoy comments that bear disagreement with BR’s views. Kadakumar does it with style.
If someone gives a low blow, so be it…? But then again, easy for me to say. I’m not on the receiving end.
LikeLike
-
@UVY (Wish you change your nom de plume):
My apologies if I came on stronger than warranted. Maybe because we were sparring on another gentleman’s turf. Absolutely no issues. I am sure you know me quite well through the EC blogs. I carry nothing negative with me.
Take care. All the best.
Many thanks to Baradwaj for taking the trouble of alerting me.
-
@ Sai16vicky, jaga_jaga, blurb: Earlier comments here have already encapsulated very well, the difference between ‘bans’ by a Government which is democratically elected and therefore is supposed to reflect the will, rights and opinion of the people; versus restricting/denying access to a private blog.
This blog being BR’s, moderation policy is as per the standards and guidelines he deems fit; and really I do not have an opinion either way on whether “he ought to have banned” Anuj or not. But I do have an experience of trying to engage Anuj in discussions in several threads on this blog—which despite my best efforts, never translated into a meaningful debate. The inescapable conclusion one was forced to draw was that Anuj *was simply not interested in any informed discussion at all. *
In fact, shorn of the ad hominem attacks he was fond of throwing about, (and the logical inconsistencies which cropped up in arguments), Anuj did have some interesting points. That’s why I and several others did make numerous attempts to engage with him—it would have been interesting to debate with an informed counter view. But the pattern remained the same—he invariably engaged in name calling and rude remarks to start off. And then when logical counterpoints were given, a few more moderate (by his standards) comments would follow, as he went about shifting goalposts, bringing up new indices and arguing against points he himself had made earlier, in an attempt to keep hammering his POV as gospel truth. And finally, when the lacunae in his arguments were pointed out, he would go back to launching ad hominem attacks.
On more than one occasion, on more than one thread, he was asked by several people (including myself), why he could not discuss issues without resorting to name calling. He chose to keep his “style”. It all came down to this: he was interested only in talking at people and not to people. His posts, ultimately, became about as relevant and coherent as spam ads. The choice (I guess) was between moderating out his rantings, or allowing them through and ignoring them altogether, with no one ever replying to him. The latter (in my experience) was difficult to stick to, because he would invariably target one comment or the other with personal remarks, in an effort to goad people into responding. Wilful disruption it certainly was……
Anyway, all said and done, “ban” or no ban, Anuj can easily come back into the blog with a different name/email id right? And if he (in his alter ego) argues his points with passion and conviction but civilly, what is to stop him from participating? He gets his FoE, the blog benefits from his divergent opinions, and no one has to endure pointless bile. Perfect solution! 🙂 🙂
-
Just wanted to share this xkcd comic on Free Speech. It seems very relevant to this discussion.
To quote the transcript:
Cueball: Public Service Announcement: The Right to Free Speech means the government can’t arrest you for what you say.
Cueball: It doesn’t mean that anyone else has to listen to your bullshit, or host you while you share it.
Cueball: The 1st amendment doesn’t shield you from criticism or consequences.
Cueball: If you’re yelled at, boycotted, have your show canceled, or get banned from an Internet community, your free speech rights aren’t being violated.
Cueball: It’s just that the people listening think you’re an asshole,
[A picture of an partially open door is displayed.]
Cueball: And they’re showing you the door.
-
I like when a xkcd comic remains as the last word in a discussion. Like, “that’s all there is people” and it can’t be said any better or any more concise. It’s really fitting. 🙂
~ XKCD Fan
LikeLike
Leave a comment
Recent Comments
 | Rocky on Election talk… for those… |
 | Iswarya V on Readers Write In #689: Transla… |
 | Pradeep CK on Election talk… for those… |
| Rocky on Election talk… for those… |
 | madhusudhan194 on Interview: Hari (‘Rathna… |
 | hari prasad on Interview: Hari (‘Rathna… |
 | vijay on Election talk… for those… |
| vijay on Election talk… for those… |
 | KK on Election talk… for those… |
 | Rahul on Election talk… for those… |
| Pradeep CK on Election talk… for those… |
| Rahul on Election talk… for those… |
| Rahul on Election talk… for those… |
 | Dhoomketu on Election talk… for those… |
 | soorya N on Interview: Fahadh Faasil (… |
Baradwaj Rangan 
sai16vicky
August 2, 2017
BR, I have always respected your views on Free Speech (though my stand is different). But with you banning Anuj, I have a question for you: Seeing his comments, I thought it would be a natural decision from your side. Why doesn’t offend you when a government does the same thing i.e. ban a film or a book? The government wants to act in the best interests of the majority of the public and its decisions are driven in that direction. So when they feel a particular work of art (say M.F. Hussain’s ‘nude’ paintings containing a majority of Hindu Gods) is indeed a attack on /mockery of a majority of its citizens, what is wrong in banning it/taking action on the artist. Seems like a natural thing to do right?
brangan
August 2, 2017
sai16vicky: I agree that the broad-strokes argument is similar, but isn’t there a difference between someone who is doing is own thing and then gets banned vs someone who actively disrupts a public space?
Rahul
August 2, 2017
sai16vicky , There is a HUGE difference between the actions of a government and that of a blog owner like BR. I will try to find an article that engages with all the issues involved (freedom vs equality etc. ) but chew on this – Anyone banned from this blog has the option of starting a blog themselves and talk about what they want. But that option is taken away when the government comes into play.
This is an article that explains freedom of speech in the USA.
http://jezebel.com/5985635/an-idiots-guide-to-free-speech
Notwithstanding its condescending tone, its a good article. (Though, It does not deal with the philosophical and political aspects of free speech.)
Jyoti S Kumar
August 2, 2017
Sai16vicky: even I’ve been thinking about this. But there is a difference between disagreeing and insulting. As far as I’ve seen, if BR sir has banned anyone it is because that person, inspite of repeated telling from the community itself, has not bothered to make even an iota of change in their way of writing.
“Original” Venkatesh
August 3, 2017
@Sai16Vicky and et all : The U.S Govt. or the India Govt. for that matter is an elected body and serves at the pleasure of the people. We have a right to question it and the Govt. has a responsibility to answer the broader philosophical and moral questions.
BR’s blog is his personal fiefdom, we are here at his pleasure. He owes us nothing.
Its an Apples vs Oranges comparison.
sai16vicky
August 3, 2017
@BR: I find this argument of an artist ‘doing his own thing’ not very convincing. Note that a majority of them have either serious commercial interests or strong political affiliations or both. I feel these distractions make their work of art less ideal than what they are supposed to be. (Recall the anti-brahmin/atheist leanings in Kamal’s movies, a non-existent anger against the society in Ram’s movies and so on.) I think we should see artists like any other professionals since the very definition of art is sort of subjective. I mean seen one way programming is an art and viruses are nothing but malicious programs. So in a free world, a programmer can create a virus and publish it in the web (note: he is just doing his own thing here). But everyone on the web has access to it. Agreed that it is their choice to download or not but how many people are technically prepared to make that choice. The majority is not and that’s exactly why we need the government need to interfere and remove the source code of the virus from the web/take action against the programmer who published.
@”Original” Venkatesh: I still think it is a valid comparison. BR gets appreciations for an active comment thread (remember someone’s comment about best discussions on cinema happening on this thread) and as a result, he feels (implicitly) responsible for maintaining/moderating it (Of course BR you can correct me here). For the government, this responsibility is much more since it is a majority elected body. My argument was more on the lines of: if a blog moderator takes a stern action against a commenter in his own space, what is wrong in a government taking action against such a person in its boundaries?