What’s NOM’s acceptable comment criteria, exactly?
May 03, 2012, by Jeremy Hooper
Despite multiple attempts, never once in the NOM Blog's two or three year history has one of my comment's made its way to the "marriage protecting" site. As both a legally married gay man and as someone who sometimes knows NOM better than the staffers themselves know the org, I've felt that I had insight to add on more than occasion. However, the moderators seem to disagree. My perfectly fair, perferctly on point, in no way hostile comments are always moderated away. Poof. Gone.
Yesterday afternoon (at 5:28 PM EST, to be exact), I tried again:
Yet still nothing. In the fifteen hours that have followed, several other comments have gone up. Mine, made hours before these new comments, is still stuck in moderating limbo. It's likely deleted altogether.
Now, this tells me one thing: that a human being is watching. It can't be an automated dismissal, as I have tried to comment under different email addresses that NOM could not possibly know (yet still identifying myself with G-A-Y/Jeremy Hooper), and those comments have been deleted as well. Clearly someone who knows that I pose a great threat to this organization doesn't want NOM supporters to hear what I have to say. And I'm not alone—many other prominent LGBT voices have had the same experience. It's an organizational choice, obviously.
Okay, so why I am sharing all of this unsurprising info now? Well, because there is a very interesting comment on this very same blog post that the NOM moderator apparently felt was quite kosher. Behold this exchange, with particular focus on comment #23:
[SOURCE: NOM Blog]
Yep, that's right: NOM's moderator apparently sees no problem with someone hoping Dan Savage will choke to death. Whereas I can't share pertinent information that is never personally targeted, much less hostile, this "Jane" person gets to tell the NOM world that encouragement of choking deaths is part of the fair marriage discourse. And in the nearly twenty hours that have passed, no one at NOM saw any need to remove this comment. Mine, however, was some sort of apparent threat.
Now, to be fair, the "Davide" in comment #17 eventually weighed back in with this:
And I would certainly assume that the vast majority of NOM's commenters and staffers would agree with "Davide" that calls for death are out of line. I'm not accusing NOM or most of its supporters of wanting Dan Savage hurt in any way.
However, the undeniable reality is that my thoughts about NOM are in no way out of line, and yet the NOM gatekeeper made a deliberate choice to scrub mine away so that the NOM monologue would be less challenged. "Jane," however, gets to speak freely. That choice seems weird, at best.