A couple of weeks ago I reported on the Guardian's censorship of comments critical of the eugenicist philosopher, Peter Singer. He had written an article in the Guardian on the subject of AIDS in South Africa. He argued that Thabo Mbeki, the former South African president, was responsible for the deaths of thousands of South Africans because of his policy on the cause of AIDS and on the use of anti-retroviral drugs.I was informed that, in the online version of Singer's article, one commentator named "ContraSign" left the following comment [at 10:25am]: "Whatever the rights and wrongs of Mbeki and AIDS, Peter Singer, who supports infanticide and euthanasia, is no person to lecture anyone about saving human lives. The death toll from Singer's eugen(i)cist ideas would dwarf any death toll attributable to Mbeki."
A few minutes later, ContraSign's comment was replaced with the message:"This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted." I suggested that my visitors may like to write to the Guardian to express their opinion. Pauline Gateley, amongst others, did so - and she sends me this report:
"Dear John,
I have persisted with the Guardian and had what you may find an interesting exchange with the moderators concerning the Mbeki article and their moderation policy. Because they have an irritating way of not using the reply facility on email but starting the exchange afresh each time I have had to copy and paste the exchange together myself and have therefore set it out in the natural chronological order so that you can read from the top down. The Guardian’s are in red, mine in black:
To: 'community.suggestions@guardian.co.uk'
Sent: Thu 18/12/2008 17:05
I sent the message below to userhelp and now realise it should have been to you:
Dear Sir/Madam, I note that the comments submitted by ContraSign have been deleted by the moderators and that my challenge to this (as PaulineG) has also now been deleted. In the interests of free debate I am at a loss to understand how this can be justified. Nothing that Contrasign or I said is untruthful. Peter Singer’s position is well known and he himself would not deny the truth of his support for infanticide and euthanasia. Perhaps ContraSign’s observation was in the nature of an ‘ad hominem’ but these are not normally deleted, as anyone following CiF debates on Catholic news will be well aware. I therefore ask you, in the interests of fair play and free and balanced debate, to explain how these deletions fit with your general moderation policy and I look forward to your response.
Yours faithfully,
Pauline Gately
From: Todd.Nash@guardian.co.uk; on behalf of; comment.is.free@guardian.co.uk
Sent: Fri 19/12/2008 11:10
Hi Pauline,
It is our policy to delete comments that refer and reply to a post that has broken our community standards and been removed, hence why yours was removed.
It is also policy not to discuss users comments with anybody other than that user themselves. We would give the same response if anybody enquired about a comment of yours.
Best wishes,
Todd
(Community Moderator)
To: 'comment.is.free@guardian.co.uk'
Sent: Fri 19/12/2008 13:26
Hello Todd,
Thank you for your reply. I see where you are coming from and respect your policy as stated. I have now submitted a complaint re stevehill’s comment. Having followed a number of these threads I am well aware that the Pope seems to be freely and regularly defamed without apparent challenge and references to Galileo are all but mandatory in any thread touching on Catholicism and accepted even where wildly off topic. Yet Peter Singer’s well documented and acknowledged views are off limits. I understand your confidentiality rule but what I am seeking here is consistency. In particular, are ‘ad hominems’ acceptable or are they not?
Regards,
Pauline
From: Todd.Nash@guardian.co.uk; on behalf of; comment.is.free@guardian.co.uk
Sent: Fri 19/12/2008 14:25
Thanks for the reply Pauline,
Ad hominem attacks are not acceptable. If you spot any, please use the 'report abuse' function to bring the comment to our immediate attention.
Regards,
Todd
(Community Moderator)
To: 'comment.is.free@guardian.co.uk'
Sent: Fri 19/12/2008 16:09
Thank you, Todd, will be helpful going forward. But I note that stevehill’s comment remains. So, for the avoidance of doubt, is it acceptable to defame the Pope?
Regards,
Pauline
From: James.Walsh@guardian.co.uk; on behalf of; comment.is.free@guardian.co.uk
Sent: Fri 19/12/2008 20:04
Hello there Pauline,
As per our community standards we may remove anything that is legally problematic. Again, if there's a comment you believe warrants removal, then please do report it and the moderators will make a decision.
Best wishes,
James
Mod
To: 'comment.is.free@guardian.co.uk'
Sent: Fri 19/12/2008 21:30
Hello James,
Thank you. As I mentioned to Todd, I have reported stevehill’s comment on the Singer/Mbeki piece (17th December, 8.32 am) but note that it remains. I am struggling with this. This is what stevehill says:
“Malicious or not, the former South African president's Aids policy is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths” (quote from article) He stands shoulder to shoulder with the Pope then, who contends that even married couples may not use condoms if one of them is HIV positive."
So, we have a gratuitous defamation of the Pope (off topic) in which it is claimed that he is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. Simplistic and defamatory comments of this sort fail to address the fact that if the Church’s teachings were followed consistently, in its entirety and in all circumstances the risk of contracting Aids, including within a marriage in which one partner is infected, would be minimised and the death toll from Aids would be much lower, not higher, than it is. In fact the World Health Organisation acknowledges that abstinence and marital fidelity is a strategy capable of completely eliminating the risk of infection from HIV. I accept, of course, that you will not comment to me on another person’s contribution. But I do ask that you explain to me how a comment of this sort can be deemed acceptable. If your only concern is whether it is legally problematic then perhaps you anticipate being on safe ground because the Pope’s lawyers would be kept remarkable busy if they followed up every such defamation. But does that make such defamation acceptable? Is your policy to permit defamation, even of such a serious nature, if it is unlikely to be subject to legal challenge? I am sorry to be so persistent and I thank you and Todd for your patience, but I do feel I have not yet received a full response on this.
Best regards,
Pauline
[Dear John] I have received no reply to this last.
Best regards and good wishes for Christmas,
Pauline
