Censorship: The Pain in My Blog's Ass
Sunday, June 13, 2010
, Posted by JD at 1:47 PM
If there's anything I've learned during my short stint blogging and tweeting, it's that not everyone likes my style:
 |
| A grand total of 10 people have blocked me on twitter. How rude! |
Let's be clear, I'm not a nasty person and I try to always address people with whom I disagree with tact; however, I didn't start blogging and tweeting to censor myself. I have a full time job that requires every bit of political savvy that I possess. In fact, I'm known for how well I deal with various personalities and my ability form a consensus when necessary--even among the most unreasonable groups of people. I am a master at leading without authority and have been rewarded routinely over the course of my 10 year career for being able to do so.
When I started blogging back in October, I did so because I needed a place to put all my opinions, a place to address those things I observe that bother me. I didn't know anything about the blogosphere or how it works. And quite frankly, I didn't care much.
Quickly, I've learned that the blogosphere is like the real world on cocaine and pills. Everyone is censoring and pretending to be friends in the interest of networking. It's faker and smaller than any political circle I've ever had to navigate, which is funny given that lots of bloggers are super critical of politicos in their blog posts. I understand this dynamic very well and I'm fine with other people playing the game in the interest of wherever they're trying to go in life.
But HaT isn't taking me anywhere, I'm already where I need to be. My writing and opinions on serious issues of the day have been and continue to be published across the globe under my real name (which is none of your business). If I have to censor myself in the interest of not making waves, then I don't see the point in blogging at all.
Over the weekend, I had a major urge to deconstruct Marc Lamont Hill's claims that he was harassed by Philadelphia police Friday night/Saturday morning while dropping someone off. I elected NOT to write extensively about the issues I had with Hill's story on this blog because I knew that it would cause major waves throughout twitter and the blogosphere. (He's a decorated professor, how dare you question him! This kind of thing happens to black men all the time, we don't need people dismissing their claims!!)
In fact, I had an offensive back and forth on twitter via direct message with someone who claimed to be a friend of Hill who basically said I was hating on him and being silly and immature. The exchange was surprising seeing as how I thought I was simply exercising my critical thinking skills, not tryna bring a young brotha down.
Nevertheless, as I said, I elected not to write my complete thoughts--otherwise known as selling out. I decided it wasn't worth the drama. I've often gone against the crowd on this blog and also on twitter and it's tiring. It's much easier to ignore some conversations because the amount of bandwagoning that goes on is painful to watch.
Anyway, now that I think about it further the decision not to write about Hill may have been silly. I've received a lot of comments offline about the Hill story with no one wanting to comment either in the public timeline or even on my very benign blog post about the issues they personally had about his claims. Probably for the same reasons I stated above.
Not to say that this blog post was spurred just by the Hill story, I've thought about the content that I post on this blog and also to twitter a lot. Sometimes I make the right decision and sometimes I make the wrong one. Sometimes I censor myself and then see someone else write the same post I wanted to write (and with less skill might I add!) and then I kick myself for being so damn nice.
I'd be interested to see what other bloggers have to say about this issue. Do you feel pressure to censor yourself in the interest of peace and/or prosperity? I've said a million times, "what some bloggers won't do for a $10 adsense check. I am just not one of those people.
It's disappointing to me that you're questioning the honesty of my report. It's one thing to question my indignation/outrage (you could, for example, think the officers were right), or even to suggest that the officer may have a different and more accurate take on the events that transpired. To suggest, however, that I made up the details of that experience is insulting and completely baseless. Obviously, you have your right to question my claims--in fact, as a media critic/journalist you have a RESPONSIBLITY to interrogate all claims-- but the questions you raised, in my opinion, do nothing to advance your argument. For example, you say that you did a google search of "illegal discharge of a passenger" and found no such charge,. I don't doubt that this is true. Moreover, I'm fairly certain that the officer knew it wasn't true when it was communicated to me. My point, after all, was that the police stopped me for no good reason --even if the charges do exist, who really gets stopped for dropping a friend of in the middle of a block?-- and then proceeded to violate my rights.
Even if you agree that the officer had a right to pull me over for this "offense," on what reasonable basis did I need to be taken out of the car? On what reasonable suspicion did the car's interior, glove box, armrest, etc. need to be searched? Why did the officer need to go through my pockets? I'm not saying this to be antagnostic. i'm sincerely looking for your answers.
