• Author: art rogers
• Published: Oct 13th, 2006
• Category: Blogging, General Christian
• Comments: 32

Who is responsible?

TAGS: None

32 Responses to “Who is responsible?”

1. 
   martyduren
   on Oct 13th, 2006
   @ 5:39 pm: 

   Art-
   The person who comments is responsible for their own words as originally stated. This is why, unless there is a good reason, it is better to use one’s own name rather than a screen name when posting. (In the baptist blogosphere, of course, we have M’s and some denom folks who have the need for anonymity.)

   I think the blog owner does bear an amount of culpability if/when he/she allows known error to stand unchallenged. At SBC Outpost I have allowed some pretty strong statements to stand (some with which I disagreed) because topics can be passionately defended. I have also allowed statements that were strong toward persons to stand if I personally had evidence to support what had been said was true or was otherwise convinced it was true.

   I would think that unless a blogger makes a living doing such, he/she are accountable to those with whom the blogger might be identified. For example, I have a disclaimer at SBC Outpost that indicates my views are my own. However, if the folks at my church came to me and said, “Pastor, we know you mean well, but this blog doesn’t represent us for who we are (or something) and we’d like for you to quit for as long as you are our pastor,” I’d quit. For any pastor, seminary prof (Reynolds would be accountable to the Dean of the Faculty, I’d imagine) or seminary Pres (Mohler to the trustees) there is an accountability. Whether those in authority chose to exercise it or not would be up to them, I’d think.

2. 
   GeneMBridges
   on Oct 13th, 2006
   @ 6:29 pm: 

   A few things can be stated.

   1. There is a difference between responsibility and blame. Responsibility is a necessary, but insufficient condition for blame. You, as owner, are responsible for everything on your blog, anonymous comments included. However, you are not to blame for them. Blame belongs solely to the proximate cause of the offending material, eg. the writer.

   2. Apropos 1, if a commenter leaves blatantly false information in a comment, you should challenge it. I’d recommend you learn the fine art of deconstruction. There is nothing wrong with moving their comment into a separate post and deconstructing it there for all to see.

   It works this way:
   Quote
   Reply
   Quote
   Reply
   Quote
   Reply
   Conclusion

   This is especially helpful if you have documentation. You can also point out the errors in argumentation these people display.

   3. Apropos 2, there are times when you should leave something up, even if it contains false information. Why?

   Let me cite an example. In a recent critique of an internet atheists new book, which contains his deconversion story, Steve Hays pointed out, verbatim, in context, the story of adultery this man gave as the reason for his apostasy. He blamed the woman and his “frigid” wife (whom he named explicitly), and he took no real blame for himself. Steve was, I believe, wise to say that this was the real reason for his apostasy, eg. his unrepentant love of his sin and inability to take moral blame for himself.

   In reply, we received a, how shall we say, profanity laden comment that blatantly violated the rules. We chose to leave the comment. Why?

   Well, up to a point, I think it is right to allow a commenter to break the rules if it serves your purpose.

   There’s a kind of damage that only an insider can do to his own case. An insider can make his own cause look bad in a way that an outsider cannot, precisely because an insider is the representative of and/or spokesman for his own position.

   When, for example, a commenter on a blog loses control and abusive simply because you quote and comment on something which he or somebody he admires volunteered to enter into the public record to justify his own position, his irrational and ill-tempered outburst ends up looking foolish and making his own position look foolish. Add false information to that, and this only increases the damage he has done.

   Only an insider can do that kind of self-inflicted injury to his own position. So it ends up serving your own purpose. He is self-condemned, as is those whom he wishes to defend, by his own words and by his own behavior.

3. 
   Kevin Bussey
   on Oct 13th, 2006
   @ 6:32 pm: 

   I agree with Marty. It is the person who wrote them. That is why I don’t allow Anonymous commets. I want someone to take responsibility for what they say.

   Of course I’m not responsible for people making fools of themselves! :)

4. 
   brad reynolds
   on Oct 13th, 2006
   @ 7:04 pm: 

   Marty

   I think the main misunderstanding regarding me, comes from a misunderstanding of academic freedom. Were my institution to curb my ideas, thoughts, writings, or speeches beyond the BFM2K, the Abstract, or our handbook they would be infringing on my academic freedom. We have professors who have written books and maintain websites which, I feel confident would not be representative of our faculty or seminary as a whole (some feel that churches should not have youth ministries and have written such). There are many diverse opinions here (hence the environment of academia). The assumption that our writings must be approved by the dean of faculty is naive of current case law.

   For those of us familiar with Higher Education and academic freedom we know that we don’t speak for the institution in our writings. Further, the administration certainly knows that.

   In the case of a President of an institution it is slightly different. The President while speaking as the PRESIDENT does represent an institution according to case law but when he speaks as a citizen (in other words he is not speaking as the President) he does not (as you can imagine case law gets confusing here).

   IMHO, there is more than just institutional differences in regarding pastors/churches and professors/seminaries as similar, there is the higher education difference which must submit to case law regarding academic freedom, and that law is clear.

   Having said all of that, I think it is important that we all remember, we do represent Christ and that, in my opinion, is more than sufficient.

   Surely, I hope both inside and out of the classroom I am a good ambassador for the seminary, I hope both inside and outside the sanctuary I am a good ambassador for my church, but most importantly I hope both on blogs and off I am a good ambassador for Christ (sadly, I feel I fail in many ways here – God is so merciful to me)

   Concerning blogs and responsibility…I think the main responsibility of the blog administrator is to be fair. Whether he decides to maintain a totally open forum or a moderated forum, he needs to be fair. I had a totally open forum, but some said some things last week that made me very uncomfortable as the moderator, therefore I have changed my blog to a moderated forum (the moderation being that no ad hominen statements are allowed). I was fair in my open forum, for all comments were allowed. I think I have been fair in my modified forum because those on both sides of the issues are complaining about what I remove.

   The responsibility of the comments rests with the commentator. I feel it would be fine if a blog moderator allowed a totally open forum but he should be ready for the vile which may appear (which I was not ready for). But the bottom line, IMHO, is that the blog administrator is fair, and is just as stringent on those who agree with him as those who don’t.

   One thing we can all agree on is that it is difficult to maintain a blog with a semblance of objectivity when one has multiple comments (one must be vigilant).

   BR

5. 
   SBC IS BAPTIST
   on Oct 13th, 2006
   @ 9:20 pm: 

   This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

6. 
   Dorcas Hawker
   on Oct 13th, 2006
   @ 10:05 pm: 

   Brad -

   Could we have the case law citations please. I would enjoy looking them up.

   Art –

   I think the commenters are responsible for what they post. However, wanting to keep my blog a safe and kind place for all, I am pretty strict on what I will allow to remain. Not that I have much problem as yet with anonymous bombers and flamers, but my rule is simple … my blog isn’t America, and your right of free speech will be heavily balanced with your right to remain silent.

   In other words, you have to be nice to me and my friends. This helps me maintain my little “thought corner” of Blog Town as one where reason, civility and virtue are the rule of the day.

7. 
   Alvin Reid alvinreid.com
   on Oct 13th, 2006
   @ 10:09 pm: 

   I have a blog.
   I am a professor.
   I attempt to live in such a way as not to bring shame to my Lord, my family, or my school.
   If I felt I put something on my blog that brought harm to the cause of Christ, to my testimony or that of my family, or of the seminary, I would repent, ask forgiveness, and stop blogging. Blogging is a privilege, not a right.
   I guess that is why my blog is not read too much, I am simply not controversial enough :-).
   And, that is why I loathe anonymous blogging (anonymous = cowardice, unless you are in a closed country).
   But on the other hand I spend more time on Facebook with my students than blogging, so what do I know? Maybe we need to offer an MDiv in blogging. No, let’s not.

8. 
   Alvin Reid alvinreid.com
   on Oct 13th, 2006
   @ 10:14 pm: 

   And to Marty, the Seer of the Blogosphere and my brother, I am trying to figure out why a denominational worker would not identify themself? Off subject perhaps, but why would anyone in the land of the free and the home of the brave blog anonymously? I am sure you can give me a great example, but I have been a home missionary, a state denom worker, and a prof at a Baptist college and now a seminary, and I cannot imagine a scenario where I would feel the need to be anonymous. Help me–I am from Alabama so I cannot be that smart lol.

