Push-back from people who disagree
This is a bad thing that happened, a very bad thing – an employee of a state department of public health was forced to close down his very useful, admired, educational blog because a guy who disagreed with him complained to his employers, and they said close it down or be fired.
Social media in health care are here to stay, and as Mr. Najera’s work has shown, can advance the lay person’s understanding of public health and epidemiology. But being a strong public advocate can invite push-back from people who disagree — say, over the value, safety, and efficacy of vaccines. Not all of those who disagree are civil or even rational. Some of those who disagree elect to cause trouble in the advocate’s place of employment…
And sometimes they win. It’s a very bad thing.
One of the most discouraging aspects of this situation is that his employers were cowed so easily. Frankly, the “guy who disagreed” with Najera looks to be half a bubble off plumb.
Very disappointing.
Yet another example of why some people prefer to be pseudonymous.
Disgusting. I’d write to his employers making an equal stink about it in the opposite direction if I didn’t think they’re the sort of people who would fire him out of spite, or laziness, or cowardice.
I can only hope, idly, vainly, that he might be in a position where he could find a job elsewhere and then resume his writing, and that others with the kind of knowledge he has will be inspired to spring up in his place.
It does me, but the main story seems to be the cowardice of Mr. Najera’s employers. To be honest, I find the story a bit odd. Like, how could Mr. X threaten legal action against a state department of health?
Ken:
Perhaps. But a more plausible explanation IMHO is that they are just being normal bureaucrats, whose first rules are: cover your own backside, avoid controversy, and don’t do anything that might get you a black mark in a file upstairs.
It kills all initiative stone dead.
On a bus tour in Bavaria to Mad Ludwig’s castle a few years back a similar thing happened. On the way there they played some magnificent Wagner over the bus PA system. On the way back, I requested a repeat of it. I was told that there had been a complaint from a (ie one other) passenger, and that company policy was to err on the side of caution, even against the majority on the bus.
So no Wagner.
He didn’t. He complained about an individual employee, and then proceeded to make legal threats against the individual employee. This was clearly done with the aim of silencing the employee, because as an individual the employee would almost certainly be what lawyers call ‘a man of straw’: ie, not worth suing, as in unable to pay damages.
It is interesting how corrupt people (intelligent, educated and rational among them) can become when it comes to power. The idea of free speech is there for good reason, and yet whenever someone disagrees, the first impulse for many (but not all) is to take this personally and then dislike the person disagreeing, and then censor and ban those who disagree. The principle of free speech is all very well, but the realities of the world show that the opposite is very much the case.
He dropped by Pharyngula when the story broke there. He’s so far askew you can’t properly refer to him without first multiplying by i.
Egbert – is your comment directed toward me and my policy on the commenters at ERV who call women bitches, cunts, twats and the like or urge on those who do? If so I’ll reply; if not I probably won’t. Then again I might.
No reply from Egbert. Well his comment pretty obviously is meant for me and the way I moderate comments here, so I’ll reply.
One, “the idea of free speech” does not cash out as “everybody has to publish everything.” It’s not even close to that. Publishers of all kinds select, which is a good thing, because if they didn’t, there would be nothing readable to read (or watchable to watch or listenable to listen to). Bloggers can select comments if they choose; that doesn’t violate any “idea of free speech” except a primitive one like “everybody has to publish everything.”
Moderation of blog comments isn’t a matter of “free speech.” It may be something short of that – arbitrary or unreasonable rules or criteria, for example. “X deletes comments for stupid/unfair/mysterious reasons.” Maybe so, but that’s not an attack on free speech. Free speech (to underline by repetition) does not entail universal publication.
Two, on the specifics that Egbert hints at but doesn’t name – it’s not a matter of disagreement. I don’t in fact totally disagree, and I never did. I said that at the beginning, and several times after the beginning. It’s not disagreement; it’s the torrent of sexist epithets. Period.
Many don’t understand that the Bill of Rights applies to governments, not to individuals. Governments may not infringe your freedom of speech, but as the blog owner, you can ban someone for using too many vowels, if that’s what you want to do. You don’t owe anyone space on your page.
Ophelia,
Actually no, not directed at you in particular, and I’ve no idea why you continue to believe we’re somehow enemies. I still support you, even if I just don’t agree with everything you say or do. It’s directed to the way the atheist/sceptical communities are building themselves up around personalities and power, and not through free thought. I’ve already pointed out to you how I feared group think taking over things, and I genuinely think this is the case.
BTW. If I’m not welcome here, please let me know, I don’t want to make posts or contributions here if I am perceived as ‘the enemy’. Thanks.
Egbert, I don’t believe (much less continue to believe) we’re somehow enemies. Sorry I misunderstood your comment. No, you’re welcome here! I certainly don’t perceive you as the enemy. I think you have a bit of an idée fixe about this where the atheist community is going thing, but that doesn’t make you an enemy.
The comment works as a reply to people who do accuse me of murdering free speech, so it’s not wasted labor.