Also, with regard to the "Dr." issue. I didn't say that the police officer was shocked that I had a Ph.D. I have no doubt that he was sufficiently convinced that I wasn't lying about that after I successfully answered his extended series of questions. (In fact, I would argue the whole violent/antagonistic approach changed after realizing I wasn't a drug dealer/user).
My point was that the entire line of questiong was IRRELEVANT in light of the reason they gave for stopping me. Why does it matter where I teach or where I earner a Ph.D.? What difference does it make how I can afford the car as long as I have a license and all appropriate paperwork? If i really broke a law by dropping my friend off at his house, then I should've received a ticket and been let go.
While I cannot say for certain, it is my belief that they saw an expensive car in a bad neighborhood and got suspicious. They used the drop off as a pretext for searching my car for guns and weapons. After not finding one, not getting any attituted from me, and realizing I was not a "thug," they decided to let me go with no tickets, citations, or formal warnings. Why? Because I did little or nothing wrong. While some may find this acceptable (i.e. no harm no foul) I find it despicable. If I'm treated this poorly, how do vulnerable and marginal populations get treated?
Again, you have every right to challenge my perspective. But it's nonetheless disappointing that you'd assume I took the time to lie about the facts. I have worked very hard to develop a reputation (among my allies, enemies, and critics) for being principled and honest. This is a reputation about which I am very proud and committed to defending.
If you doubt that I am being honest, I have a simple solution: I'll take a polygraph. If I've lied about ANY of the facts laid out, I will issue a public statement AND donate a large amount of cash (we can agree on something reasonable) to the Fraternal Order of Police. How's that sound?
@MLH Thanks for taking time out to respond to my post I genuinely appreciate it.
To be fair, I didn't accuse you of lying, I stated that I had issues with the story as presented in the stream of tweets you issued presumably right after it happened.
In terms of the issues I raise having little to do with my argument, I would argue that I haven't presented an argument. As I say in my post, I elected not to write about any specific issues I had with your story due to the potential responses the post might receive.
This post is less about whether or not you told the truth and more about the right to critique what public figure's say without facing the wrath of an angry mob of their supporters. You've left a thoughtful comment on this post and I hope that other commenters follow the example you've set.
As you just mention, everyone is entitled to "interrogate all claims," no matter how "disappointing" the subject of those questions might find the critique. Still, bloggers must gauge the response they may evoke before writing--this being the crux of my post.
To speak to your story specifically, I don't disagree that if your story happened the way you said it did your rights were violated. I'm glad you decided to report the incident--not too long ago you said that you saw an incident on Temple's campus where young men were made to pull their pants down. I hope you reported that as well.
As you said, if these things happen to you or in front of you we know that marginalized populations are treated worse. On this one, please keep us posted.
And you do know that if you took a lie detector test, I would critique that as well...lol
Once again, thanks for reading and commenting.
Of course I censor myself when I blog. Personally, I don't believe in anonymous courage. I think we speak more responsibly and judiciously when we open our own selves to criticism. Also, as a scientist, I find that I've been more successful in the long term when I'm more critical of myself than I am of others. As a result of these 2 things, I try really hard not "go in" on anybody - not on Twitter, not on my blog, not in person.
That said, I'm glad Marc responded to you, as he easily could have ignored your posts. Leaders ought to expect the public to continuously hold their feet to the fire (which is why I don't mind reproach whenever I'm out the pocket). The fact that he answered, to me, shows he cares about how the community views his leadership - or maybe he's just honored to find someone took the time to write an entire blog about him (hell, I know I would be
the officers used a routine police tactic: stop for minor offense = excuse to search car. citizens can allows refuse search. police then threaten with arrest which is usually an empty threat. they use this tactic to take advantage of people who don't know their rights. interestingly enough, it doesn't work well in new orleans. the first thing young black men learn is the law and their rights. with the violent history and current practices of nopd and kenner pd, it's a life and death need-to-know. but that's beside the point...