9. 
   art rogers
   on Oct 13th, 2006
   @ 11:38 pm: 

   Brad,

   There are two things here. 1) Academic Freedom & 2) Libel and Slander. We weren’t discussing academic freedom, but you brought it into the conversation.

   1) First, it is not me, nor do I think it is Marty who is naive concerning this issue. (Was that an underhanded jab at Marty’s education? “Those of us familiar with Higher Education…” That should have been avoided, even if you didn’t mean it that way.) Academic Freedom does not apply to any and all statements, but scholarly ones. Thoughts and ideas are covered. We are talking about character assault. Your view on baptism, alcohol or any other scholarly pursuit of Biblical interpretation or historical observation is not the topic of conversation in the comment string and certainly not the subject of this post. Thus, it is a Red Herring, having no relevance until you obfuscate the issue (unintentionally, I’m sure) with a claim of protection (academic freedom covering the subject of the post and the conversation: libel) that no one has at any time for any reason. If you libel someone, that is governed by the conduct clause of your contract, not any vague notions about academic freedom. We all know that the conduct clause is not protective of the employee, either, but the institution. It certainly does tell you what you can and can not say and do in a great many areas.

   Let me also say this, concerning the law. SEBTS does not have tenure, so any faculty member may be dismissed whenever it is deemed prudent. North Carolina has a state law, commonly called the “Right to Hire” that states that employers have the right to employ and to terminate employment at will and without having to give cause to anyone at any time. There is NO legal basis for a claim to academic freedom if you were to have to defend yourself to SEBTS for any libelous statements for which you were responsible.

   2) I am certainly not accusing you of libel, but I have no problem saying that you have provided a home for some who have libeled others. If things have not changed, you still are providing a place for discussion and part of that discussion has crossed the line. At my last check, you had NOT removed it all, though you have removed some. I would argue that you are responsible for what people say in the forum you provide.

   If someone crosses the line and you delete it, then you have done your due diligence to ensure that you have not facilitated a libelous remark. (Gene, it is a bit different when that person is libeling YOU, but if they libel someone else, even if it makes them look bad and proves your point, you can’t leave it up.) If you leave it to stand, then you take responsibility for it. Period. You CAN delete it, but you choose not to. Now you co-own the words. It is like renting a billboard on the freeway and handing someone else the spray can of paint. To say that you would not be held responsible for what that person writes, especially if it is libelous and the person libeled asks you to remove it and you keep it up, is naive – and that is stating it mildly.

   Did you read Kelly Boggs’ FIRST PERSON: Before you blog that rumor… [link] article in Baptist Press today? The law concerning libel on a blog is not on your side. Someone is going to get sued over libel on a blog, and it is going to be soon. This is why I posted the questions about lawsuits among believers, but nobody has touched those. We are responsible for what is on our blog.

   That doesn’t mean that if you post something while I am asleep that I will worry about it. As soon as I am able, I delete anything libelous. The number that can attest to that is legion. At different times, I have asked both Marty Duren and CB Scott to deal with my comment sections. I never leave my comment sections unprotected. It is my responsibility and I delegate it when necessary.

   By the way, the argument that you are not responsible for what goes on in the forum you provide is a change of tune for you. When Paige Patterson argued this principle in censoring Dwight McKissic’s sermon from chapel, he recognized that he was responsible for what went out in the forum provided by the Seminary. While I disagree with what he did, at least he understands the underlying principle of responsibility. You supported that action, but now argue against the same act when it is you who have to take responsibility for the words of others. According to your argument now, Dr. Patterson had no right to pull the video.

   *side note – I agree with the principle that the Seminary is responsible, but not with the perception that the sermon was “dangerous to churches.” Hence, my objection is not to the principle, but to the application of it toward something that really does fall under the purview of academic freedom – a Seminary Chapel Sermon dealing with theological issues.

   Dorcas,

   You may say others are responsible, but practically, you take responsibility. I would add that the problems you don’t have are because you delete inappropriate comments. I have had outcroppings of inappropriate comments. When I delete them and refer to my “rules for comments” button, everything shapes up.

   Alvin,

   What you write personally is not really the problem. I haven’t seen you write anything of which anyone should be ashamed. When anyone hosts others’ inappropriate comments is a different story.

   Wayne,

   I am sorry, but you said two things in your post that may not be libelous, but are certainly ad hominem. I have to delete your comment. I know that you are frustrated with these two situations. Please repeat your thoughts without the personal assessments of these two men.

   Thanks,

   Art

10. 
    SBC IS BAPTIST
    on Oct 13th, 2006
    @ 11:38 pm: 

    Art,

    What a timely post on what we should do to manage our Blogs as an Administrator/Owner.
    There are Blogs that I’m aware of that are troublesome. They allow false accusation of Brothers and Pastors in Christ being seen in a Gay Bar to remain on their Blog. I reference these Bloggers on my Blog, for you all to be the Judge.

    When a Confessing Believer Condones Sinful Act’s such as Accusation Lying and Slandering on their Blog, to accomplish their agenda, I have a problem with that.

    Everyone should be responsible for their Blog and should be good Administers of their Blog. Failure to take responsible for ones acts shows a total Lack of Respect for their fellow Bloggers and Brothers or Sisters in Christ.

    The Proud and Prideful will not take suggestions as you can see in their comments as I have posted on my Blog at..

    http://sbc-is-baptist.blogspot.com/

    In His Name
    Wayne Smith

11. 
    art rogers
    on Oct 14th, 2006
    @ 12:04 am: 

    By the way, Brad…

    Didn’t you write this:

    wovGuys, I have a new rule – no attacking the person…PERIOD. That includes stating that you will pray for their “depraved” souls!Ben your comment has been removed…thank you.Wade,I appreciate your concern for my blog…but I will administrate my blog. Thank you though.JamesDo I believe God can use something that is not wholesome…you bet!!! Do I believe God would rather use something wholesome…you bet!!!God used the Canaanites to speak to Israel…that does not mean it was His will that the Canaanites be unholy. The issue for me is the assumption that God would not have saved her unless Wade asked for wine. I feel very confident God would have saved her anyway and the asking for wine had nothing to do with God saving her…in fact, had Wade not asked for wine she would have been saved and he would have maintained his abstinence from “strong drink.”Hope this helpsBR
    10/03/2006 5:04 PM

    The bold, of course, is my emphasis.

    It seems that in this statement alone you have claimed responsibility for what does and does not stay on your blog. To push the responsibility to others may be convenient, but doesn’t hold water.

    Since you brought up the law earlier, I will also say that I don’t think it would hold up in court, either.

12. 
    martyduren
    on Oct 14th, 2006
    @ 5:46 am: 

    Brad-
    Academic freedom?

    When your blog becomes a bastion of theological insight, let me know. Or, per your specific area, Christian Education about which there has never been a single post on your blog that I have read. Your academic freedom claim rings very hollow; your blog does little to advance the academy, Christian education or, for all your “no spin zone” mantras, truth in general.

    Also, I never said that your “writings must be approved by the dean of faculty,” what I said was a blogger might be accountable to those with whom he/she might be identified. Try not to mis-state those of us not familiar with Higher Education.

    Alvin-
    I don’t know why some denom folks are afraid to show their faces, but I routinely get that vibe from them; I’ve even received emails explicitly stating such. Even, believe this or not, when Dr. Draper was initiating the Younger Leader movement I heard it from denom folks that “We’re supportive of the conversation taking place, but we can’t be public with it.”

    Art-
    Brad hasn’t previously been the type to jab at me in other than making a point of argument, which I have done with him. I think likely that he is referring to his work environs (which are not mine.) Either way, no one can hurt my feelings about it; I’ve pleased the only One who matters.

13. 
    brad reynolds
    on Oct 14th, 2006
    @ 10:48 am: 

    Art

    Of course I was not “jabbing” at Marty, I don’t know his educational background, I was speaking of mine, which is a PHD in Education from the College of William and Mary. We studied case law regarding academic freedom, in part.

    Regarding your accusation of “libel” under naivety please feel free to try and show that in any Court (Technically the accusation of libel, could be considered libel but I don’t think one would win a case here). Perhaps Dorcas can help (via lexisnexis), but I don’t know of a single case where Courts have interfered with open or semi-open forums other than making sure they are fair (equal-Access Act). In other words they have not limited the openness of forums, except in cases of minors.

