In April of this year at his Durham in Wonderland blog, KC Johnson said on the "Suggested Panels for the Stone Center" thread @ 4/26/09 10:06 AM:
To the 9.55, et al:One of those who responded to KC was Bobo1949 @ 4/26/09 12:51 PM:
POLITICO reports, "Prejean has taken full advantage of her newfound stardom, becoming an almost hourly fixture on cable news," where, of course, she is being asked on same-sex marriage.
It's not clear to me whether Ms. California's defenders in the thread are also defending the hypothetical I had offered in the post, in which a university invited her to speak but censored the questions asked of her. I would hope not.
to 10:06AMAmong the many commenting on the thread critical of KC, Joan Foster was, IMO, one of the most effective in countering what KC's critics saw as the “cheap shot” he’d taken at Carrie Prejean.
As best I can tell, no one is defending the hypothetical concerning free speech.
More likely, the "defenders" aren't defending Ms. California as much as they are attacking what they view as a cheap shot that you took while setting up that hypothetical. 6:45PM and 8:47PM raise cogent points. Your 4/25/09 12:36PM post seems petulant.
The thread moved along until in the next to last comment Joan complained KC wasn’t clearing her comments. She ended her 4/27/09 2:56 PM comment with this:
:ban: :ban: :ban: :ban: :ban:Nine minutes later KC Johnson responded @ 4/27/09 2:56 PM:
To Joan:KC Johnson now insists he never banned Joan Foster. Many of his supporters say he was only trying to shut down an already lengthy thread.
My best wishes to you.
I'm sure there will be hundreds of blogs that will give you their space to more fully develop the hypothetical you presented earlier in this thread: that there's no fundamental difference between a professor committing academic misconduct on a scale greater than anything we witnessed in the Duke case and a beauty pageant contestant not being rewarded for opposing marriage rights for her state's gay and lesbian citizens.
Among those hundreds of blogs, however, will not be DIW.
But on a thread where many were critical of him, KC addressed his comment ONLY to Joan.
He told her there were many blogs where she could continue to comment, but “[a]mong those hundreds of blogs, however, will not be DIW.”
He posted that just nine minutes after she'd ended her comment with ":ban;ban;ban;ban;ban:"
And he never said he was shutting down the thread.
KC's now insisting he didn't ban Joan. He's posted saying I slimed him when I said he did.
But the first instance I can find where KC posted claiming he had not banned Joan didn't occur until AFTER I called him on it in KC Johnson Now.
If KC didn’t ban Joan, why didn’t he say so in the weeks BEFORE I called him on it?
Did KC Johnson really not know reasonable people would conclude from his “To Joan” comment immediately following her comment ending with “:ban:ban:ban:ban:ban:” that he'd banned her?