i'm personally annoyed by "celebrity" academics using their personal experiences as a crusade or talking-point for treatment of "regular" black folks. it's disingenuous. we are all aware of how young black men are treated by police- it's well documented in research, both empirical and anecdotal. racial profiling incidents have become a part of african american folklore- that's so significant and speaks volumes about the work police will have to do to dismantle this folklore and replace it with something else. so for these academics to pop up all indignant, supposedly, on the "regular" folk's behalf... not buying it. should have been indignant all along. this is simply a reaction to being treated as a "regular" black person. they are personally insulted and have decided to shroud that in a crusade for poor black folks so their anger seems saintly and righteous. they have a right to be insulted and angry on their own behalves- it cheapens experiences of marginalized people when tantrums are thrown and then framed as something done for the people. now of course this sentiment speaks more directly to gates than hill, but i think it applies in both cases. unless you were consistently up in arms about police harassment and racial profiling BEFORE, your personal crusade NOW is just that... personal. it's not some cross you're bearing for the people. it doesn't make your crusade any less valid... just more honest.
p.s.- writing a paper for other academics to read or cooning on cnn doesn't = crusade for the people. unless you're using your profile and knowledge to find some way to influence policing practices, you're not doing much. police dont respond to abstract research and eggheads yapping. the research must be specifically framed to improve their results and work. academics KNOW this- too lazy.
First off, I don't get celebs on twitter. Half the time, I want to tell them to quit only RTing the nice ish people say and the other half I want to ask them to ask someone else to proof tweets before they're sent.
There are a handful of celebs I mess with. Emphasis on handful.
My initial answer to whether or not I censor myself was "no." But I realized I do. More and more of my personal friends are discovering I blog. I talk about these friends on my blog and sometimes I don't say the nicest things.
Ironically, one of the reasons I've jumped around with my blogging is this very reason: needing a place to vent without the watching and critical eye of the people I'd be talking about.
I really do ♥ Twitter, but I take some of the same issue with the culture that's developing as well. Someone I follow called it the highschool lunchroom and they were so on point with that. Everyone wants more followers, to be more popular and they'll do whatever it takes, including bandwagoning. That's something I've never gotten into or enjoyed doing, so I usually stay out of the fray.
Nothing irks me more than having a DM from someone who thinks it's their job to convince me I'm wrong. We can have a discussion, but you're not about to call me a hater because I think the last 3 videos Beyonce has done have been worthless. ::shrug::
Whatever happened to having an opinion and being able to freely express it? I really hate that -- why can't we have dialogue about things?
And the fakeness I will NEVER understand. It's the internet. You don't know me, WHY ARE YOU LYING?! Makes no damn sense.
Let me say this first:
"F*ck that decorated Professor".
For real. I have it on very good authority that under all that academic plumage is a "ain't shyt n*gga". Nothing I despise more than an overinflated male ego. So, there's that.
As for self-censorship, I only do it in the interest of maintaining my lady-like composure and only then when I feel like it. I guess that would mean "no, I don't censor myself", right?? lol...
My filters are finicky & tend to be easily persuaded. I'm liable to say anything, but I have a reputation of standing up for whatever I said, even if I have to stand up and say I was wrong.
@sassynola I've actually written about my issues with public intellectuals being deemed the leaders/crusaders for our community. I actually think those titles are misplaced. I think your comment speaks to that but with more passion. lol! I enjoyed that comment. @pbg "My filters are finicky & tend to be easily persuaded. I'm liable to say anything, but I have a reputation of standing up for whatever I said, even if I have to stand up and say I was wrong." << this is how I feel about myself. On twitter @lyneka just said "the lack of debate because of relationships is ruining the fun of social media." I would take it a step further and say that it's lessening people's ability to think critically. For example, there are so many blogs that post offensive things e.g. Fresh Xpress's article on f"at black women" that had twitter reeling last night, that probably wouldn't be posted if everyone who had an issue with it didn't mind speaking up. But because so many blogs crosspost with them people keep quiet. That's just one minor example of where discourse would actually be elevated if content were challenged. @Asmith, I'm so glad you left that comment. To your point about personals blogs, although HaT is "technically" a personal blog I never write about my friends and dates etc, so I admire those of you who do. My friends don't read my blog though so maybe I am worrying for nothing. With regard to your point about twitter and celebs etc...there is definitely a lot of play for followers. And I think a lot of ppl on twitter mistake networking for friendship. So they kiss people's butts until it dons on them that the other person wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. My twitter account is one place where I don't edit and censor as much. And I'm actually shocked that I still have any followers left because when stuff gets to me on there I tend to blurt. I'm better when it comes to blogging in part because I want to attract a certain type of commenter. I'm not blogging just to get hits and low quality comments. I think my blog is for the thoughtful but not super serious crowd. I want to keep it that way.