    I feel certain some things said of Dr. Patterson in the comment section on some blogs have been libelous, nevertheless I doubt he could win a Court case concerning those who said it and am even more doubtful he could win a case concerning those who administrate the blog (especially, if the administrator has been fair).

    Now, he may win a case if one were libelous in their post (not the comment section).

    I think we have to distinguish between one’s post and the comment section.

    The responsibility to remove statements depends on the openness of the forum! If we can’t agree on that then we just won’t find common ground!

    I think it is wrong to confuse one’s post (which one is responsible for) with comments left in one’s forum (which one is not responsible for). Now, one may assume responsibility to moderate comments, but such modifies the openness of the forum and brings in subjectivity.

    As for the openness of the forum itself, I believe that is between the administrator and God. I am uneasy telling others how open they should allow their forum…I think that is the Holy Spirit’s place.

    I think it is a dangerous road to assume blog administrators are responsible for the comments made in their comment section (other than the openness of the forum).

    If they are responsible, does that mean they agree with all the comments? Or believe all the comments are valid? Where does the responsibilty end? I, for one, am unneasy with the implications that come with assuming the blog administrator is responsible for (as Kevin said) “people making fools of themselves.”

    As per my statement about administrating my blog…I do and I try to be fair. I provided a totally open forum before and have now modified it. I have been fair in both. I know some have not been fair, and speaking of UnChristlike statements let me refer you to my past two posts.

    Concerning Christians taking other Christians to Court I think it is always unwise. However, how does one feel about taking Christian corporations to Court?

    Finally, academic freedom in higher education extends far beyond one’s field of expertise and tenure. The Courts in guarding the “free marketplace of ideas,” have extended academic freedom to speeches, writings, and ideas beyond the classroom topics, especially, in higher education.

    Marty,

    Thanks for the jab about truth:) However, in all honesty if you know of something that I have posted which is not true or has spin please let me know, I will correct it. I have purposed before my Father to do my best to seek only truth.

    Sorry I can’t stay and play…kindof busy today
    BR

14. 
    art rogers
    on Oct 14th, 2006
    @ 11:48 am: 

    Ok, Brad, I’ll be brief.

    By providing the forum, you have taken responsibility. Not moderating comments is a tacit endorsement of an “anything goes” statement that appears on your blog. If someone is libeled, and the libeled person asks you to remove it, after the person making the statement admits it was incorrect, and you refuse, you have endorsed it twice, if not three times.

    As to court, we disagree, which is fine. I am not the one on the dangerous side of the debate. Again, I point you to Kelley Boggs’ article to which I have linked in the comment above. No one yet has been successfully sued, but that is because the medium is so new. Case law is still being built. It is a matter of time and it will happen. Read the article. Saying or thinking that it will not is truly naive. Saying that the person writing these things is responsible and you have no culpability is just not true. You can say it all you want, but it isn’t true.

    But as you pointed out, the higher authority here is the Lord. I find it interesting that you feel it is appropriate to tell people how to express their personal holiness in how they dress and whether or not they drink in moderation or abstain completely (as per your comments at the Convergence), but you now have a problem with others addressing holiness in the administration of a blog’s comment section. Brad, there is no way God is glorified by some of the things that you still have posted on your blog and I have no problem telling you that. It certainly is an issue of personal holiness. Your previous stance, at the Convergence, was to err on the side on holiness and now you prefer to err on the side of freedom.

    By providing a place for such horrendous accusations to exist with your name at the top of the web page, you are responsible. Moreover, you are an extension of your family, church family, Seminary, Southern Baptists and, most importantly, the Lord. Academic Freedom does not cover slander or libel (authored by you – which I have not seen, or endorsed by you – which I claim is now happening), nor does it cover your other associations – particularly your association with the Lord.

    You are being extremely inconsistent, and certainly not fair. I agree that with you that we should be fair. I disagree with you that you are being fair.

    I also note that you did not address the issue of your endorsement of Paige Patterson’s censorship of Dwight McKissic, which is 180 degrees from what you are saying now. You are in conflict with yourself. You supported him when he said that the Seminary was responsible for what was said in the forum it provides. You supported the claim that the academic interpretations of Scripture were dangerous to churches. No Academic Freedom for Dwight McKissic. Now you claim no responsibility for the forum you provide and no responsibility for things that are actually dangerous to the reputation of your brothers in Christ. Again, inconsistent and unfair.

    I urge you to be consistent, fair and God honoring – delete the comments that are libelous – now or in the past.

    I want to be consistent, fair and God honoring as well. I offer this publicly: if you, or anyone else, can show me a statement on my blog that is libelous, I will post an open letter of apology, send a personal letter of apology and, of course, remove it.

    So much for being brief. Sorry.

15. 
    CB Scott
    on Oct 14th, 2006
    @ 12:01 pm: 

    Alvin,

    Did you say blogging is a privilege and not a right? In truth blogging is a privilege due to your right to do so in this country because your right was given you by those that fought for it before you.

    Before God all things afforded us are privileges given us due to the atonement of Jesus.

    Of which do you speak my learned friend? Just ragging on you while I take a break from teaching my new sons how to build shelves.:-)

    cb

16. 
    brad reynolds
    on Oct 14th, 2006
    @ 1:33 pm: 

    Art

    I’m back:) but am fixing to leave again…got more to do outside.

    My friend the blindness prevails here. I think you signed the Memphis Declaration, specifically article 5. Where was your voice of holiness and purity in blogging when Ben posted on Marty’s blog his horrid accusations against Dr. Patterson? Are you going to call on Marty and speak of his lack of “holiness” in this area, (until he removes that comment) or does it just apply to those whose blogs disagree with yours? How subjective will you be in accusing others about their blogs? Will you address Wade when he has a link to a blog whose comments section contains a statement that I am “a disciple of _____.” Will you address the woman whose blog it appears on? Will you even address the one who made that statement who has posted here? Where has your voice been my friend? What about when people say on Wade’s blog that I blog in order to keep my bosses happy? Or when people say on Tom Ascoll’s blog that I say things just to get a paycheck?

    Do you have a problem telling Wade or Ben or Marty or Tom that some of the things in their comment sections does not glorify God? Would you state that every comment in your comment sections has glorified God? Or does this only apply to those you disagree with? Is Wade responsible for one who says “inerrancy comes from the lips of the devil?” just because his name is at the top? Please tell me of your consistency here?

    My open forum stood until it got out of hand, and I have MODIFIED it. PERIOD. I do not apply my rules retroactively or subjectively. Everyone who has asked that their comment be removed has had their comment removed (if I have missed one please e-mail me and I will remove it). Furthermore, they repented when they asked for its removal. Surely, you’re not going to imply they should not be forgiven. Are you going to tell your blogging friends they should forgive them? There certainly is some inconsistency my friend, but please leave my splinter alone.

    I am not comfortable with responsibility for others comments. If you want to assume that responsibility, then so be it. But even you are subjective as to how far you will assume such. Do you assume the validity of all comments? Do you research every comment as to its validity? Does your responsibility imply a tacit agreement with ALL comments? (if so then you would seem duplicitous, since many comments in this strand are in opposition) As I asked before, which you have not answered, where does your responsibility end?

    I don’t feel the necessity to be sure every comment in my forum is “HOLY,” Nor do I believe if one’s comment is not holy that it is a reflection on my holiness. Perhaps you do, if so, I have many suggestions for you.

    I agree with Kevin, I am not responsible for other “people making fools of themselves.”

    Concerning Dr. Patterson and Chapel. If I invited someone to write a post on my blog then I would obviously assume more responsibility than I assume by providing an open-forum. Chapel is not an open forum. To equate it as such is (to use one of your words) naïve.

    As you know, and I state again, there is a difference in one’s post (which as I read Kelly’s article, it seems that was what he was referring to) and comments in a forum! State one case law (outside of rules for minors) where the Courts have held those who have forums responsible for the comments in the forums. In fact, I believe, unanimously, Courts have declared those who provide open forums are not responsible for the comments made in the open forums!

