"Deleting crude or offensive statements may make everything neat and tidy, but it also obscures unpleasant realities and prevents enlightened readers from addressing them in bold and creative ways."

Earlier this month, Andrew Sullivan attacked me because of some comments that appeared on a post I wrote. (My post tweaked him for his obsession with Sarah Palin's womb, and a few commenters said some mean things about him.) Today, Capital Times editor John Nichols defends me. (Why is he defending me now? I suspect it's because the Isthmus article, siding with Sullivan, is still ranking on that newssite's "most popular articles" list. That is, here in Madison, Wisconsin, it's still an issue.)

Nichols writes:

If a forum is truly open, it will attract its share of blustering bigots....

My view, for what it's worth, is that those of us who used to buy ink by the barrel but now discourse digitally should offer our views and then step out of the way and let our friends and foes have at it. As such, I've enjoyed more than my share of nasty comments about my sexuality, my mental health and my penchant for using the word "penchant." But what strikes me is that the crude comments invariably attract responses that check and balance them. Deleting crude or offensive statements may make everything neat and tidy, but it also obscures unpleasant realities and prevents enlightened readers from addressing them in bold and creative ways.

I appreciate Nichols's support for free speech... and for me, even as he says that I "tend[] toward the right edge of the ideological spectrum." Tend toward the right edge? I hope he means side. But if he really means edge, chalk it up to Madison, Wisconsin, where conservatism is right-wing extremism.