First things first, I'm mad Hill felt the need to drag himself over to your blog and write a dissertation about comments you made in your blog. Comments. Not a deconstruction of his claim. Just a comment that you THOUGHT about deconstructing his claim. Who does that? Doubts that most thinking adults would have when a man with as many connections as Hill has makes comments on Twitter (but no where else) and seemingly no formal complaint being filed. Not even a mention on his own webpage. Sorry, but as you said…its seems a little fishy.
As for censorship, everyone who follows me on Twitter or reads my site knows my position on this: if you don’t like what I have to say, don’t follow me. I’m routinely having heated debates/discussions/disagreements/arguments over things I’ve written/said and I’m okay with that. What bothers me is when people use the “block” button as a way to end debate or keep themselves from being embarrassed from talking out of their asses (I see you Toure). If I only wanted people to say nice things about me, I wouldn’t give my opinion on a lot of what goes on in the world. And you know I agree with the “What would you do for a $10 Adsense check”.
I call kat stacks! Something happens and you take to twitter instead filling a compliant? Hmph I dont understand. He knows his rights, why let them search if they have no basis? Maybe I just dont get it, because I'm the chick writing down badge numbers and filing complaints. I want it written down, so when that cop does something wrong it shows in his file, he has had a history of this...thats just me.
I think the bigger you get in the blogger world the more you hold back, because you realize arguments are pointless. So you pick and choose what you want to stan for, and whats not worthy as a topic. Great Blog
@strawberry15
@Pretty Brown Girl "F*ck that decorated Professor" #classic.
I don't know if MLH fabricated the facts of his driving while black story or not.
What I take issue with is his down for the people/cause persona and actions that don't match. I have met him and conversed with him personally so I'm not making blanket accusations. Pseudo celebrity academics who spend more time on TV and debating the likes of Slim Thug in opposed to being in the community or educating youth, don't dare need to be considered our leaders. Please.
As a writer, blogger and someone seeking a position in the journalism industry I don't censor myself. But I feel I should. It is something I have struggled with since I first started blogging because writing is a career path for me not an extracurricular activity. However, my blog is a reflection of myself, my thoughts and feelings. If I'm judged negatively based on it so be it.
I don't subscribe the idea one must be politically correct or fear saying what is unpopular. With that said I do recognize there needs to be a level of professionalism. For that reason I don't go in on commenters; and instead of using 10 curse words in my posts I narrow it down to 5, lol.
Sadly my choice to remain uncensored will probably be more harmful than beneficial.
LMAO @thePBG, I thought I was the only person on the innanets that knew from personal experience that, that kneegrow aint sh#t! LMAO
There has to be more! C'mon folks testify, here's yo space! Demystify the all-knowinging academic saviors we've propped up in receut history.
Its all a bunch of bull.
Marc- no need to comment. You know I don't like you, I know you don't care. Grass is green, the sky is blue & other obvious sh*t. The world still turns.
HA! These comments, I swear...
In terms of censoring myself via my blogs: I only leave out what I feel is too personal, not my story to tell or nunya. Otherwise, I say what I need to say and those who don't care for it can just "change the channel"
I've been blogging since about 2006 and I tell my readers, "I give you guys about 85% because frankly, I need a lil something to call my very own" and I stick to that.
But I'm not sure I'd call it censoring myself; I prefer to say I'm "using discretion."
Happy Blogging!!
I never really got the point of following celebs. One of the most amusing things is seeing a person with a private account constantly tweeting celebs, not knowing that they will be unseen.
I rarely censor. If anything, I say too much. With the exception of personal family business and certain "intimate" details, I tell it like it is. Some people like it, some don't as evidenced by the number of flame-throwing emails I receive on the regular.
Life is too short to be anybody else than who I am.
I do censor identifying details and I generally avoid talking about things that could jeopardize my employment. I also try to avoid blogging about my close friends unless it's something they wouldn't mind me saying to their face because I respect other people's needs for privacy. But other than that the whole point of blogging for me was to get things off my chest without the filters turn to high....I'm not even getting adsense checks ( maybe I should do something to correct that).
I want to thank yall for these comments today. It definitely entertained me as well as made me think.
It all goes back to the plan you have for your blog and your brand. And I agree with @strawberrycorner you have to pick your battles.