    My biggest struggle with blogs is their inconsistencies. Say what you will, but I have been consistent with those who agree and don’t agree with me.

    Bottom line we will disagree. Feel free to point out whatever type of hypocrisy you feel I practice. Feel free to warn me of the dangerous side I am on or my legal culpability…I appreciate your concern. Nevertheless, I have but one judge and He is the only one I need to give an account to and I assure you I take that very seriously and am grateful for His mercy, when I fail.

    Now, if your point is that I fail, then we shall agree. But that has more to do with my tainted humanity than with open rebellion. Although I must test all my thoughts and intents.

    Have a great day.
    BR

17. 
    Bowden McElroy
    on Oct 14th, 2006
    @ 3:12 pm: 

    The Christian is under a Scriptural mandate not to sue another Christian.
    I have always interpreted this to mean do not bring suit in a civil court against another believer. Some, like your professor, are able to twist the meaning in ways that allow for law suits. Missouri baptists appear to believe it is acceptable to sue organization/institutions, just not individuals. The aruguments justifying Christians suing Christians have always reminded me of the debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin: a whole lot of intellectual energy going into meaningless discussions. Whenever I hear people justifying lawsuits, I think of 1Tim. 4:7 (They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.)

18. 
    art rogers
    on Oct 14th, 2006
    @ 3:53 pm: 

    Brad,

    Paragraph by paragraph, and sometimes sentence by sentence, so there is no misunderstanding, nor any accusation of me ducking any issues (not that you have, but this is getting complex and I want to be precise).

    My friend the blindness prevails here. I think you signed the Memphis Declaration, specifically article 5. Where was your voice of holiness and purity in blogging when Ben posted on Marty’s blog his horrid accusations against Dr. Patterson? Are you going to call on Marty and speak of his lack of “holiness” in this area, (until he removes that comment) or does it just apply to those whose blogs disagree with yours? How subjective will you be in accusing others about their blogs? Will you address Wade when he has a link to a blog whose comments section contains a statement that I am “disciple of _____.” Will you address the woman whose blog it appears on? Will you even address the one who made that statement who has posted here? Where has your voice been my friend? What about when people say on Wade’s blog that I blog in order to keep my bosses happy? Or when people say on Tom Ascoll’s blog that I say things just to get a paycheck?

    To call me subjective on this is the truly blind statement here. I remove many comments that agree with my position and some that don’t. That is not fair, nor is it accurate.

    Did I mention you or your blog? No. The topic of your blog was raised IN PASSING by Marty Duren and you commented about it in detail. You are the one that made your blog the subject of the discussion on my blog. I did not go to your blog and say you should or should not do anything as I have not done with others. However, I will clarify, here on my blog, the things you now raise that have happened in other places.

    Not only did I sign MD, I helped to author it. Not much. A phrase or two and some general thoughts about direction and tact. It was hammered hard by all in the room. I take it very seriously. I have spoken directly to Ben, and I have publicly stated, to him and others, that they need to evidence the things that they say about Paige. I have seen some evidence and hear of much more. I say that should come out. Don’t you agree? Moreover, everyone knows who Ben is and he claimed the words for himself. It is a bit different when comments are anonymous or pseudo anonymous (a name but no location or profile).

    Let me throw this thought in: Some might speculate that you were posting as anonymous posters on your own blog in an effort to avoid having to own your own words on your own blog. If that were true, and I am sure it isn’t, how would it be ethical? The possibility of that happening makes the specter of your responsibility loom larger.

    As to where my voice was, I was without the internet as I transitioned from KY to OK. I have just had it installed in my house. My blogging had been severely limited, which is to say that I wrote very little and read almost nothing in the blogosphere.

    Nevertheless, I will openly say that you are not a “disciple of ________,” and moreover, anyone who wrote it should remove it. It is a horrific thing to say and brings shame on us all. If it is anonymous, (I haven’t read the comment, but only one other reference to it) then the owner of the blog is responsible for it. For that matter, it is over the line and should be deleted anyway.

    I find it a stretch to hold Wade accountable for a tertiary comment not made on his own blog. Still, Wade, when you read this, I urge you to disclaim that statement if you have not already – just for the sake of clarity and holiness.

    As for blogging to keep your bosses happy, I am more than confident that such is false. I am also sure that your paycheck is not tied to your blogging. Let me say this clearly, I perceive that you are acting all on your own – as am I. That simply means that neither you nor I are taking our cues from others. People who say such things are wrong and they should not be said. You will not find anything like that on my blog. If you do, let me know. I will delete it immediately. I doubt, though, that you could find anything like that as I don’t let such things stand around here. Never have. To my friends, I call on you, as I did Brad, to remove any ad hominem attacks on anyone, especially Brad.

    Do you have a problem telling Wade or Ben or Marty or Tom that some of the things in their comment sections does not glorify God? No, I don’t. Would you state that every comment in your comment sections has glorified God? I intend for them to glorify God in honesty and forthrightness. Gentleness is also a goal, though the truth often does not seem gentle. This is a long running thing for me. Check the rules for comments and the archives for my diligence in this – FROM THE BEGINNING. Or does this only apply to those you disagree with? Obviously not. Is Wade responsible for one who says “inerrancy comes from the lips of the devil?” just because his name is at the top? Please tell me of your consistency here? Did Wade challenge the statement? If he lets it stand, then yes. Is that consistent?

    My open forum stood until it got out of hand, and I have MODIFIED it. PERIOD. I do not apply my rules retroactively or subjectively. Everyone who has asked that their comment be removed has had their comment removed (if I have missed one please e-mail me and I will remove it). Furthermore, they repented when they asked for its removal. Surely, you’re not going to imply they should not be forgiven. Are you going to tell your blogging friends they should forgive them? There certainly is some inconsistency my friend, but please leave my splinter alone.

    Your open forum was out of hand before you instituted the rules. I do not apply my rules subjectively, either. In fact, and ask Wes Kenney about this, I am more stringent on those with whom I agree than I am on others. You don’t have a leg to stand on when you call me subjective. It is not accurate and belies an ignorance of my stance on this issue since I began. As for retroactivity, that just sounds like an excuse to me. If these things are out of bounds, they are out of bounds. If you take responsibility for new comments, then you take responsibility for all comments. The truth is that some of the old comments on your blog have yet to be read, but will be. The internet makes them ever accessible. You could stop such things from being read anew, falsehoods from being furthered, but you choose not to do so. That implies personal responsibility on your part. Nothing less.

    As to forgiveness and repentance… Perhaps you define repentance differently, but if someone says they were “mistaken,” that is not repentant. As to forgiveness, on should not have to be asked to forgive. Forgiveness and opening oneself to abuse are not the same.

    I am not comfortable with responsibility for others comments. If you want to assume that responsibility, then so be it. But even you are subjective as to how far you will assume such. Do you assume the validity of all comments? Do you research every comment as to its validity? Does your responsibility imply a tacit agreement with ALL comments? (if so then you would seem duplicitous, since many comments in this strand are in opposition) As I asked before, which you have not answered, where does your responsibility end?

    My point is that we are all responsible to some degree. I never said that we must agree with all comments, but that if comments are inappropriate then we are responsible. Where did you get the idea that I implied agreement with comments? It would not be duplicitous, though. That would be saying different things to different people. If someone agreed with all comments it would be schizophrenic. It is also not a forum. This is a vast digression.

    I don’t feel the necessity to be sure every comment in my forum is “HOLY,” Nor do I believe if one’s comment is not holy that it is a reflection on my holiness. Perhaps you do, if so, I have many suggestions for you.

    I never said every comment must be “HOLY.” Where did I say that? This is a straw man, Brad. What I did say is that obviously unholy comments do reflect on us. I assume that you are just joking about the suggestions, since you have already stated that you don’t feel it appropriate to tell others how to run their blogs.

    I agree with Kevin, I am not responsible for other “people making fools of themselves.”

    Sure. I agree with Kevin, too. That’s not the same thing as people libeling others.

    Concerning Dr. Patterson and Chapel. If I invited someone to write a post on my blog then I would obviously assume more responsibility than I assume by providing an open-forum. Chapel is not an open forum. To equate it as such is (to use one of your words) naive.

