 I had an exchange with Peezy Myers on Twitter about a week back on his decision to close all comments and also, shockingly, even to disable ratings. His reasoning, and I'm quoting here, because the commenters were just too stupid and far too repetitive. He suggested that anyone that wants to comment go to his own website forum where he moderates and has control over posting and users must register to post. This was on the day following blasphemy day, a day to celebrate solidarity with people around the world who don't have the freedom to utter blasphemous thoughts, who risk their very lives to do so. I asked him, I thought jokingly, for a blasphemy day miracle and reinstate comments and ratings to honor the principle that no one has a right to never be exposed to offensive or even stupid speech. After all, if we can fight on one day for people's right to say on Twitter something that offends Islamic sensibilities, how does it celebrate our own freedoms by restricting discussion to a moderated forum because Peezy doesn't like what people posted on his video? Now, I want to be very clear that Peezy has every right to control his channel. If he wants to determine who can comment or what content he deems of value, so be it. YouTube is the actual owner of the content and the server and the hosting service, but it provides for its users to have control over uploaded videos. The legal principle of free speech does not extend to private property, for the most part, and Peezy has no legal obligation to provide a forum for his critics. However, I have two objections to invoking that exception in this case. One, YouTube isn't really private property. Matt Dillahunt used the analogy of free speech inside your own house, but that's not the right analogy for YouTube. It may be privately owned, but it's a place for public personal expression to large audiences. I would say a better analogy would be a roadside billboard. Private property, yes, but visible to everyone passing by. I would say that YouTube is a privately owned forum for public discussion. Two, this isn't really a question of the letter of the law. On that basis, Peezy is legally justified. It's about the principle of allowing for, criticism, civil disagreement, and a dissenting viewpoint. It's not the legal issues of First Amendment protections. It's about the nature of debate and discussion. There are plenty of forums where only one view is welcomed, or where protesters, dissenters, critics, and skeptics are not permitted a voice. I just hope that the YouTube channel of a well-known atheist and skeptic is not one of them. Rather than drone on about my own views on this, I'm going to take three examples I find somewhat applicable. I'd like to hear if you think the same principles apply, if the principle of free expression deserves to be honored in these cases. One, Peezy Myers was expelled from Expelled. Peezy was excluded by the filmmakers of Expelled, a documentary produced by Creationist Organization, the Discovery Institute, when he was recognized in line for a screening. The filmmakers were within their right to refuse service to Peezy. It was their private property. I'm sure they consider what Peezy had to say on the topic to be pointless and stupid. Peezy's free speech was not abridged, but his right to be critical in that forum was blocked. Now he was free to run back to his own blog and express his views there, and in that way the film attendees need never be bothered by his distasteful opinions. His voice was stifled, but his rights were never abridged, just like Peezy's decision to refuse his critics of voice in the public forum of his own videos. Two, the American Atheist billboard in North Carolina. The American Atheist put up a billboard along a highway to raise awareness for their cause. It elicited a number of complaints and even a few threats. And so the owner of the billboard, a private company, discussed removing the ads with the American Atheist who agreed that it was in everyone's best interest to take them down. Again, private property, and the owner of that property has every right to decide what content is acceptable in that forum. On the other hand, it's hard to deny the effect on the ability of the American Atheist to convey a message they want heard by the public. No one's free speech was harmed. The American Atheists are free to shop around for someone who is willing to accept their business and some other forum, or maybe they just don't have the right to put this information where it can offend someone. The property owners control the access, in this case, and in the case of Peezy's video. 3. Gelato Mio, an ice cream shop near Skepticon 2011 The owner of this little ice cream shop, a deeply religious private business owner, was offended by something he saw or heard while the Skepticon attendees were in his shop. So he posted a sign on his private property saying that Skepticon attendees were not welcome and would not be served. He was of course within his rights to close his shop doors if he didn't like what he saw. The Skepticon attendees were able to visit other shops, and that way the owner need never be offended by their blasphemous or disrespectful talk. In each of these examples, Atheists were on the receiving end of perfectly legal restrictions on free speech on private property. Although the threats in North Carolina were probably a crime, but the decision on the part of the billboard owner was not. I have two points to make on the general principle here. A. There's no good reason to close comments or disable ratings. There was one reason for Peezy to close comments that occurred to me later, and that is the financial one. Peezy's site is supported by ad traffic, and people who only visit his video on YouTube don't generate revenue for his pharyngealist site. It's possible this is the real reason for the disabling of comments to drive traffic to his ads, and if so, I prefer Peezy just admit to it. We can all understand the needs of a business owner to turn a profit. However, the other part of this equation is that Peezy also disabled ratings. That's not just someone trying to manipulate traffic. It's the kind of thing that creationists and science denialists do, simply because they can't tolerate criticism. My initial question to Peezy was who is harmed by an unmoderated discussion, and I never got an answer. Peezy may have been offended or annoyed. Other people might not like what they read, but there are already mechanisms in place to report threats, harassment, disclosure, personal details, and other violations of the terms of service. So where is the benefit to Peezy's audience? I just don't see one, except that Peezy will get increased revenue and have the ability to decide what content meets with his approval. That's a dangerous precedent. Again, this is not about Peezy's legal rights. It's about the principle of allowing for open criticism. B, there are some really, really important reasons to leave comments open. I'm just going to give four. One, diversity of thought. If comments are directed to your blog and your blog has rules about what is permitted, anyone unfamiliar with those rules will simply not post. That means that the only people who will comment are your regular posters. You close the door on people new to your work. You exclude people who are concerned about revealing their IP or linking their account. In short, you will restrict the kind of opinions you will hear to those who already agree with you. Two, integrity. Atheism, being a small and detested minority in the U.S. should be especially careful to protect minority opinion and detested speech. Given that we offend the majority of people with our very principles, given that we are constantly besieged by attempts to silence us, we cannot scoff at the principle that no one has a right not to be offended. While you may have a right to do so, every exercise of that right undermines the principle we shelter under, our only voice in this majority religious society. Three, reciprocity. There are only two groups of note who disable comments on YouTube, creationists and corporations. Neither are interested in critical voices. Neither are interested in hearing from the other side of the equation. If we, being the atheists and skeptics and rationalists of YouTube, set the example of allowing the opposition a chance to speak, not just on their own channels, but on ours as well, it sets up an expectation of reciprocity, that they will allow you to speak on their comments as well. PZ may not want Thunderfoot's fans commenting on his videos, but Thunderfoot, so far as I know, doesn't restrict pharyngeal fans from posting on his. Four, last but most importantly, a culture of free expression. PZ's blog is a place for his fans to read his thoughts. That's what a blog is. YouTube is a little different, and maybe PZ didn't realize that. This is a public forum that thrives on a lack of moderation. It is a populist paradise. The discussion here is, as a result, more varied and often more interesting. Of course, this leaves the door open to people with bad intent, people who don't have anything important to say, and people of all ages, nationalities, genders and educational backgrounds. I think that's a good thing. Every video posted in our community that cannot be discussed in that forum is essentially a dead spot in our otherwise lively exchanges. If you're listening to this, PZ, I'd like to make a final appeal on this topic. Restore comments and ratings for the simple reason that doing so doesn't hurt anyone beyond a little annoyance on your part. Leave them disabled, and you invite people to speculate about your motives. You invite the stricand effect, and you undermine the principles of free speech on which YouTube atheism depends. That's all I have to say. Thanks for watching. Every cell of each pulse and hour.