Option A - Cutting off comments accentuates confirmation bias. Good to hear opposing voices and to publicly set them straight. It takes time and effort and patience but I think that your readers can learn as much from the way you handle challenging comments as they learn from the articles.
I was about to say the same thing~commenters have a right to their opinion, whether they agree with whatever subject matter Celia puts out or not. Comments that Celia disagrees with, either ignore it or challenge it which will almost always invite more of it. I learn a lot from commenter opinions, sometimes they present a different perspective that I consider and learn from. Sometimes I disagree. But it's always interesting and educational. Let the unpaid comment and read comments, Aside from your articles and op-eds, how else are they going to assess and get a flavor to become a paid subscriber. Ya gotta drive the car before you buy it.
Commenters do indeed have a right to their opinions, but nothing at all gives them any right to express that opinion on someone else's substack. If anyone feels strongly enough about something in particular then they can pay up for a month, say all they want for a month, and then cancel. I've done this myself on occasion.
Please tell me where a right to comment in someone’s substack or newspaper or radio show comes from? Do we have a right to comment in the NY Times? Even if the Times says it has discretion to censor? Notice that I’m all for civil debate but I don’t see where the right to speak on someone else’s forum comes from. This is distinct from the right to criticize the government, which has its foundation in the understanding that such criticism is essential to keep government honest. The government can’t censor but the Times can and does, and substack writers can and do. However my personal feeling is that all civil comments should be allowed but nowhere can I claim a right to be heard anywhere, and indeed I’m prevented from voicing my opinions in many forums. But this speaks to the general tendency to listen to only one narrative and disregard or even hate other narratives and a lack of fair-mindedness, not to a cancellation of my right.
Spending weeks 1999-2000 in Cuba (vacation) & 1994-1995 in China working, communism is fine. It is Bolshevism or even Democracy, when the jOO controls. All the jOOs left Cuba, but Cuba still maintains their cemetery. 88Dave
Communist and collectivist governments censor because they want no criticism, which is why freedom of speech is in our constitution, as perhaps the ultimate check on power. But this never applied to private entities-- newspapers, e.g.-- who were free to censor whomever they wished.
I don’t disagree that free speech is a civic good but does that mean that newspapers, e.g., will be forced to print all comments? That seems dictatorial to me. Might be best if newspapers can print what they want AND no one can censor any newspaper. This will allow for different viewpoints. Perhaps the basic problem is a lack of education into the value of other viewpoints that can serve as checks and balances on our own thinking and counter an adherence to ideologies.
Also like the idea of community standards, having personally used the "report" option a few times to call out hateful trolls with nothing to add, or say at all... It's in the 3 dots to the right of the poster's name. Don't know where the report goes, assuming to the admin person rather than substack.
Option D - give us a "REPORT" Option so we can report heinous or scurrilous or personal attacks and once there are 5 "Reported" notices (from PAYING Subscribers) - delete the Reported comment. If the Commentator gets three of his/her Comments Reported then block that Commentator.
Simply ensure we here are able to report someone who breaks the rules of fair play in their comments. As such WE can do the job for you. On the other hand, yes, if you feel there are too many bad comments that are taking too much of your time to sort out; then by all means do what you feel necessary to protect yourself.
I have been retired for over a decade and my primary income is social security. I am currently subscribed to only one substack account which I chose because of the work the author was doing to counter the scamdemic in 2020. My budget does not permit multiple substack subscriptions at $8 per month. With option B, I would not subscribe or comment here, and also pay less attention to your newsletter.
This is a difficult situation, Celia, and I see the complex challenges it presents.
I wonder, since you're not the only Substack author who is experiencing this issue, if Substack can offer some more assistance and options. Is Substack able to leverage AI to help identify extremely hostile comments and commenters so that someone (a human) can review them more efficiently? AI is nowhere near perfect, but perhaps it could be used as one more tool in the toolbox, and Substack could expand their support and options for the many writers in this unbelievably valuable space.
Same. I love to read substacks but they aren't crucial to my existence. They are a luxury. I won't pay for them. There is too much free content out there.
Just remember, people like Celia spend a lot of time and effort to provide you with info you won't get on other sites. And while the option is there to read for free, just a reminder that it costs her money to provide you with your luxury.
in the spirit of a comments section and the in light of the discussion above, in my opinion, it's not out-of-line to comment on your comment or for me to butt-in and comment now. You don't have to like it, but we get to chime in if we wish- the risk you take by posting, I guess. (Yes it was a poll and yeah, the comment was a lil bit "guilt-trippy" but also not a command). I also notice how it well illustrates the considerations of the original question... Lastly, it's OK not to pay for every newsletter you wish to read. I think many of us have to pick just one or two to give, if at all, due to fixed incomes. cheers
I view it in the same way as I used to view buying a glossy magazine back in the day. A luxury worth having. You get what you pay for and since Celia's substack is free you're getting it anyway. The comments are just a bonus. I only read them if I need more clarification on a subject or have something of value to offer that wasn't mentioned. Independent journalists need financial support. They cannot live long on air alone.
Same here. Rappaport's articles are all behind a pay wall. So I don't read them. If everyone did the same I would have to abandon Substack. I enjoy the comments for the most part and haven't noticed very many nasty or hateful ones, but I don't read all comments. It would be easier if Substack had one subscription fee instead of every contributor asking for a fee. $ 8 month adds up when you are following many different contributors. I'm barely getting by as it is.
Leave things as they are. Otherwise you are taking up ranks with those that take a “pay to play” / “how to monetize journalism” approach. Some people literally can’t pay for a subscription. I guess it comes down to the question of free speech. Do even the small people deserve a voice? Do you want to equip and mobilize public discussion towards the broadest community that inspires change, pushback and solidarity? Or a caste system or haves and have nots. Caste system or a “come to me ALL who are weary and heavy laden…?
Well said TP. Closing comments would narrow comments with those who agree and thus, not allow people to see others' views. In order for me to change my perspective, I have to see and learn from others' viewpoints. However, Celia is talking about the predators who feed on hate, and not there for speech freedom.
Isn't that a fine line? A blatant threat feeds on hate. A racist feeds on hate. An opposing view just as you say might help us learn something we didn't consider. I think Celia has to be careful not to shut someone down because they don't agree with her viewpoint.
Yeah it has pros and cons. Celia also needs to protect herself because she was targeted not sure what though. Nobody knows the psychogical (maybe physical too but it manifests physically) torture that people face when they mess around with big wigs of the world. They use occult magic crap in addition to all the other tools to silence/control people. If that happens, it isn't always worth a life. God will get them because you can't be evil and expect to get goodness. We reap what we sow. Plants seeds of hate and you get hate.
Thank you for this great article. As a fellow Substack writer, I had never looked at enabling or disabling comments in this way.
As an advocate of free speech, I believe in allowing open dialogue—even when I strongly disagree with what’s being said. I welcome comments from all perspectives on my platform, and only intervene when a comment crosses the line into something truly extreme or harmful. This approach isn’t just theoretical for me—it's rooted in experience. As the founder of American Patriot Social, a free speech platform launched in November 2021, I’ve come to deeply understand the value and complexity of true free speech and expression. Before creating the platform, I thought I understood what free speech meant, but it wasn’t until I had to defend it—day in and day out—that I realized just how layered, challenging, and essential it truly is.
It's very important to understand regarding free speech and what it means and what it doesn't mean.
Just because a person says something that you don't like, don't agree with or even if it upsets you or offends you, and even if you don't believe what they are saying is true, that person has a right to say it because that is freedom of speech.
We need to remember that freedom of speech is not based on a person's thoughts or opinion, freedom of speech is not based on a person's feelings or emotions or their actions, and freedom of speech is not based on a person's wisdom, knowledge or experience on a particular matter. Freedom of speech is the ability for a person to say what they want to say, how they want to say it, when they want to say it, and where they want to say it to any audience, no matter if it upsets or offends people. And even if what a person says something that another person deems as disrespectful or even demeaning to them may not be deemed as disrespectful or even demeaning to someone else, but regardless, every person has the right to speak freely.