    I never said chapel was an open forum. That would be naive. This is another straw man. I was referring to the principle underpinning Dr. Patterson’s action and your support of it. Rather, I said that chapel is a place where Academic Freedom would be appropriately applied. I am assuming that you are not intentionally misrepresenting what I said.

    Naive is your word and I have repeated it in response to your first use of it – when you responded to Marty and talking about case law. You brought that word to this discussion.

    As you know, and I state again, there is a difference in one’s post (which as I read Kelly’s article, it seems that was what he was referring to) and comments in a forum! State one case law (outside of rules for minors) where the Courts have held those who have forums responsible for the comments in the forums. In fact, I believe, unanimously, Courts have declared those who provide open forums are not responsible for the comments made in the open forums!

    I have already addressed it, but will again. Case law is being built and I think it is a matter of time. Could you, though, cite a few of the cases where “Courts have declared those who provide open forums are not responsible for the comments made in the open forums?” Just a few. Your claim seems to indicate that this is a prolific thing, so it shouldn’t be hard. If this statement is off the top of your head, then say so. I will be coming back to this until you evidence it.

    My biggest struggle with blogs is their inconsistencies. Say what you will, but I have been consistent with those who agree and don’t agree with me.

    *sigh* Would those who are discussed as a third party on your blog think you are fair? Obviously, Wayne doesn’t. Convince him and you will convince me.

    Bottom line we will disagree. Feel free to point out whatever type of hypocrisy you feel I practice. Feel free to warn me of the dangerous side I am on or my legal culpability-I appreciate your concern. Nevertheless, I have but one judge and He is the only one I need to give an account to and I assure you I take that very seriously and am grateful for His mercy, when I fail.

    I am not your judge, but I am your brother. I am part of the body and what we all do affects me and what I do affects everyone else. I have never called you a hypocrite. I do not think you are in danger of being sued, because I don’t think anyone involved wants to sue a fellow Christian. That does not mean we are not responsible for accuracy. Remember, I didn’t post about your blog. I have been posting on these issues all week. I didn’t even know about certain comments until Thursday, after I had posted twice already on these issues. This post never brought your blog up. I have never brought your blog up, but Marty mentioned you in passing and then you brought your blog up in more detail and made it the topic of this discussion.

    Now, if your point is that I fail, then we shall agree. But that has more to do with my tainted humanity than with open rebellion. Although I must test all my thoughts and intents.

    My point is that we all need to behave like men of God and that includes what we provide an opportunity for others to say. This is not new for me. Again, read my archives. Click on the “rules for comments” button and check when I wrote them. Ask around and see if I have ever allowed that kind of stuff here.

    I am going to perform a wedding, so I will not be back for a while. If you respond, please don’t take silence on my part the wrong way. I will be away from my computer for the rest of the day, probably, and all of tomorrow as we have our Association’s Annual meeting after morning services.

19. 
    brad reynolds
    on Oct 14th, 2006
    @ 5:18 pm: 

    Art

    The point I was making is that there are still comments on Wade’s site, Marty’s Site, Tom Ascoll’s site and numerous others that might be considered by some to be libelous and are certainly not God-honoring (both of which you accused me of – I certainly did not bring that up). I do not assume that Marty or Wade or Tom is responsible for those comments. However, if you feel I am responsible then you obviously feel they must be responsible. The consistency I am asking for, is for you to confront them here to the extent you have confronted me.

    I appreciate your encouragement to them to remove all ad hominem statements (retroactively) but until they do, then you should be just as persistent with them as you are me.

    My question about where our responsibility ends remained unanswered. It is easy to say we are responsible at times but we are not responsible at other times. But what does that mean? Either we are or we are not.

    Thus to say we are responsible for libelous statements made by others but not for statements that do not bring glory to God, made by others, seems convenient to say the least. If however you say we are responsible to make sure all comments glorify God then I have some recommendations for some of the comments here:)

    Concerning forgiveness, the ones who made the comments did not just say they made a mistake they asked for Wade’s forgiveness. Feel free to read back through the comments!

    To imply I should apply rules retroactively ignores the openness of a forum! I don’t feel comfortable being less than forthright about my rules (i.e. – “you can post a comment but if I decide to change my rules in the future I will remove the comment you posted in good faith, even though you were abiding by my current rules”).

    You can infer all the responsibility you think I have but just be sure to infer it to your friends also!

    Art
    Concerning Case Law, Perhaps Dorcas can help us here, but I believe an open public forum is protected under the freedom of speech and the goovernment is not responsible for what is said there.

    However, I think our blogs would fall under nonpublic forums, in such a case the Court has stated, “We have further held, however, that access to a nonpublic forum may be restricted by government regulation as long as the regulation “is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because officials oppose the speaker’s view.” AIRPORT COMM’RS v. JEWS FOR JESUS, INC., 482 U.S. 569 (1987)

    I do not have my law book here with me, it is at school. But with the above in mind I think we can surmise that the Courts are reluctant to intervene in forums (especially nonpublic ones).

    Perhaps the liability of the providers of the forum has never made it to the Courts because they have always thrown it out. To state that the providers of the forum are liable for what is said in the forum would imply that the government could be sued for libelous statements made in public forums (libraries, etc). I am guessing here…but I do not know of anywhere at anytime when one who operates a forum was responsible for what someone else said in that forum. If you know of case law here, please cite it…I think we would all be interested.

    Have a blessed day and a great wedding.
    BR

20. 
    SBC IS BAPTIST
    on Oct 14th, 2006
    @ 6:38 pm: 

    Brad,
    I was going to copy and paste some comments that appear on Your Blog, but I have aready done all of that and posted them on one of my Blogs and highlighted the ones that maybe you overlook on your Blog. My suggestion as a Brother in Christ would be for you to read all of the comments on your posts and see where they Glorify God. The easy way would be to read my Blog as they are highlighted at

    http://sbc-is-baptist.blogspot.com/

    As for the comment On Debbie’s Blog that I posted of Discipales of ______________, I was not talking about Satan as some thought. I have made that statement many times before and I might have said SBC Leaders orDr. Paige Patterson. I’m a food for thought kind of person and thought every one would be able to figure that ________ out.

    I love you and forgive you for allowing anonymous commenters to accruse me and others of. Were you not with Ben and Wade at a local bar in Oak Lawn a few months back? I thought I saw you recently at Cole Park also.”Mr. Trammel, I will remove my Blog if you and your Friend Mr. Green will remove all the grabage from your Blogs and try to monitor what is posted as comment. I have Great Grand Children reading the Blogs and That’s where I’m coming From. What say ye Brother Brad.

    In His Name
    Wayne Smith

21. 
    Dorcas Hawker
    on Oct 14th, 2006
    @ 7:10 pm: 

    Sigh – why do I always have to do all the work? This article is out of Wisconsin, but interesting.

    Note the part that says a popular blogger could be a public figure and fall under the more strict definition for proof of defamation – have to show actual malice instead of negligence. And remember truth is always a defense to a claim of defamation.

    I think it is a stretch to apply the government law mentioned in the article to bloggers. It was designed to protect ISP providers (AOL, Prodigy) etc. from being responsible for everything their users posted on the internet. This is the big business picture. I really doubt courts would use this as a way for a single blogger to claim … hey, I was just providing a blog service, and they were third-party commenters.

    The author of the article suggests there might be some blogger protection from that law, but I think it a stretch.

    Best bet … don’t call people names, post anonymously, etc. etc.

    Oh, and Art, you said to Brad: “Let me say this clearly, I perceive that you are acting all on your own – as am I.” Art, I am disappointed in you … I have stopped payment on your paycheck for this month. Also, I will be sending a team to collect your keycard and secret code handbook.

22. 
    art rogers
    on Oct 14th, 2006
    @ 9:28 pm: 

    Again, point by point, Brad, for precision. I thank you for your patience in this.

    The point I was making is that there are still comments on Wade’s site, Marty’s Site, Tom Ascoll’s site and numerous others that might be considered by some to be libelous and are certainly not God-honoring (both of which you accused me of – I certainly did not bring that up). I do not assume that Marty or Wade or Tom is responsible for those comments. However, if you feel I am responsible then you obviously feel they must be responsible. The consistency I am asking for, is for you to confront them here to the extent you have confronted me.

    I appreciate your encouragement to them to remove all ad hominem statements (retroactively) but until they do, then you should be just as persistent with them as you are me.

