Caution: Obscene, racist, hateful, abusive speech and/or a personal attack follows

According to the Long Beach Press Telegram's com box moderator, anyway.

The other day the City Council in Long Beach resolved unanimously to support something it called "gay marriage". The Press Telegram duly reported and invited readers to comment. My friend David did so as follows:

"When will our city and state politicians stop trying to enshrine the myth of same sex marriage being a civil right (City Council supports gay marriage, Oct.11, p. A1)?

"It might only be a civil right if homosexuals could not change and therefore be unable to ever enter into a normal heterosexual marriage. Although difficult, they can will to change and do change. Hundreds have. Many of these are happily married to opposite sex spouses, and are procreating children. Even psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Spitzer, who played a pivotal role in removing homosexuality from the psychiatric manual of mental disorders because he thought homosexuality unchangeable, admits now that homosexuals can and do change their sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is shaped by psychological (family, peer, social) and perhaps biological influences at an early age, but can be changed. It is not a genetically caused condition that cannot be changed. Doubters should read the many research papers available on the website of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (www.narth.com)."

His comment didn't appear in the on-line version and he received this in return:

"Obscene language, racist comments, personal attacks, or abusive hate speech are not allowed on the comments. Violators are subject to a ban."

One was left wondering which parts had the obscene language, racist comments, personal attacks, and/or abusive hate speech.

Until this morning. They seem to have thought better of it and published an edited version. The parts edited out are shown above in italics.

One is appreciative of the need to edit for space. But it seems to me that the overall impact of the editing that was done to David's letter was to turn an informed comment into a personal opinion, in that all citations to authority were removed.

Still, I suppose it's better than being banned as obscene. Or is it citations to authority that are considered obscene at the PT?

Citations to authority = obscene at the PT
Extensive favourable coverage of the gay pride parade = not obscene at the PT

Editorial decisions at the PT remain one of the mysteries of the universe.