And regarding a true freedom of speech platform, it is just like being outside a coffee shop on the sidewalk if a person walks up and starts having a conversation with you, but he says some things that may offend me or upset me or some things that I don't like or agree with, that is their right to speak freely, it doesn't matter the environment, the surroundings or even the people that may hear it. And just as he has a right to speak freely and say what he wants to say, I also have a right to choose to walk away and not listen anymore. So when you look at a freedom of speech platform just because someone says something that people don't like, or agree with or even something that might upset or offend people is not grounds to remove it or delete it. If a person does not like or agree with something that someone said or if something a person says upsets them or offends them, they have a right to simply move on and not read it, just as the person who said it has a right to speak freely, it's that simple.
In our society today, too many people react and respond based on their thoughts, feelings and emotions, regardless of another person's right to speak freely. As the result, they want the person who spoke the words that they don't like or agree or the words of another person who upset them or offend them they want them to be deleted, or their content deleted and that's just not okay.
The two most likely things that will ever get deleted from our platform with regard to our rules and policies will be an inappropriate picture or an inappropriate video.
I have no problem having a toll for trolls. Free speech doesn't mean interrupting a conversation, or crashing your dinner party. Free speech doesn't mean jumping in to someone else's overheard private conversation and taking it over. Free speech doesn't require you or anyone else to pay for their soap box.
Free speech doesn't mean saying anything anywhere at anytime without any limits to anybody without taking ownership for what is said. Free speech is NOT an unlimited right on a private forum or in a private coffee shoppe. Free speech is not unlimited slander or libel. With that said, you have the responsibility as "host" to make the rules.
You are correct, the professional trolls will not pay the toll, and it's no one else's responsibility to pay it for them. I chose to be a paid subscriber because I value your work. For those being able to read it for free is a "gift." You have no obligation to provide them a free stage as well. Even the Bible says "The workman is worry of their wage." It is a very small tradeoff to limit the comments as your work is not underwritten by advertising. Besides, the extreme left never allows comments, paid or unpaid. At least you give an option.
Since my comments from this thread somehow disappeared when a sex troll who was replying to my comments, was banned, I am reposting my comments as follows:
////
That's where you and many people get it wrong. Yes, that's the way it appears when you read the First Amendment alone; but it is the Supreme Court's responsibility to interpret the Bill of Right's Amendments, and to determine what they include and don't include. For instance, on the First Amendment, the case LAW precedent, or one of them, is Brandenburg vs. Ohio (look it up; even for Wikipedia, their page on it is pretty good). That LAW makes it abundantly clear that free speech INCLUDES "unpopular" and/or "offensive" speech, AND THAT THAT THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHT, AND THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR UPHOLDING OR VIOLATING IT, IS *NOT* LIMITED TO THE GOVERNMENT....
THEREFORE, *NO ONE* HAS ANY RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED, ANYWHERE!
Do you (everyone reading this) get that? Or do you understand what that means? It means that if people did have a right to not be offended, it would contradict that ruling of the SCOTUS that free speech includes "offensive" speech.
I feel a deep sense of dread when so many people, as in this thread, claim that businesses and so on supposedly don't have any duty to freedom of speech. The foregoing proves them quite wrong, as well as the fact intertwined with it that the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are IN- (OR UN-) ALIENABLE, which means they cannot legally be taken or withheld from us, and that thus WE HAVE ALL OF THOSE RIGHTS AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE THEY ARE A PART OF US AND HAVE NOT BEEN WITHHELD OR TAKEN FROM US BECAUSE THEY CANNOT BE SUCH.
Since we have those rights at all times, that obviously INCLUDES businesses, etc. The ONLY exception that the SCOTUS ruled is not free speech is threats of physical violence that are likely to actually be carried out imminently (which would include falsely crying fire in a crowded theater, etc.).
THERE ARE NO OTHER EXCEPTIONS!
I would also add at this point what international law has to say about the freedom of speech, in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which further clarifies and cements the foregoing:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right includes freedom to hold opinions WITHOUT INTERFERENCE and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas THROUGH *ANY MEDIA* AND *REGARDLESS OF FRONTIERS* (which obviously includes businesses and websites; there is no limitation whatsoever)." [Id.; emphasis provided by me.]
Therefore, EVERYONE WHO DOES, PLEASE STOP LIMITING FREEDOM OF SPEECH. That's one of the traps the globalists and others fooled far too many if not most people into falling right into, and getting them to defend violating free speech. (Please don't send me any comments arguing against these plain facts.)
Celia should choose Option A, and not limit free speech whatsoever, nor make it unavailable to those who cannot afford to pay for website access, and should not make ANYONE have to pay to express their free speech, making free speech not free. (And don't anyone give me that crap either that I can go someplace else where I can express myself, or start my own Stack, etc. All I can say to your ilk is, frak-off! And stop violating, and/or encouraging violating, freedom of speech. Either you completely respect one-hundred-percent free speech, or you limit and violate it. Cease and desist violating our Supreme Law of the Land that it is the DUTY OF ALL AMERICANS TO RESPECT AND OBEY, COMPLETELY!]
////
[Regarding the following comment, I don't have a copy of the what the commenter said that I was responding to (their comment disappeared too), and I don't recall what they said except that it was about the defamation laws, but I hereby post my reply anyway]:
You said all of that, not me. If something said about someone truly isn't true, and it truly does threaten their business, etc., then of course the libel and slander laws should exist. But if it's just because someone's feelings were hurt, that is NOT slander or libel. As I've told Celia before, she SHOULD ban obvious or proven trolls and/or shills; otherwise, let the comments stand no matter what they say, unless and only unless they contain threats of physical violence that are likely to actually be carried out imminently. We must NOT presume people guilty, but MUST presume them innocent. But where do we draw the line? In that sense the defamation laws are unconstitutional because they put us on a slippery slope towards censorship. There should be ABSOLUTELY NO censorship except for very limited reasons, such as the ones I delineated.
As we observed through the "Covid" years, and we still observe from some still-existent censorship, some people in government who have little or absolutely no respect for the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, decide we can't speak freely about some things, and "must" be censored if we speak against free-speech-violating "dis/mal/misinformation" designations. This is the opposite of free speech. It is either complete freedom of speech, or we don't really have it at all. And people, especially the brainwashed and global "sovereignty" proponents, can call just about all "offensive" speech so-called "defamation", "libel", "slander", etc., not because that "offensive" speech truly is any of those things, but because they don't want to be offended, and/or supposedly don't want others to be offended, AND BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT THE TRUTH TO COME OUT. Enough of all that bullshit! Ninety-eight percent of censorship is wrong and is a grievous violation of freedom of speech. Again, NO ONE has ANY RIGHT(S) to not be offended!
Who decides what supposedly "isn't" free speech, and can we trust anyone, especially those who don't completely uphold free speech, but want people to go to prison and have their lives ruined, if not die, because of WORDS, to determine what is truth and what is not!? This is mass-insanity!! If you're old enough, do you recall the saying that was so prevalent when we were kids (back in the sixties and seventies), "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"? We must stop taking offense so much, and stop going after people for doing nothing but non-violently speaking "offensive" speech. Once more, NO ONE has ANY RIGHT(S) to not be offended!
Generally, words are NOT a threat, regardless of whether or not anti-liberty-and-freedom ideologues interpret them that way in order to silence certain people and certain speech. We are either truly free or we aren't free! And without freedom of speech we do not live in a free country and world, but in a slave state, and that's why the First Amendment is the bedrock foundational Amendment of all the rest of the Amendments, and is first and foremost before all of those other Amendments. Societies that truly have free speech, are free, those that do not have free speech, are not free. Thus, we must defend freedom of speech "...AGAINST ALL ENEMIIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC...", NO MATTER WHAT, AND NOT BOW WHATSOEVER TO ITS CURTAILMENT!!!!!
If the publisher/writer sets the post to "free to read / pay to comment", then the non-paid subscriber can still (a) read the entire article, and (b) read all the comments, AND, they (c) can make a comment by posting a [substack] Note -- by hitting the restack button on the article
With all due respect, that's not the same thing as participating in the comments section. What your third option does, is open a commenting thread on one's own timeline, correct?
