It seems a controversy has broken out at Blue Mass Group as to whether it is okay to give convicted felons access to the blogosphere. I didn’t create the account or do the posting. I didn’t even know about it until I saw it (briefly) last night and this morning. But I will add my two cents. I’ll start by pointing out that LaGuer’s thoughts and perspectives on a wide variety of subjects have been widely published in the mainstream media. So my question would have to be, are blogs a special case where the gatekeepers are obligated to err on the side of limiting free speech?
Not long ago the editors at HarperCollins, hardly a fringe operation, saw fit to include an piece of LaGuer’s writing in a collection of essays called “The Bastard on the Couch….” Reviewers at the New York Daily News, CBS, Slate (to name a few), and more than a dozen netizen critics at Amazon.com commented on the book and narry an eyebrow was lifted about the contribution from a convicted felon.
You can read LaGuer’s essay (reproduced with permission of the book’s editor) at BenLaGuer.com. Speaking of the Web site I’ve been maintaining since 2003. It caused consternation in the form of a Boston Herald article when it first went up. How could a convict get access to the Web?, was the anguished question.
It never ceases to amaze me how people who otherwise proclaim themselves to be for all things good instinctively move to tell the disenfranchised to shut the hell up. The fact is that LaGuer’s letters to the editor have appeared in the Worcester Telegram & Gazette and the Valley Advocate just within the last few months. Several of his columns have been published in Worcester Magazine and he once had a feature article in Boston Magazine on a day in the life of a prisoner. He won a first place PEN award that also appeared in a bound volume. They all appeared under his byline without reference to who approved or edited them. Pardon me for being a bit cynical about this, but it is distressing to see an otherwise useful blog turned into a gutless forum where anonymous posters get to shout down content that they don’t like. Think about that next time you bash the MSM for lack of intestinal fortitude.
This is what BMG states as its policy: The purpose of Blue Mass. Group is to develop ideas that will invigorate progressive leadership in Massachusetts and the nation.
<
p>
Did having a convicted felon posting on BMG help the site towards its stated policy? I argue that no, it didn’t.
<
p>
If the policy read: BMG is a forum for convicted felons to gather, chat and profess their innoncence then I say go for it. No problem with Ben posting on BenLaGuer.com.
<
p>
I just don’t see how this story has evolved from defending our gubernatorial candidate when his opponent used it as a below the belt attack into some sort of “Save Tookie!” campaign.
<
p>
He’s just not my martyr…
because I read the initial post once quickly before I went to bed last night. As I recall it wasn’t a profession of innocence, but a think piece on progressive values (broadly defined). But since it is no long available, why should you believe me? I think there’s a word for that. It would be censorship.
It has nothing to do with us closing off the site to felons to “protect progressive values”; and it ain’t nohow censorship. It’s about posting in someone else’s name, which we have decided we can’t allow. Mr. Goldscheider or Mr. Hosty, or anyone else is free to resubmit Ben LaGuer’s “Strange Fruit” piece, as long as they’re doing so under his/her own name.
<
p>
As Mr. Goldscheider points out, LaGuer’s writings are in books; they’ve been in newspapers, too. I don’t see why BMG should be any different. We support a free exchange of ideas.
I’m glad you clarified that. I have to say it was somewhat disorienting to be looking at the post, then getting a cup of coffee, and then all of a sudden it not being there anymore. I won’t be putting it up for the simple reason that I don’t have it. I suppose I could get it, but it’s not a priority for me – and by the time I do the moment will have passed. I hope you can see how having a post (and all the attendant comments) disappear in front of my eyes felt like censorship. For the record, I totally agree with you that it is not a good idea for people to be posting in other people’s names. I am not sure how that came to pass, but the comments (now gone) seemed to indicate that “the editors” had a hand in that. Am I way off base?
updated rules of the road.
and as I just said, I agree with the policy. Your point would be?
I do believe that allowing Mr. LaGuer a voice here does help us with our leadership. For far too long the leadership of past has kept their heads in the sand when asked difficult questions, like where the fingerprints went that were not Ben’s. In calling these people out on the carpet perhaps we can get the answers that have been evaded for 23 years.
<
p>
He doesn’t have to be your martyr for him to have a voice, does he? I believe Eric articulated the situation well, and I’ll leave it at that.
find out about the case before you make a statement like that?
<
p>
Is it possible there’s more than one victim in this case? From what I’ve read, yeah, it’s quite possible.
Ben LaGuer’s request for a new trial is currently under review by the Supreme Judicial Court. For those of us who have taken the time to read http://www.BenLaGuer.com , it is clear that Ben has been incarcerated because of criminal acts committed, not by Ben, but by the Leominster Police Dept and by the former Worcerster DA’s office.
<
p>
If you have not yet taken the time to read the original documents and the commentary on this perfect storm of judicial ineptitute, then please do not expect anyone to take your comments seriously re: Mr LaGUer’s guilt or innocence.
<
p>
Three times now , in the past 23 years, the parole board has offered Ben the chance to leave prison…. IF he would first admit his guilt to the crime he had been convicted of. Three times Ben has said,” NO.. I cannot admit to something I did not do.” Three times now, Ben has chosen truth over freedom.
<
p>
This is super-human courage; courage that possibly and probably NONE of us reading this LIBERAL FREE SPEECH blog right now, would have the courage to do, faced with the same situation.
<
p>
Oh yee of great faith in our Massachusetts Judicial System.. be wary.. for there, but for the grace of whomever or whatever go you or go I ..or goes our 20 year old son, especially if, like Ben, that 20 -year- old child happens to be Black or Hispanic.
<
p>
This was the sole cause of Ben’s arrest, the color of his skin. This was the sole cause of Ben’s conviction ,the color of his skin.
<
p>
Sit down with a long stiff drink and READ http://www.BenLaGuer for at least an hour… and weep. Then come back to this blog and share your new knowledge and your feelings, and most important your action plan for helping us make sure that Ben receives a new trial soon.
<
p>
Until then, your words can be written ,but they are uninformed and will not move us toward the justice that is so deserved in Ben LaGuer’s case.
right here — read away. We removed a post purporting to be by “Ben LaGuer” himself that was not by Mr. LaGuer because we have a rule against anyone posting in the name of other people. But Mr. Hosty is welcome to post Mr. LaGuer’s piece under his own name, which he has done.