    For me to treat those guys the way I have treated you would require them to come on my blog and start discussing the comments on their blogs with me. Specifically, they would have to defend their blogs as appropriate and I would have to actually disagree. Also, at this point you are speaking of generalities to me that I could not concede as if they were specifics. Your vague claim that they exist is not sufficient. In other words, it seems that you are trying to force me to chide others because you say so.

    Marty has discussed his blog and has defined very well his responsibility. As for Wade and Tom, I honestly don’t know the comments of which you speak. As I said, I have been out of the blogosphere for a while. Until yesterday, I had not read your blog in well over a month. I personally don’t know of anything on anyone’s blog that is as outrageous as the Cole Park and Gay Bar comments that Wayne has referenced. If I did, I would call them personally and encourage them to remove them.

    I will make a blanket statement that ad hominem comments, especially those that vilify people are inappropriate. They won’t happen here, and I have been diligent about that. If I see them elsewhere, I will argue for their removal.

    My question about where our responsibility ends remained unanswered. It is easy to say we are responsible at times but we are not responsible at other times. But what does that mean? Either we are or we are not.

    Why? Why are we totally responsible or totally not responsible? Also, it is not easy to define responsibility. It would be easy to define it so it suits me. That is what it seems you have done. That is not what I have done. Did you read my rules for comments. Posted with a big red button on the top left of my page. I have defined it and I did so a long time ago.

    I contend that we are responsible to a degree. My rules for comments illustrate this from way back (blogosphere-wise). If you are anonymous, you have to be very careful not to make statements that are unsubstantiated or that vilify others. If you own your comments with your real identity, then you may post personal observations, acts that you have witnessed yourself and other acts that you can document.

    Thus to say we are responsible for libelous statements made by others but not for statements that do not bring glory to God, made by others, seems convenient to say the least. If however you say we are responsible to make sure all comments glorify God then I have some recommendations for some of the comments here:)

    Where did I say that I was not responsible if statements did not glorify God but only for those that are libelous? Again, you misrepresent me. I am becoming convinced that you are doing it on purpose. I am sure you aren’t ignorant.

    As for suggestions, what can I say? I said before that I thought you were joking. How can you seriously offer to edit my blog when you won’t edit your own? Tend your place first.

    Concerning forgiveness, the ones who made the comments did not just say they made a mistake they asked for Wade’s forgiveness. Feel free to read back through the comments!

    I never said they didn’t ask for forgiveness. I said forgiveness should be given without even having to be asked. How can you misunderstand that? I now have to ask: Are you intentionally misrepresenting me? Besides, “admitting a mistake” and asking forgiveness is not repenting. I know you know what Biblical repentance is. Surely you are not arguing that “admitting a mistake” is that! Perhaps you should reread the comments.

    To imply I should apply rules retroactively ignores the openness of a forum! I don’t feel comfortable being less than forthright about my rules (i.e. – “you can post a comment but if I decide to change my rules in the future I will remove the comment you posted in good faith, even though you were abiding by my current rules”).

    How can you apply “good faith” to a comment that vilifies another person on a blog? Of all the things you have said, this makes the least sense. It is not less than forthright, it is making right what was wrong from the beginning. Seriously, Brad. Good faith?

    You can infer all the responsibility you think I have but just be sure to infer it to your friends also!

    Asked and answered.

    Concerning Case Law, Perhaps Dorcas can help us here, but I believe an open public forum is protected under the freedom of speech and the goovernment is not responsible for what is said there.

    However, I think our blogs would fall under nonpublic forums, in such a case the Court has stated, “We have further held, however, that access to a nonpublic forum may be restricted by government regulation as long as the regulation “is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because officials oppose the speaker’s view.” AIRPORT COMM’RS v. JEWS FOR JESUS, INC., 482 U.S. 569 (1987)

    I do not have my law book here with me, it is at school. But with the above in mind I think we can surmise that the Courts are reluctant to intervene in forums (especially nonpublic ones).

    Interesting. I can only say that I read that ruling exactly the opposite way. “Access…may be restricted…as long as the regulation is ‘reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because officials oppose the speaker’s view.’”

    Perhaps the liability of the providers of the forum has never made it to the Courts because they have always thrown it out. To state that the providers of the forum are liable for what is said in the forum would imply that the government could be sued for libelous statements made in public forums (libraries, etc). I am guessing here…but I do not know of anywhere at anytime when one who operates a forum was responsible for what someone else said in that forum. If you know of case law here, please cite it…I think we would all be interested.

    For the third time, I know of no such case law as it is still “up in the air,” as per Dorcas’ link to the article. I have never claimed there was a case law. I speculated that case law would one day be coming. Are you actually reading my comments? If you are, then you are misrepresenting me badly. I would like to think that you wouldn’t do that intentionally.

    You, however, have claimed case law to support your argument. Thus far, it is undocumented. Dorcas’ told me that your quote did not apply and the linked column she offered says that it is not decided, which is in conflict with your claim that it is. If you care to further your argument, feel free to document. The onus is on you to do so, and has never been on me, as I have not claimed case law as you have on multiple occasions.

    However, I said before that this is not really about legal liability, but moral responsibility. We have a moral responsibility to be better than we are. As a servant of Christ, I will not let you assault another person on my blog. None of us should. It does reflect on us and our families, churches, denominational institutions, the SBC itself and, most importantly, Our Lord.

23. 
    SBC IS BAPTIST
    on Oct 14th, 2006
    @ 11:25 pm: 

    Art,
    I posted this on Dr. Brad Reynolds and Wade Burleson’s Blog.

    THE HEART OF A NEIGHBOR

    Scripture Reading: Luke 10:25-37

    “Which of these . . . do you think was a neighbor . . . ?” . . . “The one who had mercy on him.” Luke 10:36-37

    The man who spoke up to test Jesus was an expert in religious law, but he didn’t truly understand that love is at the heart of the law. In his head the expert knew the summary of the law to love God with your whole being and love your neighbor as yourself. But his actions didn’t show what he knew.

    “Keep the law, and you will live,” Jesus said, in effect. This unsettled the man, so he gave a typical legalistic response: “And who is my neighbor?”

    In reply Jesus told the parable of the good Samaritan, in which three travelers find a man who has been robbed, beaten, and left for dead by the roadside. The first two were religious leaders. They saw the half-dead man but crossed to the other side and continued on their way. The third man was a Samaritan, whom most Jews in those days would have despised. He stopped, bandaged the wounded man, put him on his own donkey, and took care of him.

    “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor?” asked Jesus. The lawyer replied: “The one who had mercy on him.”

    The point is this: rather than asking “Who is my neighbor?” we need to ask, “Am I a neighbor to people around me who need help?” When we act like a neighbor to others, they become our neighbors.

    Prayer
    Lord, every day I pass by opportunities to lift someone else’s load. Create in me a true heart-of-a-neighbor so that I may become a blessing to others. In your name, Amen.
    In His Name
    Wayne Smith

    Today is a ministry of The Back to God Hour
    http://www.BacktoGod.net/
    email: btgh@crcna.org
    800.879.6555;

24. 
    Bob Cleveland
    on Oct 15th, 2006
    @ 5:37 am: 

    This is a little like asking which wing is responsible for keeping the airplane in the air. They both are.

    If you comment, you’re responsible. On the other hand, if you start the blog and maintain the blog, how can you say you’re not responsible? As long as the blog owner/administrator can set the rules, he’s responsible for what’s on it.

    We’ve got enough folks trying to escape responsibility in the world for a bunch of Christian bloggers to go pointing fingers.

    So what if it’s 5 a.m. and I’m cranky. It’s what I think, anyway.

25. 
    Alvin Reid alvinreid.com
    on Oct 15th, 2006
    @ 9:00 am: 

    CB:
    First, please have your sons build me some shelves. Mine tend to be crooked. Must be somehow related to my nature :-).
    I think the fact that I can breathe and communicate is a privilege. And a responsibility. So blogging is both a privilege and a responsibility, which is (I think) Art’s point. Anyway I am late to SS so……

26. 
    brad reynolds
    on Oct 15th, 2006
    @ 2:38 pm: 

    Art

    I will assume you are not misrepresenting what I say, rather I shall assume the problem lies in the medium, rather than the persons.