To me you are talking about manners and rudeness. I don’t agree that a person can’t say anything where ever and when ever they want. But if it’s your party you can and sometimes should do what you think you need to do in return. It’s obvious that in most places there are rules in place that help but only if in-forced.
I agree with allowing all voices. However, "free speech" is not something that you and I control. It is about the government controlling what we can and can't say. So I am not sure I get what your point is about the layered complexities. If you as a Substack author don't like a comment and feel it is abusive, etc. your deleting it does not counter freedom of speech. If the government does, then it does.
That's where you and many people get it wrong. Yes, that's the way it appears when you read the First Amendment alone; but it is the Supreme Court's responsibility to interpret the Bill of Right's Amendments, and to determine what they include and don't include. For instance, on the First Amendment, the case LAW precedent, or one of them, is Brandenburg vs. Ohio (look it up; even for Wikipedia, their page on it is pretty good). That LAW makes it abundantly clear that free speech INCLUDES "unpopular" and/or "offensive" speech, AND THAT THAT THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHT, AND THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR UPHOLDING OR VIOLATING IT, IS *NOT* LIMITED TO THE GOVERNMENT....
THEREFORE, *NO ONE* HAS ANY RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED, ANYWHERE!
Do you (everyone reading this) get that? Or do you understand what that means? It means that if people did have a right to not be offended, it would contradict that ruling of the SCOTUS that free speech includes offensive speech.
I feel a deep sense of dread when so many people, as in this thread, claim that businesses and so on supposedly don't have any duty to freedom of speech. The foregoing proves them quite wrong, as well as the fact intertwined with it that the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are IN- (OR UN-) ALIENABLE, which means they cannot legally be taken or withheld from us, and that thus WE HAVE ALL OF THOSE RIGHTS AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE THEY ARE A PART OF US AND HAVE NOT BEEN WITHHELD OR TAKEN FROM US BECAUSE THEY CANNOT BE SUCH.
Since we have those rights at all times, that obviously INCLUDES businesses, etc. The ONLY exception that the SCOTUS ruled is not free speech is threats of physical violence that are likely to actually be carried out imminently (which would include falsely crying fire in a crowded theater, etc.
THERE ARE NO OTHER EXCEPTIONS!
I would also add at this point what international law has to say about the freedom of speech, in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which further clarifies and cements the foregoing:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right includes freedom to hold opinions WITHOUT INTERFERENCE and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas THROUGH *ANY MEDIA* AND *REGARDLESS OF FRONTIERS* (which obviously includes businesses and websites; there is no limitation whatsoever)." [Id.; emphasis provided by me.]
Therefore, EVERYONE WHO DOES, PLEASE STOP LIMITING FREEDOM OF SPEECH. That's one of the traps the globalists and others fooled far too many if not most people into falling right into, and getting them to defend violating free speech. (Please don't send me any comments arguing against these plain facts.)
Celia should choose Option A, and not limit free speech whatsoever, nor make it unavailable to those who cannot afford to pay for website access, and should not make ANYONE have to pay to express their free speech, making free speech not free. (And don't anyone give me that crap either that I can go someplace else where I can express myself, or start my own Stack, etc. All I can say to your ilk is, frak-off! And stop violating, and/or encouraging violating, freedom of speech. Either you completely respect one-hundred-percent free speech, or you limit and violate it. Cease and desist violating our Supreme Law of the Land that it is the DUTY OF ALL AMERICANS TO RESPECT AND OBEY, COMPLETELY!
So you don't agree with defamation laws, etc. correct? Or libel? Or blocking stalkers who mean you harm? OK then. I disagree. That stuff should not be allowed in any decent society.
You said all of that, not me. If something said about someone truly isn't true, and it truly does threaten their business, etc., then of course the libel and slander laws should exist. But if it's just because someone's feelings were hurt, that is NOT slander or libel. As I've told Celia before, she SHOULD ban obvious or proven trolls and/or shills; otherwise, let the comments stand no matter what they say, unless and only unless they contain threats of physical violence that are likely to actually be carried out imminently. We must NOT presume people guilty, but MUST presume them innocent. But where do we draw the line? In that sense the defamation laws are unconstitutional because they put us on a slippery slope towards censorship. There should be ABSOLUTELY NO censorship except for very limited reasons, such as the ones I delineated.
As we saw through the "Covid" years, and we still see from some still-existent censorship, some people in government who have little or absolutely no respect for the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, decide we can't speak freely about some things, and "must" be censored if we speak against free-speech-violating "dis/mal/misinformation" designations. This is the opposite of free speech. It is either complete freedom of speech, or we don't really have it at all. And people, especially the brainwashed and global "sovereignty" proponents, can call just about all "offensive" speech so-called "defamation", "libel", "slander", etc., not because that "offensive" speech truly is any of those things, but because they don't want to be offended, and/or supposedly don't want others to be offended, AND BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT THE TRUTH TO COME OUT. Enough of all that bullshit! Ninety-eight percent of censorship is wrong and is a grievous violation of freedom of speech.
Who decides what supposedly "isn't" free speech, and can we trust anyone, especially those who don't completely uphold free speech, but want people to go to prison and have their lives ruined, if not die, because of WORDS!? This is mass-insanity!! If you're old enough, do you recall the saying that was so prevalent when we were kids (back in the sixties and seventies), "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"? We must stop taking offense so much, and going after people for doing nothing but non-violently speaking "offensive" speech. Again, NO ONE has ANY RIGHT(S) to not be offended! Generally, words are NOT a threat, regardless of whether or not anti-liberty-and-freedom ideologues interpret them that way in order to silence certain people and certain speech. We are either truly free or we aren't free! And without freedom of speech we do not live in a free country and world, but in a slave state, and that's why the First Amendment is the bedrock foundational Amendment of all the rest of the Amendments, and is first and foremost before all of those other Amendments. Societies that truly have free speech, are free, those that do not have free speech, are not free. Thus, we must defend freedom of speech "...AGAINST ALL ENEMIIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC...", NO MATTER WHAT, AND NOT BOW WHATSOEVER TO ITS CURTAILMENT!!!!!
A lot of haters are bots and trolls. Don't respond to them. I would recommend the rule my grandmother said to me "You can disagree and express outrage without being nasty or mean. It's called being an adult." I don't agree with censorship in adult settings. It's a slippery slope. But this is your substack so you can set your rules.
No it isn't. Me blocking someone on social media means I don't see them any more. It's not shutting them down. They have access to the whole world. Just not me.
Same as refusing to answer the door when a salesman comes around.
I stand corrected~I was in the train of thought of commenters reporting what they perceive as hate content, and when so many reports come in, that person is banned from the site altogether. No, I believe we have the right to block someone from getting in our personal space.
Celia, thank you for the history of your work and what you have gone through. I wasn't aware of any of those attacks on you, having only found you about a year ago. You mentioned Jon Rappoport - a brilliant writer who I have followed for many years on his various appearances, Coast to Coast, InfoWars, etc.
When I discovered Substack I followed him there. I enjoyed his writing, and left very positive comments, and re-stacked him. Then I found I could no longer comment without a paid subscription. I had to unfollow him, in spite of how much I appreciated his work.
At one time I was a paid subscriber to about seven or eight stacks. The ones I paid for were the people I liked the most or thought should be supported, like Seth Keshel who does amazing work on elections. I also sometimes simply made donations through whatever link they had set up.
Then a couple years ago, monthly bills and property taxes began going up. I am on a VERY tiny fixed social security payment each month. I often cannot pay all my bills, and have anything left for gas, or a small purchase on eBay, or a potted plant, etc. I had to end all my paid Substack subs. A few I can still comment in, most I cannot.
I do wish you well in whatever you decide to do. However, I will not be able to pay for a sub. I have very much appreciated knowing that you have read some of my comments, and even "liked" some. I always try to contribute something positive. I am so glad you were able to recover your earlier work that was "deleted", and recover your health also.
Oh yeah - Rappaport was another one I don't read any more because of $$ requirements. And once I do move on and stop reading someone who requires $$, I don't miss them. So there's that.
When I was a kid and young adult our family did take the local newspaper, delivered by paperboy. But it, and many other US papers were available at the local library, at no cost.
