Letters to the editor

Oh my, Bolton's gang is at it again.
Understand I don't often agree with Zeph but his being banned  for untold reasons as well as not told that he was banned (thhis is the way Bolton's gang does it, no notice of being banned.  You are not told what you did that got you banned. In this Zeph is in good company.

When I say Zeph's posts being reported right and left, one after the other I knew Zeph was being set up and drummed out by Bolton's gang.

That's how petty Dictators always act.

Zeph is always welcome to post his views here. Tho I do note it sure did not take Zeph long to log right back in after getting booted.
Took me 3 days to get my "voice of common truth reporter" handle up and running.

Anyway because it's sure to be reported here for your entertainment is Zeph's post.

11. Comment by Kerrijo J. (kerrijo) — April 2,2008 @ 5:08AM

Ratings:   -16 +15

From Zephram.

Here is a copy of the email sent to John Bolton. I believe the issues are pertinant to all. If I receive a reply, I wil not have it posted, respecting Mr. Bolton's privacy. Perhaps he may address these issues in public on this forum.

From: "Zephram Cochrane"
Reply-To:
To: <bolton@azstarnet.com>
Cc: <bjbuel@azstarnet.com>
Subject: Reader comments, banning of posters
Date: Wed 04/02/08 05:01 AM

Mr. Bolton, et al:

On March 31, 2008, seven comments I posted were removed; these were all
the comments posted by me that day, save one. That makes for a total of
nine in the past two days. I fail to see how these comments were in
violation of the StarNet User Guidelines , at least, any more than so
many other posts that have remained on the pages. Euphemisms were used,
not obscenities. There was sarcasm. No ad hominum attacks were made;
nor were there any personal threats or degrading remarks, which often do
appear and are let stand. If what I have posted is not acceptable, then
neither is a large percentage of what is posted by others on a daily
basis.

You have banned me, Mr. Bolton. You have failed to notify me of this
fact; and, you have presented no just cause for your actions. Mr.
Bolton, I ask, would you find this acceptable if such actions were
directed towards yourself?

If I were litigious, there would be consideration of legal action
against Starnet on my part for infringement of my first amendment
rights. I believe I would have a pretty fair case; perhaps even a class
action with other former posters in similar circumstance. The comments
removed are not in violation of your policies; yet, this action has
occurred, without any notification, other than the robot e-mail of
'comment removed'. All the while, other offending comments are allowed,
remain, and persist through the reporting process. There is something
arbitrary going on , it would appear.

I feel that there is lack of consistency exhibited here. I believe there
is discrimination exhibited here. It seems to me there is a political
agenda. These items speak to character. Whether these factors are your
personal will, Mr. Bolton, or those for whom you work, or both, remains
uncertain. In any case, it is a sad state of affairs when a newspaper
does not have freedom of expression as its cause to protect. What is a
news organization other than the exchange of information and ideas? How
this is carried out is a reflection of the people who work and own such
an organization.

If in fact staff members "seek and convey the truth in all aspects of
their work" and "are to act with integrity and exercise fair play", then
I see a failure to do so here. What good is your Code of Ethics if it is
not adhered to? This does distill to ethics and morals, does it not?
There is a higher value system at play here, which many will fail to
recognize. There are truths which transcend the mundane stories and
bickering; truths involving social conscience and community. Some seek
only the status quo; and, diligently, act in concert with others to
protect the established norms. Those who work and wish for the
betterment of society and humanity, for real change, often make others
they interact with most uncomfortable, even fearful. I believe this to
be the case here, along with many other issues beyond the scope of
dialogue in this communiqué.

So allow racist remarks, sexist remarks, personal attacks, threats,
lies, religious slander, personal agendas, etc. to go on being posted
unabated. The methodology is somewhat successful in quelling new thought
and ideas. And, while accepted by and engaged in by most Americans, this
reflects poorly upon this paper, this web site, and the community to
which we all belong. Those who participate in this are, of course, free
to express themselves in such manner. All actions have consequence in
the world, personal and beyond self. We all co-create our world, along
with God. We are all accountable.

I can tell you that friends I have in other areas of the country view
this comment scenario and find much to scoff about in these postings.
Judgment? Perhaps. Justified? The words posted speak for themselves.
They also wonder how such an ineffective and limited quality newspaper
can exist in metropolitan area such as Tucson. They are both amused and
appalled by the writings they see, in the comments posted, editorial
topics, and the stories covered (or lack thereof).

So be it.

What I find most telling is the inability to properly moderate a
bulletin board such as yours; instead, using a haphazard reporting
method which allows for censorship and biased outcomes. Civil discourse,
while attempted by some, inevitably succumbs to rancor and polemic. I
wonder at your own biases. Some are evident. Others are to be surmised
indirectly. May your conscience be clear and your "Code of Ethics" buoy
you through your moments of doubt and shame.

ZC

=================================================================================

 

What did you think of this article?

Liked
Disliked
No Opinion