The Illusion of Precision: Why Subjective Moderation Disclaimers Fail Free Expression

I’ve noticed a familiar kind of disclaimer on a lot of blogs and comment sections. It usually goes something like this:

“This site is for constructive expression and debate. Comments of a harassing or insulting nature will be deleted. Racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory comments will be deleted.”

I understand the impulse. Most of us would rather not host a free-for-all of genuine cruelty. The problem is that words like “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” “discriminatory,” and even “insulting” don’t come with a universal dictionary definition that everyone shares. They are, by nature, elastic. What one person hears as a sharp but fair critique, another hears as an attack. What one reader considers honest cultural observation, another labels bigotry. The person writing the rules gets to decide, in the moment, which interpretation wins.

That creates an environment that looks principled on the surface but is actually quite arbitrary. The standard changes with the host’s worldview, mood, and current definition of the forbidden categories. Commenters are left guessing where the invisible lines sit, and the discussion slowly tilts toward whatever the owner already finds comfortable. Uncomfortable ideas get filtered out under the banner of “constructive” discourse. Over time, the space becomes less of a conversation and more of an echo chamber with better lighting.

I’ve chosen a different approach for this blog.

This is a free-speech zone. The only hard boundary I enforce is the one that protects people from actual harm: direct threats of violence, or clear encouragement of violence against others. Beyond that, I will not police thoughts or statements. People are allowed to hold views I find wrong, offensive, poorly reasoned, or even repellent—and they are allowed to say them here. I may disagree, sometimes strongly. I may push back in the comments myself. What I will not do is delete a comment simply because it challenges my own assumptions or makes someone (including me) uncomfortable.

I believe the cost of an open forum is that we sometimes have to sit with ideas we dislike. The alternative—deciding which opinions are too dangerous or too “discriminatory” to be voiced—hands the host a power that is both too broad and too subjective to exercise fairly. I’d rather trust readers to judge arguments for themselves than pretend I can draw clean, objective lines around concepts that resist clean definition.

So if you come here ready to argue in good faith, even if we land on opposite sides, you are welcome. If your comment crosses into actual threats or calls for violence, it will not stay. Everything else is fair game. I would rather have a messier, more honest conversation than a tidy one that has been quietly edited to fit a single set of sensibilities.That’s the deal on this site. Speak your mind. Just don’t threaten anyone.