When I had cancer, I discovered Louise Hay. If you don't know her, she's kind of the Queen of positive affirmations and healed herself of cancer. I remember her saying about income, if someone said they were on a fixed income, "well, who fixed it?" I don't mean any disrespect, but I learned at that time to begin to take responsibility for everything in my life. Wish you well, and hope you can fix it higher for yourself.
Carol, yes, I have heard of her. Also Norman Vincent Peele, of positive thinking fame. Unfortunately, many people who are elderly, or disabled, cannot do other kinds of work to increase their income. I get by the best I can with what I have. I do have an eBay account, and from time to time sell some items there, for a little bit extra.
Currently I have a Minolta pocket camera for sale, if you know anyone who wants one.
I'm not a paid subscriber so I don't know if I have a vote but if I do, then:
Definitely option A, because:
Its hard to trust anyone who limits the comments.
Thoughtful people don't judge you harshly if you ignore or ban rude commenters.
Its usually (not always) easy to spot Big Brother's little helpers, and almost all the really rude commenters and provocateurs are from that source.
People don't have money to support all the great blogs and substacks out there.
Substack itself is part of the matrix, even though it does allow some truth, and it being part of the matrix not only makes me wary of paying money to read it, but it makes using the comments to try to overcome their shadowbanning and censorship necessary.
Apologies to all the struggling authors out there, but offering truth to readers these days is like giving water and aid to the wounded in this information war, and asking for money to do that is in itself suspicious.
You are literally expecting someone to work for nothing. Conservative writers don't have a voice in the public arena because they are not carrying the party line. I would not write for free, because we all have bills and if someone is offering something valuable, then it should be paid for. (oops ended with a preposition)
Years ago, I taught a free knitting class at my local rural library. Let me tell you about the difference between paid and free. Free means I have nothing invested and don't have to go home and practice. I can come back and you will teach me all over again how to do it because I have no skin in the game. I was polite and kind, kind of like a door mat, ended up feeling taken advantage of, though I admittedly let them, learned from my mistake and never did that again.
If the publisher/writer sets the post to "free to read / pay to comment", then the non-paid subscriber can still read (a) the entire article, and (b) all the comments
Although I have not commented for years, this post inspired me to “finally” officially become a paid subscriber. I cherish your perspectives, musings, and tinkerings.
Here is suggestion. You can probably get willing assistance with an AI tool that can screen your comments. Do you know Mike Adams? He released a downloadable tool that might train on simple instructions. There must be someone who can help with this. It should not be that difficult.
I scrubbed my paid subscriptions leaving only two authors who have done such admirable work I had to give a little support. These two are you and Bonnie Anne Cox.
I am tempted by many others but it really adds up! I’m retired since the mandate in Q3’21. Schellenberger and Taibbi … I feel bad not having paid for their excellent content.
Have dumped others who disappointed me. Sasha is great in her way, but when she called Brian Ardis a quack and indulged in character assassination of Bobby, my wife told me “Maybe she’s overdriving her headlights” or something like that.
For a while I paid for Dershowitz’s podcast. Issues strictly confined to the Constitution … no one does it better. But on other topics he spreads cognitive dissonance. He supported the COVID shots. He gave Biden a “B+”. (Oy!). I can hardly account for it. He seems so lucid. He read my comments on air twice. The first time he could not finish it. The second time he scoffed “There are no Nazis in Ukraine.” I mentioned that Johnson had scuttled peace agreement. “Which Johnson?” he replied with sarcasm, “Andrew Johnson.?” A few weeks later he was stunned by NYT photos of tanks with swastikas. I commented again “Compensation for your disrespect: a bowl of matzoh ball soup … the best in Miami. Name the time and place.” No answer.
With all due respect, Childhood Fairy should get a grip; she's now an uber-successful adult psychotherapist. And I'm truly sorry, Celia that you've had such awful stuff go down because of your heartfelt commitment to the truth. I know that you're extra sensitive to trying to please everyone, which doesn't serve you. Really it doesn't.
I don't subscribe to stacks I can't converse with. I pay for a few, but can't afford to do that for all I'd like to.
Here's one other option: make it super cheap: Elizabeth Nickson's monthly fee is just $5 CAD. Especially for us Canadians, that's a lovely welcome mat and makes it even more accessible to your US readers.
I'm a paid subscriber, but I object to "censoring" via not allowing unpaid subscribers to comment. And it is not true that all sub stacks only allow paying subscribers to comment. I am an unpaid subscriber on several that still allow comments.
Sasha Latypova, a truly great and essential writer on big harma excesses, allows unpayers to comment. usually, I exploit that privilege to thank her for her work.
No matter what you choose, there are paid dissenters with lots of financial backing all over the web and planet in person.
As far as CPSD and crappy childhood goes, that forum is no comparison. Worrying about being triggered or triggering others is understandable.
However some of us must be on the front line with metal and not focus on past experiences while we wade through the current. I’m not saying don’t care or don’t remember. Count the hours today or what may be left to live and know that there’s only one frequency to tune into NOW. We will be jolted but must remember why we love reading Celia, why we love this life and don’t give a crap about snarky comments or those beings stuck in darkness.
Do you really need another job to police the web? Fast reading and jumping to the next caring word or clue to our survival is a way through the stench. Too old to waste the time and besides that’s exactly the game plan……getting us to duel. Happy Easter, new life, whatever you believe we can rise up to our better nature. 🙏
Option A - Cutting off comments accentuates confirmation bias. Good to hear opposing voices and to publicly set them straight. It takes time and effort and patience but I think that your readers can learn as much from the way you handle challenging comments as they learn from the articles.
Thank about it. What does communism do? LOL
I was about to say the same thing~commenters have a right to their opinion, whether they agree with whatever subject matter Celia puts out or not. Comments that Celia disagrees with, either ignore it or challenge it which will almost always invite more of it. I learn a lot from commenter opinions, sometimes they present a different perspective that I consider and learn from. Sometimes I disagree. But it's always interesting and educational. Let the unpaid comment and read comments, Aside from your articles and op-eds, how else are they going to assess and get a flavor to become a paid subscriber. Ya gotta drive the car before you buy it.
Commenters do indeed have a right to their opinions, but nothing at all gives them any right to express that opinion on someone else's substack. If anyone feels strongly enough about something in particular then they can pay up for a month, say all they want for a month, and then cancel. I've done this myself on occasion.
I am retired I can’t pay for all the substack separately. And find it irritating to hit a paywall to comment. Then I probably
Like unsubscribing to the substack off you don’t force me to pay.
What is the comment section for, Jim? I am a bit surprised by your assumptions about 'rights' here!
Please tell me where a right to comment in someone’s substack or newspaper or radio show comes from? Do we have a right to comment in the NY Times? Even if the Times says it has discretion to censor? Notice that I’m all for civil debate but I don’t see where the right to speak on someone else’s forum comes from. This is distinct from the right to criticize the government, which has its foundation in the understanding that such criticism is essential to keep government honest. The government can’t censor but the Times can and does, and substack writers can and do. However my personal feeling is that all civil comments should be allowed but nowhere can I claim a right to be heard anywhere, and indeed I’m prevented from voicing my opinions in many forums. But this speaks to the general tendency to listen to only one narrative and disregard or even hate other narratives and a lack of fair-mindedness, not to a cancellation of my right.
I don't think rights come into commenting on another person's writing.
Agree.
Tom:
Spending weeks 1999-2000 in Cuba (vacation) & 1994-1995 in China working, communism is fine. It is Bolshevism or even Democracy, when the jOO controls. All the jOOs left Cuba, but Cuba still maintains their cemetery. 88Dave
the layer of JUice is the cover of the Black Nobs. https://francesleader.substack.com/p/black-nobility-101
Tom Golden - I agree
omg I learn so much from Celia's sheep-dogging the comments !
Communist and collectivist governments censor because they want no criticism, which is why freedom of speech is in our constitution, as perhaps the ultimate check on power. But this never applied to private entities-- newspapers, e.g.-- who were free to censor whomever they wished.
That may be so.... time to break the mould.