    You say, “For me to treat those guys the way I have treated you would require them to come on my blog and start discussing the comments on their blogs with me. Specifically, they would have to defend their blogs as appropriate and I would have to actually disagree. Also, at this point you are speaking of generalities to me that I could not concede as if they were specifics. Your vague claim that they exist is not sufficient. In other words, it seems that you are trying to force me to chide others because you say so.”

    You further state, “but I have no problem saying that you have provided a home for some who have libeled others. If things have not changed, you still are providing a place for discussion and part of that discussion has crossed the line.”

    All I am asking is for due diligence on the other blogs that you have graciously given me. Ad hominem comments on Wade’s and Tom’s blogs go far back (long before you were off the blog).

    Your accusation of vague reference and plea to ignorance here, leads me to assume you have rarely read the blogs mentioned in the last 6 months, or else there is subjective bias, which proves my point. Certainly I could quote comment after comment but I think you are aware of some at least (since you read my blog and I quoted them there – I shall assume you read more than the comment section on my blog for that would beg many questions). Failure to see this is revealing. (furthermore, accurately quoting what others say may not be Glorifying to God – which as I understand it, is your standard here for commentators).

    Now if you will state personally to Marty, Wade and Tom that you believe they should REMOVE RETROACIVELY all ad hominem comments made by anyone in their comment sections and any comment that might not honor God on their blogs then no duplicity will exist. But until you make that statement PERSONALLY to Wade, Marty, and Tom, your righteous indignation of comments on my blog rings hollow.

    You also stated: “If you leave it to stand, then you take responsibility for it. Period. You CAN delete it, but you choose not to. Now you co-own the words.”

    If that is true for libelous words then it is true for all words. And if it is true for all words then it is your responsibility (according to such rationale) to make sure every comment glorifies God (that is, if you are responsible for all comments and further think one should glorify God). Now the reason I would offer my help here, is because I do not claim that every comment made by every commentator on my blog glorifies God nor do I claim a responsibility to make sure they do (sadly, my humanity causes me to realize I am constantly battling with my own wickedness in this area).

    Such a claim is honorable and yet I would never desire such a prerogative over what others would say (because of the motives and thoughts which lie behind the comments that I am not privy to). Further, I am not sure it is attainable (I think this very comment section calls that into question).

    The comments you referenced were removed. To bring them up with a statement like, “I personally don’t know of anything on anyone’s blog that is as outrageous as the Cole Park and Gay Bar comments that Wayne has referenced,” begs questions about forgiveness. It’s like saying to your spouse “I forgive you, but I will not forget.”

    You say,
    “Besides, “admitting a mistake” and asking forgiveness is not repenting.”

    Surely, you are not implying that when they asked for forgiveness they were not repenting. Especially when one claimed the Holy Spirit was at work.

    You say,
    “How can you apply “good faith” to a comment that vilifies another person on a blog?”

    Please read my comment, the “good faith’ was not in reference to how God-honoring their comment was, but to me keeping my word, per my rules. In other words, they are responsible for their words and I am responsible to keep mine. I like to keep my word.

    Concerning Case Law, actually the onus is on you. I stated case law supports the fact that no one who has provided a forum has ever been held accountable for what is said by others in the forum (long before blogs ever crept up). If you show me a case where they have, then I am wrong, but you haven’t.

    As you know, the highest law in the land is Constitutional Law, followed by statutory and case law. The SC has been vigilant in protecting Freedom of Speech. Furthermore, until something is made illegal it is legal. As to why I believe no one has ever been held accountable I said “To state that the providers of the forum are liable for what is said in the forum would imply that the government could be sued for libelous statements made in public forums (libraries, etc).”

    Bottom line, I honestly and truly admire your desire to make sure every comment on your blog glorifies God. However, I think from my perspective, such a standard is absent in application. I do not feel responsible for others comments, if you do, May the Lord Guide you and Bless you.

    Honestly, Art, I have no desire to spar with you on this any further, nor do I think we will reach a conclusion here. Feel free to have the last word, you deserve it, it is your blog. As I said earlier I feel the biggest problem has more to do with unequal application of “rules” than with what the rules are…thus I was hoping to help you see that you are asking something of me that you have not asked of your friends and is not practiced by them…but if you fail to see that, then I will assume it is a result of my subjective bias and tarnished humanity and not yours.
    God Bless You
    BR

27. 
    art rogers
    on Oct 15th, 2006
    @ 4:05 pm: 

    Brad,

    I am at the Tulsa Metro Association Annual Meeting. I am posting this from my Treo.

    I am afraid that I will have to wait to answer you. I pray everyone have a blessed Lord’s Day.

    I will say that we had a lady come forward, receive Christ and join the church today. It was very inspiriational. Full story later.

28. 
    SBC IS BAPTIST
    on Oct 15th, 2006
    @ 4:20 pm: 

    Brad and Art ,
    As Posted here and On Brad;s Blog.
    I find it funny Brad that you can say these people repented and promised to open Blogs using their real Names and ask for forgiveness as is stated on your Blog. Various people tried to show you that you needed to Manage your Blog, not just Wade. You failed to Honor those requests that came from What I would call a True Brother in Christ. Yet you failed to take advice from a Brother in Christ.
    These same people you defended as repenting, turn right around and start posting their (Accusations or What ever your want to Call it) on your Blog without signing up for a Blog of their own. Accusing Wade of not allowing ctheir comments on his Blog. These were outright Lies and you went along with this, Why? Brad I advised you to read your own Blog. I don’t think you took that advice or you overlooked my comment above. I will post this on Brad’s Blog as well as here on your Blog Art. I know Brad will at least in his e-mail

    In His Name

    Wayne Smith

29. 
    brad reynolds
    on Oct 15th, 2006
    @ 4:58 pm: 

    Wayne

    I have shown where Wade did not post two of my comments months ago. I cannot speak to whether he posted theirs or not. But I did say “I don’t think he allows anonymous comments” and this would explain why they may have tried but did not get it posted. You may be right, they may be lying, for all I know. But without evidence, I am not comfortable calling them liars. Further, I did not defend them as repenting, I said we should trust their word and if they ask for forgiveness and the removal of their comments we should give it. I am not comfortable judging their motives.

    Art,

    Praise God for the lady who came forward. I will pray for her tonight. Your news puts all of this “blogging” into its proper perspective.

    Blessings my brother.
    BR

30. 
    SBC IS BAPTIST
    on Oct 15th, 2006
    @ 10:56 pm: 

    Brad and Art,
    I also posted this on Brad’s Blog.

    The reason these people that say their comment were rejected and I said they were lying is as follows

    Wade stopped excepting anonymous comments on Aug 3, 2006 and you can go there and verify this. When you look at who a comment is from you can tell if they are True, Maybes, or Don’t Knows. The True ones have a Blog and e-mail. The Maybes have a Blog, but hide behind a false or real name and no e-mail. The Don’t Knows post as Anonymous and hide every thing. Also you can tell by Color of their Name. Blue are True Blue, The Non-Blue are really Hiding. In the Garden of Eden weren’t Adam and Eve hiding from the Lord God. WHY?
    Now when someone say they tried to post a comment on Brother Wade’s Blog and say it rejected and one believes that it maybe true what they say, I say Horse Hockey!!! This is what it says for comment to be posted on all Blogs that say no anonymous comments

    This blog does not allow anonymous comments.
    Choose an identity
    Blogger

    wade burleson said
    Michael,

    Yes, you do have to be a blogger.

    Though it is not difficult to hide one’s identity as a blogger, I got tired of people pretending they were someone they weren’t and posting a comment as “anonymous.”

    So . . .

    If someone wants to comment sign up for a blog.
    Thursday, August 03, 2006

    In His Name

    Wayne Smith

31. 
    art rogers
    on Oct 16th, 2006
    @ 6:25 pm: 

    Brad,

    Sorry for the delay. I was gone until late last night and swamped all day today.

    One last time, point by point.

    I will assume you are not misrepresenting what I say, rather I shall assume the problem lies in the medium, rather than the persons.

    As I have been simply responding to your posts for a while now, I don’t understand how I could be misrepresenting you.