Now I can't ignore the comments toward MLH..I think at this point he has to understand on some level why his tweets drew some skepticism, which, once again I believe is healthy.
@kriss I don't think i'll ever be as 'FREE" as you are lol!!
The whole issue of relationships getting in the way...twitter definitely contributes to that. It makes everything smaller and also makes people think they're friends/allies/peers with people they really aren't. It's all messy and convoluted!!
I censor based on who I am around. When I am around the Caucasian race, I rarely talk about situations that affect our race. It always turns into how blacks don't have it "that bad". I remember an instance where I was doing a home visit and the parents had a Confederate flag hanging in the window, about the size of an American flag, I relayed the story to some white people, automatically they said that doesn't make them racist, the hell it doesn't. I censor myself in public, around my inlaws. My inlaws are very Christian and do not agree with gay people or things of that nature, unless they say something completely off the wall, I censor myself. We can say we don't, but there is always an instance when we have no choice BUT to censor ourselves.
I wanted to comment on this earlier, but was still in class & couldn't from my phone.
With twitter it's touch & go, sometimes if I'm angry or tweeting about a particular situation that involves people I know in real life, on twitter, or people who follow me that know the person in real life, i'll be careful about my word choices...or phrase things as double entedre's so that their meaning will only be understood by me. If people want to take the time to analyze my tweet's and read into them, by all means they can have at it. I usually ignore false assumptions or any @ reply snark. A few weeks ago a young man, who I wasn't following @ replied me after I had tweeted 'The world is dying, and everyone's on twitter tweeting away' (the irony there was my intent)...he RT me and said something to the effect of how melodramatic of me & then made a tweet about how it's stupid and ironi for someone to talk about using twitter to a negative effect, while on twitter.
I replied to him that making assumptions wouldn't get anyone anywhere & that perhaps the definition of irony should be reviewed further...I was blocked, almost instantaneously, & i naively assumed that it would end there. Come friday, I was included in a #FF tweet of his with 'fuck em friday' preceding the list. Twitter is serious business after all, & there's really always someone that will be irritated,pissed off, or annoyed by things you tweet. I don't always like everything some of my favorite followers tweet, & sometimes I disagree. I definitely pick & choose the times I feel like chipping in my two cents, & other times I just scroll down the timeline & ignore them.
As far as blogging goes, I consider that space to be an online open book diary for me. I say what I want & what I feel, and I let my OPINION be great :)
Like K. Lysha, I avoid anything that could reflect poorly on my employer or jeopardize my employment. I always think to myself, "if my boss or my company's CEO Googled me, would I be OK with what they found (on my blog and on Fb and Twitter)?" Generally, yes. As I tweeted you earlier, some level of civility and decorum is required. Some people hide behind their usernames to spout all sorts of vitriol at other people. I find that cowardly. Some people just don't think before they tweet. I find that short-sighted. I think relationships can get in the way of honesty, just as lack of relationships (the fact that it's anonymous, it's "just Twitter" or "just a blog comment") can embolden people to say things they'd never say to a person's face or to someone they actually knew. But we all censor and edit ourselves, every day and in just about every context. Great discussion.
First... I think there's a difference between the "figurehead" of a movement and the "leader" of a movement. Someone who isn't thinking might confuse the two, but too many of us, I think, should/do know better.
Secondly, I gain nothing from censoring myself. I don't necessarily believe "society" knows what it's doing nine ties out of ten anyway, so appeasing society does nothing for my soul or my betterment. I mean, I can understand censorship, but in an endeavor that I pursue for my OWN enjoyment? Naw.
I'm usually more intrigued by people who censor themselves to keep "falling in line" with others for popularity's sake - hell, if it's popularity that you want, don't you know you gain that much faster by disagreeing? LOL
LOL @ Robert Littal blocking you. That guy is a major SIMP. If he blocked you he's doing you a favor. He probably couldn't handle you - a smart, beautiful Black woman who tells the truth (and probably knows more about sports than he does).
KJ
Sheesh, some of these comments are long winded. I'll be brief: freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. Sure, you can blog freely and unfettered by any censorship. No one is obligated to listen, and no one is obligated to shield you from the real, social and "cyberspacial" consequences of the things you say. If your freedom of speech is truly important to you (and I suspect it is), then you will view these consequences as the price of said freedom.