I don’t disagree that free speech is a civic good but does that mean that newspapers, e.g., will be forced to print all comments? That seems dictatorial to me. Might be best if newspapers can print what they want AND no one can censor any newspaper. This will allow for different viewpoints. Perhaps the basic problem is a lack of education into the value of other viewpoints that can serve as checks and balances on our own thinking and counter an adherence to ideologies.
Forced? You seem so totalitarian about everything! Newspapers are a dying breed, thank goodness.
Agree on confirmation bias. Echo chambers abound.
Also like the idea of community standards, having personally used the "report" option a few times to call out hateful trolls with nothing to add, or say at all... It's in the 3 dots to the right of the poster's name. Don't know where the report goes, assuming to the admin person rather than substack.
Option D - give us a "REPORT" Option so we can report heinous or scurrilous or personal attacks and once there are 5 "Reported" notices (from PAYING Subscribers) - delete the Reported comment. If the Commentator gets three of his/her Comments Reported then block that Commentator.
Peter
Actually a very good suggestion.
Simply ensure we here are able to report someone who breaks the rules of fair play in their comments. As such WE can do the job for you. On the other hand, yes, if you feel there are too many bad comments that are taking too much of your time to sort out; then by all means do what you feel necessary to protect yourself.
There already is a report button, although it may not be available on the app, which is stupid. I deleted it long ago!
Everyone (and Celia) can block anyone we don't want to see.
Yes, likely the easiest to do since bots and instigators are hanging out.
I support this Option D idea!
There already is a Report option. Check out the three little dots.
Celia needs the final say, as you may or may not get objective Reporters.
I have been retired for over a decade and my primary income is social security. I am currently subscribed to only one substack account which I chose because of the work the author was doing to counter the scamdemic in 2020. My budget does not permit multiple substack subscriptions at $8 per month. With option B, I would not subscribe or comment here, and also pay less attention to your newsletter.
Yes, same. $8 US fluctuates between $11 and $12 Canadian.
I too am retired, and I have to be selective. It's not anyone's obligation to provide a free forum when you're getting their content for free.
I agree, Bob.
This is a difficult situation, Celia, and I see the complex challenges it presents.
I wonder, since you're not the only Substack author who is experiencing this issue, if Substack can offer some more assistance and options. Is Substack able to leverage AI to help identify extremely hostile comments and commenters so that someone (a human) can review them more efficiently? AI is nowhere near perfect, but perhaps it could be used as one more tool in the toolbox, and Substack could expand their support and options for the many writers in this unbelievably valuable space.
I agree entirely and I am glad that there are people around like yourself to support the substack.
I think you summarized the issue nicely: "it's not anyone's obligation to provide a free forum when you're getting their content for free."
Same. I love to read substacks but they aren't crucial to my existence. They are a luxury. I won't pay for them. There is too much free content out there.
Just remember, people like Celia spend a lot of time and effort to provide you with info you won't get on other sites. And while the option is there to read for free, just a reminder that it costs her money to provide you with your luxury.
Here come the lecturers and guilt-trippers. Not interested.
Celia asked for my opinion and I've given it. Butt out.
in the spirit of a comments section and the in light of the discussion above, in my opinion, it's not out-of-line to comment on your comment or for me to butt-in and comment now. You don't have to like it, but we get to chime in if we wish- the risk you take by posting, I guess. (Yes it was a poll and yeah, the comment was a lil bit "guilt-trippy" but also not a command). I also notice how it well illustrates the considerations of the original question... Lastly, it's OK not to pay for every newsletter you wish to read. I think many of us have to pick just one or two to give, if at all, due to fixed incomes. cheers
Who called it out of line? Who was talking to you? I wasn't.
Gee, thanks for letting us all know that some subscriptions are paid and some aren't and we can pick and choose. Because that wasn't obvious before.
I view it in the same way as I used to view buying a glossy magazine back in the day. A luxury worth having. You get what you pay for and since Celia's substack is free you're getting it anyway. The comments are just a bonus. I only read them if I need more clarification on a subject or have something of value to offer that wasn't mentioned. Independent journalists need financial support. They cannot live long on air alone.
I'm sure Celia would be the first to say that you are not responsible for her income.
That's how I look at it.
My point was that I won't pay for a substack.
You do you.
You get what you pay for.
With that attitude, I wouldn't have gotten far in life. As it is, I enjoy plenty of things that are absolutely free. Maybe someday you will, too.
Love, gratitude, friendship; all free. Writing for a living and not getting paid, in my opinion, is suicide, though that is Celia's choice.
If she's not getting paid then how has she subsisted her entire adult life?
Oh, wait, it's because she gets paid. I doubt Celia is going to tell us she doesn't. It might not be a lot, but that is also her choice.
Did you see the paid subscription option at the top? People use that. If they want to and can afford it.
You're welcome. No suicide necessary.
I am sort of in the same boat. I understand the problem, though. It is what it is.
Same here. Rappaport's articles are all behind a pay wall. So I don't read them. If everyone did the same I would have to abandon Substack. I enjoy the comments for the most part and haven't noticed very many nasty or hateful ones, but I don't read all comments. It would be easier if Substack had one subscription fee instead of every contributor asking for a fee. $ 8 month adds up when you are following many different contributors. I'm barely getting by as it is.
Hi el Gallinazo! Good to see you around.
I would not see you if comments were only for paid subscribers, nor would you occasionally see me.
Here's something perceptive: https://prussiagate.substack.com/p/scamocracy-part-ii
Thanks, I will check it out.
It's $60 a year for one substack so $5 a month. No more than I used to pay for the big Sunday newspaper every week 40 years ago.
Leave things as they are. Otherwise you are taking up ranks with those that take a “pay to play” / “how to monetize journalism” approach. Some people literally can’t pay for a subscription. I guess it comes down to the question of free speech. Do even the small people deserve a voice? Do you want to equip and mobilize public discussion towards the broadest community that inspires change, pushback and solidarity? Or a caste system or haves and have nots. Caste system or a “come to me ALL who are weary and heavy laden…?
Well said TP. Closing comments would narrow comments with those who agree and thus, not allow people to see others' views. In order for me to change my perspective, I have to see and learn from others' viewpoints. However, Celia is talking about the predators who feed on hate, and not there for speech freedom.
Isn't that a fine line? A blatant threat feeds on hate. A racist feeds on hate. An opposing view just as you say might help us learn something we didn't consider. I think Celia has to be careful not to shut someone down because they don't agree with her viewpoint.
Yeah it has pros and cons. Celia also needs to protect herself because she was targeted not sure what though. Nobody knows the psychogical (maybe physical too but it manifests physically) torture that people face when they mess around with big wigs of the world. They use occult magic crap in addition to all the other tools to silence/control people. If that happens, it isn't always worth a life. God will get them because you can't be evil and expect to get goodness. We reap what we sow. Plants seeds of hate and you get hate.
Thank you for this great article. As a fellow Substack writer, I had never looked at enabling or disabling comments in this way.
As an advocate of free speech, I believe in allowing open dialogue—even when I strongly disagree with what’s being said. I welcome comments from all perspectives on my platform, and only intervene when a comment crosses the line into something truly extreme or harmful. This approach isn’t just theoretical for me—it's rooted in experience. As the founder of American Patriot Social, a free speech platform launched in November 2021, I’ve come to deeply understand the value and complexity of true free speech and expression. Before creating the platform, I thought I understood what free speech meant, but it wasn’t until I had to defend it—day in and day out—that I realized just how layered, challenging, and essential it truly is.
WHAT FREE SPEECH IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT!
It's very important to understand regarding free speech and what it means and what it doesn't mean.
Just because a person says something that you don't like, don't agree with or even if it upsets you or offends you, and even if you don't believe what they are saying is true, that person has a right to say it because that is freedom of speech.
We need to remember that freedom of speech is not based on a person's thoughts or opinion, freedom of speech is not based on a person's feelings or emotions or their actions, and freedom of speech is not based on a person's wisdom, knowledge or experience on a particular matter. Freedom of speech is the ability for a person to say what they want to say, how they want to say it, when they want to say it, and where they want to say it to any audience, no matter if it upsets or offends people. And even if what a person says something that another person deems as disrespectful or even demeaning to them may not be deemed as disrespectful or even demeaning to someone else, but regardless, every person has the right to speak freely.