    You say, “For me to treat those guys the way I have treated you would require them to come on my blog and start discussing the comments on their blogs with me. Specifically, they would have to defend their blogs as appropriate and I would have to actually disagree. Also, at this point you are speaking of generalities to me that I could not concede as if they were specifics. Your vague claim that they exist is not sufficient. In other words, it seems that you are trying to force me to chide others because you say so.”

    You further state, “but I have no problem saying that you have provided a home for some who have libeled others. If things have not changed, you still are providing a place for discussion and part of that discussion has crossed the line.”

    (I did say both of those things, but the way you splice them together takes them out of context and makes it sound like I said “I won’t tell them, but I’ll tell you.” That isn’t the way I said it. In the first quote, I was merely pointing out that this is an apples and oranges situation. Talking with you on my blog in the comment sections of a series of posts dealing with this particular subject does not equate to me going to their blog and posting something like this out of context. More on this later, though.

    All I am asking is for due diligence on the other blogs that you have graciously given me. Ad hominem comments on Wade’s and Tom’s blogs go far back (long before you were off the blog).

    Your accusation of vague reference and plea to ignorance here, leads me to assume you have rarely read the blogs mentioned in the last 6 months, or else there is subjective bias, which proves my point. Certainly I could quote comment after comment but I think you are aware of some at least (since you read my blog and I quoted them there – I shall assume you read more than the comment section on my blog for that would beg many questions). Failure to see this is revealing. (furthermore, accurately quoting what others say may not be Glorifying to God – which as I understand it, is your standard here for commentators).

    I have rarely read any blogs for the better part of 5 months. I lost daily internet connection in mid June, right after the Convention. We were moving and I had it disconnected in my home. Since that time I have been severely limited in my blogging. I had it connected in my new home just a couple of weeks ago. While I have had the occasion to post sporadically, I have not been able to read much of anybody’s blog even during this last month. I have been very open about that. I had not read your blog until Friday of last week. I perused it briefly a month before that in a moment of relative peace in my office. You will note that I have been blogging on the issue of appropriate blogging for Baptists all week – before I read your blog. This is and has been on my heart.

    Now if you will state personally to Marty, Wade and Tom that you believe they should REMOVE RETROACIVELY all ad hominem comments made by anyone in their comment sections and any comment that might not honor God on their blogs then no duplicity will exist. But until you make that statement PERSONALLY to Wade, Marty, and Tom, your righteous indignation of comments on my blog rings hollow.

    I don’t understand how you want me to do to Marty, Wade and Tom what I did not do to you. I did not email you nor did I come on your blog and take you to task. I addressed you here, on my blog, and I addressed them here as well. You thanked me for doing this. I think it is a stretch to now say that my charge to you rings hollow. Nevertheless, I will go the extra mile. After I post this response, I will email them my convictions.

    You also stated: “If you leave it to stand, then you take responsibility for it. Period. You CAN delete it, but you choose not to. Now you co-own the words.”

    If that is true for libelous words then it is true for all words. And if it is true for all words then it is your responsibility (according to such rationale) to make sure every comment glorifies God (that is, if you are responsible for all comments and further think one should glorify God). Now the reason I would offer my help here, is because I do not claim that every comment made by every commentator on my blog glorifies God nor do I claim a responsibility to make sure they do (sadly, my humanity causes me to realize I am constantly battling with my own wickedness in this area).

    Such a claim is honorable and yet I would never desire such a prerogative over what others would say (because of the motives and thoughts which lie behind the comments that I am not privy to). Further, I am not sure it is attainable (I think this very comment section calls that into question).

    Such a claim would be honorable, but you are no redefining what I think is libelous and ungodly. I don’t think strong words are ungodly. You may. If you do, though, you lump libelous words and strong words together as ungodly and I would argue that those two things are very different. That would make the prophets themselves ungodly in their proclamation of God’s own message. I reject redefining them this way.

    The comments you referenced were removed. To bring them up with a statement like, “I personally don’t know of anything on anyone’s blog that is as outrageous as the Cole Park and Gay Bar comments that Wayne has referenced,” begs questions about forgiveness. It’s like saying to your spouse “I forgive you, but I will not forget.”

    No. I am glad they are removed. I bring them up because I am trying to make the point that the comments that you are claiming exist on other people’s blogs are beyond the pale of what you left up until asked to remove them. It’s a contrast, not a forgiveness thing.

    You say, “Besides, ‘admitting a mistake’ and asking forgiveness is not repenting.”

    Surely, you are not implying that when they asked for forgiveness they were not repenting. Especially when one claimed the Holy Spirit was at work.

    It read to me that they were libeling Wade and beating him up that way and then immediately beating him up for not publicly forgiving them on your blog – after Wade had said that he wouldn’t be back because you had refused to remove comments that he felt, and obviously I feel, are over the line. They seemed to me to be hitting him from both sides, so to speak. I do suspect that their repentance was possibly insincere. Forgiveness is not tied to repentance, though.

    You say, “How can you apply ‘good faith’ to a comment that vilifies another person on a blog?”

    Please read my comment, the “good faith” was not in reference to how God-honoring their comment was, but to me keeping my word, per my rules. In other words, they are responsible for their words and I am responsible to keep mine. I like to keep my word.

    If you mean to say that you have given your word, at some point, to post anything no matter what it is, then you have extended protection unwisely – to say the least. I doubt you would have protected a spam comment promoting the internet sale of prescription drugs. I am sure you would not have protected a vulgarity laced comment that used God’s name in vain. If you would have deleted those, you should have deleted those libelous statements.

    Concerning Case Law, actually the onus is on you. I stated case law supports the fact that no one who has provided a forum has ever been held accountable for what is said by others in the forum (long before blogs ever crept up). If you show me a case where they have, then I am wrong, but you haven’t.

    When you claim the “support of case law,” you claim that it exists, and therefore I ask you to present it. If you argue from the absence of case law, you MUST say that it is undetermined. The absence of case law on a subject means that it is undetermined, by definition. If this is your position, you can not argue, as you have done, that you are covered here. I have repeatedly said that it doesn’t exist, is not determined, but speculation about the future leads me to believe that it will be less than favorable for a blogger to knowingly host libelous comments on their blog. This is now the fourth time I have said this.

    As you know, the highest law in the land is Constitutional Law, followed by statutory and case law. The SC has been vigilant in protecting Freedom of Speech. Furthermore, until something is made illegal it is legal. As to why I believe no one has ever been held accountable I said “To state that the providers of the forum are liable for what is said in the forum would imply that the government could be sued for libelous statements made in public forums (libraries, etc).”

    If the government sanctioned the speaker, the dissemination of the information and/or protected the anonymity of one who produced the slander, then they would be open. You have to make it an exact corollary before you can compare these two things. Your comparison would be like me saying someone could successfully sue Microsoft Corporation because libel was written using Windows XP and Word word-processing program to craft the statement. I have not said this.

    Bottom line, I honestly and truly admire your desire to make sure every comment on your blog glorifies God. However, I think from my perspective, such a standard is absent in application. I do not feel responsible for others comments, if you do, May the Lord Guide you and Bless you.

    Again, I think you are defining “glorifies God” as barring strong words. I, clearly, do not.

    Honestly, Art, I have no desire to spar with you on this any further, nor do I think we will reach a conclusion here. Feel free to have the last word, you deserve it, it is your blog. As I said earlier I feel the biggest problem has more to do with unequal application of “rules” than with what the rules are…thus I was hoping to help you see that you are asking something of me that you have not asked of your friends and is not practiced by them…but if you fail to see that, then I will assume it is a result of my subjective bias and tarnished humanity and not yours.

    I feel that I have been diligent to apply the rules evenly here. I disagree that I have not said these things to my peers, having posted such earlier here. All of our communication has been here, but I am going to go the extra step and email those you have mentioned.

    I do believe that I have been fair. I do not believe that it is fair to leave certain statements still standing.

    Wayne,

    You have made your point several times over. Enough’s enough, don’t you think?

32. 
    Wes Kenney
    on Oct 16th, 2006
    @ 7:42 pm: 

    Art said: I feel that I have been diligent to apply the rules evenly here.

    While I don’t think this is a point of contention in this discussion, I can certainly affirm Art’s words here. On more than one occasion I’ve pointed out material in comments that, based on his listed rules, appeared to me to be inappropriate. They were removed.