And regarding a true freedom of speech platform, it is just like being outside a coffee shop on the sidewalk if a person walks up and starts having a conversation with you, but he says some things that may offend me or upset me or some things that I don't like or agree with, that is their right to speak freely, it doesn't matter the environment, the surroundings or even the people that may hear it. And just as he has a right to speak freely and say what he wants to say, I also have a right to choose to walk away and not listen anymore. So when you look at a freedom of speech platform just because someone says something that people don't like, or agree with or even something that might upset or offend people is not grounds to remove it or delete it. If a person does not like or agree with something that someone said or if something a person says upsets them or offends them, they have a right to simply move on and not read it, just as the person who said it has a right to speak freely, it's that simple.
In our society today, too many people react and respond based on their thoughts, feelings and emotions, regardless of another person's right to speak freely. As the result, they want the person who spoke the words that they don't like or agree or the words of another person who upset them or offend them they want them to be deleted, or their content deleted and that's just not okay.
The two most likely things that will ever get deleted from our platform with regard to our rules and policies will be an inappropriate picture or an inappropriate video.
Trevor Winchell
Founder
American Patriot Social
I have no problem having a toll for trolls. Free speech doesn't mean interrupting a conversation, or crashing your dinner party. Free speech doesn't mean jumping in to someone else's overheard private conversation and taking it over. Free speech doesn't require you or anyone else to pay for their soap box.
Free speech doesn't mean saying anything anywhere at anytime without any limits to anybody without taking ownership for what is said. Free speech is NOT an unlimited right on a private forum or in a private coffee shoppe. Free speech is not unlimited slander or libel. With that said, you have the responsibility as "host" to make the rules.
You are correct, the professional trolls will not pay the toll, and it's no one else's responsibility to pay it for them. I chose to be a paid subscriber because I value your work. For those being able to read it for free is a "gift." You have no obligation to provide them a free stage as well. Even the Bible says "The workman is worry of their wage." It is a very small tradeoff to limit the comments as your work is not underwritten by advertising. Besides, the extreme left never allows comments, paid or unpaid. At least you give an option.
Since my comments from this thread somehow disappeared when a sex troll who was replying to my comments, was banned, I am reposting my comments as follows:
////
That's where you and many people get it wrong. Yes, that's the way it appears when you read the First Amendment alone; but it is the Supreme Court's responsibility to interpret the Bill of Right's Amendments, and to determine what they include and don't include. For instance, on the First Amendment, the case LAW precedent, or one of them, is Brandenburg vs. Ohio (look it up; even for Wikipedia, their page on it is pretty good). That LAW makes it abundantly clear that free speech INCLUDES "unpopular" and/or "offensive" speech, AND THAT THAT THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHT, AND THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR UPHOLDING OR VIOLATING IT, IS *NOT* LIMITED TO THE GOVERNMENT....
THEREFORE, *NO ONE* HAS ANY RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED, ANYWHERE!
Do you (everyone reading this) get that? Or do you understand what that means? It means that if people did have a right to not be offended, it would contradict that ruling of the SCOTUS that free speech includes "offensive" speech.
I feel a deep sense of dread when so many people, as in this thread, claim that businesses and so on supposedly don't have any duty to freedom of speech. The foregoing proves them quite wrong, as well as the fact intertwined with it that the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are IN- (OR UN-) ALIENABLE, which means they cannot legally be taken or withheld from us, and that thus WE HAVE ALL OF THOSE RIGHTS AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE THEY ARE A PART OF US AND HAVE NOT BEEN WITHHELD OR TAKEN FROM US BECAUSE THEY CANNOT BE SUCH.
Since we have those rights at all times, that obviously INCLUDES businesses, etc. The ONLY exception that the SCOTUS ruled is not free speech is threats of physical violence that are likely to actually be carried out imminently (which would include falsely crying fire in a crowded theater, etc.).
THERE ARE NO OTHER EXCEPTIONS!
I would also add at this point what international law has to say about the freedom of speech, in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which further clarifies and cements the foregoing:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right includes freedom to hold opinions WITHOUT INTERFERENCE and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas THROUGH *ANY MEDIA* AND *REGARDLESS OF FRONTIERS* (which obviously includes businesses and websites; there is no limitation whatsoever)." [Id.; emphasis provided by me.]
Therefore, EVERYONE WHO DOES, PLEASE STOP LIMITING FREEDOM OF SPEECH. That's one of the traps the globalists and others fooled far too many if not most people into falling right into, and getting them to defend violating free speech. (Please don't send me any comments arguing against these plain facts.)
Celia should choose Option A, and not limit free speech whatsoever, nor make it unavailable to those who cannot afford to pay for website access, and should not make ANYONE have to pay to express their free speech, making free speech not free. (And don't anyone give me that crap either that I can go someplace else where I can express myself, or start my own Stack, etc. All I can say to your ilk is, frak-off! And stop violating, and/or encouraging violating, freedom of speech. Either you completely respect one-hundred-percent free speech, or you limit and violate it. Cease and desist violating our Supreme Law of the Land that it is the DUTY OF ALL AMERICANS TO RESPECT AND OBEY, COMPLETELY!]
////
[Regarding the following comment, I don't have a copy of the what the commenter said that I was responding to (their comment disappeared too), and I don't recall what they said except that it was about the defamation laws, but I hereby post my reply anyway]:
You said all of that, not me. If something said about someone truly isn't true, and it truly does threaten their business, etc., then of course the libel and slander laws should exist. But if it's just because someone's feelings were hurt, that is NOT slander or libel. As I've told Celia before, she SHOULD ban obvious or proven trolls and/or shills; otherwise, let the comments stand no matter what they say, unless and only unless they contain threats of physical violence that are likely to actually be carried out imminently. We must NOT presume people guilty, but MUST presume them innocent. But where do we draw the line? In that sense the defamation laws are unconstitutional because they put us on a slippery slope towards censorship. There should be ABSOLUTELY NO censorship except for very limited reasons, such as the ones I delineated.
As we observed through the "Covid" years, and we still observe from some still-existent censorship, some people in government who have little or absolutely no respect for the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, decide we can't speak freely about some things, and "must" be censored if we speak against free-speech-violating "dis/mal/misinformation" designations. This is the opposite of free speech. It is either complete freedom of speech, or we don't really have it at all. And people, especially the brainwashed and global "sovereignty" proponents, can call just about all "offensive" speech so-called "defamation", "libel", "slander", etc., not because that "offensive" speech truly is any of those things, but because they don't want to be offended, and/or supposedly don't want others to be offended, AND BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT THE TRUTH TO COME OUT. Enough of all that bullshit! Ninety-eight percent of censorship is wrong and is a grievous violation of freedom of speech. Again, NO ONE has ANY RIGHT(S) to not be offended!
Who decides what supposedly "isn't" free speech, and can we trust anyone, especially those who don't completely uphold free speech, but want people to go to prison and have their lives ruined, if not die, because of WORDS, to determine what is truth and what is not!? This is mass-insanity!! If you're old enough, do you recall the saying that was so prevalent when we were kids (back in the sixties and seventies), "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"? We must stop taking offense so much, and stop going after people for doing nothing but non-violently speaking "offensive" speech. Once more, NO ONE has ANY RIGHT(S) to not be offended!
Generally, words are NOT a threat, regardless of whether or not anti-liberty-and-freedom ideologues interpret them that way in order to silence certain people and certain speech. We are either truly free or we aren't free! And without freedom of speech we do not live in a free country and world, but in a slave state, and that's why the First Amendment is the bedrock foundational Amendment of all the rest of the Amendments, and is first and foremost before all of those other Amendments. Societies that truly have free speech, are free, those that do not have free speech, are not free. Thus, we must defend freedom of speech "...AGAINST ALL ENEMIIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC...", NO MATTER WHAT, AND NOT BOW WHATSOEVER TO ITS CURTAILMENT!!!!!
////
Do you think that people have an obligation to listen to a person's speech?
Do we also have a natural, inalienable right to not listen to someone?
Does not listening or reading another man's opinion violate freedom of speech in any way?
Does the right of freedom of speech invade private spaces, or does it only affect the public space?
There's a device on everyone's computer called a scroll wheel. Use it.
I agree with you about what free speech is, but I don't think the solution is forcing everyone to pay in order to discourage trolls.
If the publisher/writer sets the post to "free to read / pay to comment", then the non-paid subscriber can still (a) read the entire article, and (b) read all the comments, AND, they (c) can make a comment by posting a [substack] Note -- by hitting the restack button on the article
With all due respect, that's not the same thing as participating in the comments section. What your third option does, is open a commenting thread on one's own timeline, correct?
well said
To me you are talking about manners and rudeness. I don’t agree that a person can’t say anything where ever and when ever they want. But if it’s your party you can and sometimes should do what you think you need to do in return. It’s obvious that in most places there are rules in place that help but only if in-forced.
I agree with allowing all voices. However, "free speech" is not something that you and I control. It is about the government controlling what we can and can't say. So I am not sure I get what your point is about the layered complexities. If you as a Substack author don't like a comment and feel it is abusive, etc. your deleting it does not counter freedom of speech. If the government does, then it does.
////
That's where you and many people get it wrong. Yes, that's the way it appears when you read the First Amendment alone; but it is the Supreme Court's responsibility to interpret the Bill of Right's Amendments, and to determine what they include and don't include. For instance, on the First Amendment, the case LAW precedent, or one of them, is Brandenburg vs. Ohio (look it up; even for Wikipedia, their page on it is pretty good). That LAW makes it abundantly clear that free speech INCLUDES "unpopular" and/or "offensive" speech, AND THAT THAT THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHT, AND THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR UPHOLDING OR VIOLATING IT, IS *NOT* LIMITED TO THE GOVERNMENT....
THEREFORE, *NO ONE* HAS ANY RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED, ANYWHERE!
Do you (everyone reading this) get that? Or do you understand what that means? It means that if people did have a right to not be offended, it would contradict that ruling of the SCOTUS that free speech includes offensive speech.
I feel a deep sense of dread when so many people, as in this thread, claim that businesses and so on supposedly don't have any duty to freedom of speech. The foregoing proves them quite wrong, as well as the fact intertwined with it that the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are IN- (OR UN-) ALIENABLE, which means they cannot legally be taken or withheld from us, and that thus WE HAVE ALL OF THOSE RIGHTS AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE THEY ARE A PART OF US AND HAVE NOT BEEN WITHHELD OR TAKEN FROM US BECAUSE THEY CANNOT BE SUCH.
Since we have those rights at all times, that obviously INCLUDES businesses, etc. The ONLY exception that the SCOTUS ruled is not free speech is threats of physical violence that are likely to actually be carried out imminently (which would include falsely crying fire in a crowded theater, etc.
THERE ARE NO OTHER EXCEPTIONS!
I would also add at this point what international law has to say about the freedom of speech, in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which further clarifies and cements the foregoing:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right includes freedom to hold opinions WITHOUT INTERFERENCE and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas THROUGH *ANY MEDIA* AND *REGARDLESS OF FRONTIERS* (which obviously includes businesses and websites; there is no limitation whatsoever)." [Id.; emphasis provided by me.]
Therefore, EVERYONE WHO DOES, PLEASE STOP LIMITING FREEDOM OF SPEECH. That's one of the traps the globalists and others fooled far too many if not most people into falling right into, and getting them to defend violating free speech. (Please don't send me any comments arguing against these plain facts.)
Celia should choose Option A, and not limit free speech whatsoever, nor make it unavailable to those who cannot afford to pay for website access, and should not make ANYONE have to pay to express their free speech, making free speech not free. (And don't anyone give me that crap either that I can go someplace else where I can express myself, or start my own Stack, etc. All I can say to your ilk is, frak-off! And stop violating, and/or encouraging violating, freedom of speech. Either you completely respect one-hundred-percent free speech, or you limit and violate it. Cease and desist violating our Supreme Law of the Land that it is the DUTY OF ALL AMERICANS TO RESPECT AND OBEY, COMPLETELY!
////
So you don't agree with defamation laws, etc. correct? Or libel? Or blocking stalkers who mean you harm? OK then. I disagree. That stuff should not be allowed in any decent society.
You said all of that, not me. If something said about someone truly isn't true, and it truly does threaten their business, etc., then of course the libel and slander laws should exist. But if it's just because someone's feelings were hurt, that is NOT slander or libel. As I've told Celia before, she SHOULD ban obvious or proven trolls and/or shills; otherwise, let the comments stand no matter what they say, unless and only unless they contain threats of physical violence that are likely to actually be carried out imminently. We must NOT presume people guilty, but MUST presume them innocent. But where do we draw the line? In that sense the defamation laws are unconstitutional because they put us on a slippery slope towards censorship. There should be ABSOLUTELY NO censorship except for very limited reasons, such as the ones I delineated.
As we saw through the "Covid" years, and we still see from some still-existent censorship, some people in government who have little or absolutely no respect for the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, decide we can't speak freely about some things, and "must" be censored if we speak against free-speech-violating "dis/mal/misinformation" designations. This is the opposite of free speech. It is either complete freedom of speech, or we don't really have it at all. And people, especially the brainwashed and global "sovereignty" proponents, can call just about all "offensive" speech so-called "defamation", "libel", "slander", etc., not because that "offensive" speech truly is any of those things, but because they don't want to be offended, and/or supposedly don't want others to be offended, AND BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT THE TRUTH TO COME OUT. Enough of all that bullshit! Ninety-eight percent of censorship is wrong and is a grievous violation of freedom of speech.
Who decides what supposedly "isn't" free speech, and can we trust anyone, especially those who don't completely uphold free speech, but want people to go to prison and have their lives ruined, if not die, because of WORDS!? This is mass-insanity!! If you're old enough, do you recall the saying that was so prevalent when we were kids (back in the sixties and seventies), "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"? We must stop taking offense so much, and going after people for doing nothing but non-violently speaking "offensive" speech. Again, NO ONE has ANY RIGHT(S) to not be offended! Generally, words are NOT a threat, regardless of whether or not anti-liberty-and-freedom ideologues interpret them that way in order to silence certain people and certain speech. We are either truly free or we aren't free! And without freedom of speech we do not live in a free country and world, but in a slave state, and that's why the First Amendment is the bedrock foundational Amendment of all the rest of the Amendments, and is first and foremost before all of those other Amendments. Societies that truly have free speech, are free, those that do not have free speech, are not free. Thus, we must defend freedom of speech "...AGAINST ALL ENEMIIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC...", NO MATTER WHAT, AND NOT BOW WHATSOEVER TO ITS CURTAILMENT!!!!!
I'm not going to read your novelettes, sorry. I have an actual life.
Good luck with that.
What are you thinking? The government should not control my or anyone’s free speech. That is the point. That is why we believe in free speech period.
LMAO.
Please re-read for comprehension and clarity.
I completely agree with you. So glad you did recognize the not free to post pictures or video.
A lot of haters are bots and trolls. Don't respond to them. I would recommend the rule my grandmother said to me "You can disagree and express outrage without being nasty or mean. It's called being an adult." I don't agree with censorship in adult settings. It's a slippery slope. But this is your substack so you can set your rules.
Also, all of us have the power to block them. Easy peasy!
And that also can become a slippery slope into censorship. Careful what you wish for.
LOL.
No it isn't. Me blocking someone on social media means I don't see them any more. It's not shutting them down. They have access to the whole world. Just not me.
Same as refusing to answer the door when a salesman comes around.
My choice on who has access to me.
I stand corrected~I was in the train of thought of commenters reporting what they perceive as hate content, and when so many reports come in, that person is banned from the site altogether. No, I believe we have the right to block someone from getting in our personal space.
Thanks, Rose.
How do you block somebody on substack who decides to follow you when you are a private person?
I don't understand what you're asking.
Perhaps consider shadow banning the worst ones? When they don't get responses to thier tripe, they'll eventually get the message.
Here is the post that I wrote about free speech.
https://community.americanpatriotsforum.com/wall/post/a-word-from-the-founder---regarding-free-speech-qzuKf9pqsWVNgXU
How bout another option? Some posts stay open to all and some only paid can respond to? Then you see what both feel like and go from there.
I don't like paywalls on comments, but I don't have to deal with what you guys have been dealing with so it's cheap advice. Thanks for asking.
Great idea, Kathleen!
Celia, thank you for the history of your work and what you have gone through. I wasn't aware of any of those attacks on you, having only found you about a year ago. You mentioned Jon Rappoport - a brilliant writer who I have followed for many years on his various appearances, Coast to Coast, InfoWars, etc.
When I discovered Substack I followed him there. I enjoyed his writing, and left very positive comments, and re-stacked him. Then I found I could no longer comment without a paid subscription. I had to unfollow him, in spite of how much I appreciated his work.
At one time I was a paid subscriber to about seven or eight stacks. The ones I paid for were the people I liked the most or thought should be supported, like Seth Keshel who does amazing work on elections. I also sometimes simply made donations through whatever link they had set up.
Then a couple years ago, monthly bills and property taxes began going up. I am on a VERY tiny fixed social security payment each month. I often cannot pay all my bills, and have anything left for gas, or a small purchase on eBay, or a potted plant, etc. I had to end all my paid Substack subs. A few I can still comment in, most I cannot.
I do wish you well in whatever you decide to do. However, I will not be able to pay for a sub. I have very much appreciated knowing that you have read some of my comments, and even "liked" some. I always try to contribute something positive. I am so glad you were able to recover your earlier work that was "deleted", and recover your health also.
A
Oh yeah - Rappaport was another one I don't read any more because of $$ requirements. And once I do move on and stop reading someone who requires $$, I don't miss them. So there's that.
I don't think you can expect people to write for free. We always paid for newspapers if we wanted one.
When I was a kid and young adult our family did take the local newspaper, delivered by paperboy. But it, and many other US papers were available at the local library, at no cost.
Where did I say I expect people to write for free?
Re-read for comprehension and clarity, please.
When I had cancer, I discovered Louise Hay. If you don't know her, she's kind of the Queen of positive affirmations and healed herself of cancer. I remember her saying about income, if someone said they were on a fixed income, "well, who fixed it?" I don't mean any disrespect, but I learned at that time to begin to take responsibility for everything in my life. Wish you well, and hope you can fix it higher for yourself.
Carol, yes, I have heard of her. Also Norman Vincent Peele, of positive thinking fame. Unfortunately, many people who are elderly, or disabled, cannot do other kinds of work to increase their income. I get by the best I can with what I have. I do have an eBay account, and from time to time sell some items there, for a little bit extra.
Currently I have a Minolta pocket camera for sale, if you know anyone who wants one.
Nothing you mention has anything to do with anything I've said.
She was replying to me.
My mistake. Apologies!
I'm not a paid subscriber so I don't know if I have a vote but if I do, then:
Definitely option A, because:
Its hard to trust anyone who limits the comments.
Thoughtful people don't judge you harshly if you ignore or ban rude commenters.
Its usually (not always) easy to spot Big Brother's little helpers, and almost all the really rude commenters and provocateurs are from that source.
People don't have money to support all the great blogs and substacks out there.
Substack itself is part of the matrix, even though it does allow some truth, and it being part of the matrix not only makes me wary of paying money to read it, but it makes using the comments to try to overcome their shadowbanning and censorship necessary.
Apologies to all the struggling authors out there, but offering truth to readers these days is like giving water and aid to the wounded in this information war, and asking for money to do that is in itself suspicious.
You are literally expecting someone to work for nothing. Conservative writers don't have a voice in the public arena because they are not carrying the party line. I would not write for free, because we all have bills and if someone is offering something valuable, then it should be paid for. (oops ended with a preposition)
Years ago, I taught a free knitting class at my local rural library. Let me tell you about the difference between paid and free. Free means I have nothing invested and don't have to go home and practice. I can come back and you will teach me all over again how to do it because I have no skin in the game. I was polite and kind, kind of like a door mat, ended up feeling taken advantage of, though I admittedly let them, learned from my mistake and never did that again.
People have to figure out how to distribute the effort. Some will contribute more, some less.
Love scales. The perps don't believe that, but its true.
Does Love Scale?
Marc Andreessen doesn't think so...
https://tomg2021.substack.com/p/does-love-scale
Organize a New New York Times.
I would pay for a subscription.
If the publisher/writer sets the post to "free to read / pay to comment", then the non-paid subscriber can still read (a) the entire article, and (b) all the comments
Have you considered making a donation to Celia:
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/celiafarber
Hi Celia.
Although I have not commented for years, this post inspired me to “finally” officially become a paid subscriber. I cherish your perspectives, musings, and tinkerings.
Just a positive note on Good Friday
Chris
"Without darkness you wouldn't see the light".
Here is suggestion. You can probably get willing assistance with an AI tool that can screen your comments. Do you know Mike Adams? He released a downloadable tool that might train on simple instructions. There must be someone who can help with this. It should not be that difficult.
I scrubbed my paid subscriptions leaving only two authors who have done such admirable work I had to give a little support. These two are you and Bonnie Anne Cox.
I am tempted by many others but it really adds up! I’m retired since the mandate in Q3’21. Schellenberger and Taibbi … I feel bad not having paid for their excellent content.
Have dumped others who disappointed me. Sasha is great in her way, but when she called Brian Ardis a quack and indulged in character assassination of Bobby, my wife told me “Maybe she’s overdriving her headlights” or something like that.
For a while I paid for Dershowitz’s podcast. Issues strictly confined to the Constitution … no one does it better. But on other topics he spreads cognitive dissonance. He supported the COVID shots. He gave Biden a “B+”. (Oy!). I can hardly account for it. He seems so lucid. He read my comments on air twice. The first time he could not finish it. The second time he scoffed “There are no Nazis in Ukraine.” I mentioned that Johnson had scuttled peace agreement. “Which Johnson?” he replied with sarcasm, “Andrew Johnson.?” A few weeks later he was stunned by NYT photos of tanks with swastikas. I commented again “Compensation for your disrespect: a bowl of matzoh ball soup … the best in Miami. Name the time and place.” No answer.
Great story!
With all due respect, Childhood Fairy should get a grip; she's now an uber-successful adult psychotherapist. And I'm truly sorry, Celia that you've had such awful stuff go down because of your heartfelt commitment to the truth. I know that you're extra sensitive to trying to please everyone, which doesn't serve you. Really it doesn't.
I don't subscribe to stacks I can't converse with. I pay for a few, but can't afford to do that for all I'd like to.
Here's one other option: make it super cheap: Elizabeth Nickson's monthly fee is just $5 CAD. Especially for us Canadians, that's a lovely welcome mat and makes it even more accessible to your US readers.
I'm a paid subscriber, but I object to "censoring" via not allowing unpaid subscribers to comment. And it is not true that all sub stacks only allow paying subscribers to comment. I am an unpaid subscriber on several that still allow comments.
Sasha Latypova, a truly great and essential writer on big harma excesses, allows unpayers to comment. usually, I exploit that privilege to thank her for her work.
All aspects of this, Well said in your article.
Option A if D not possible.
If a reader is not bright enough to ignore comments made on "your" article they need to go into hibernation.
Speed read comments let most of it go.
James Corbett's has been very successful for years now in open info distribution but additional content for subscribers
https://corbettreport.com
I vote for option A
No matter what you choose, there are paid dissenters with lots of financial backing all over the web and planet in person.
As far as CPSD and crappy childhood goes, that forum is no comparison. Worrying about being triggered or triggering others is understandable.
However some of us must be on the front line with metal and not focus on past experiences while we wade through the current. I’m not saying don’t care or don’t remember. Count the hours today or what may be left to live and know that there’s only one frequency to tune into NOW. We will be jolted but must remember why we love reading Celia, why we love this life and don’t give a crap about snarky comments or those beings stuck in darkness.
Do you really need another job to police the web? Fast reading and jumping to the next caring word or clue to our survival is a way through the stench. Too old to waste the time and besides that’s exactly the game plan……getting us to duel. Happy Easter, new life, whatever you believe we can rise up to our better nature. 🙏