It's commonly accepted that as a blog is one's personal journal on the web, anything goes. It's your right to mouth off about any issue that gets your heckles up. If readers don't like it - tough, that's their problem. They can write a diatribe from their perspective on their own blog, or issue a rebuttal through the commenting system. Everyone's happy.

Except they're not. We all know how good the net is at turning a simple misunderstanding into an unholy shitstorm.

I've been struggling for the last couple of days with the question of whether I should have a particular rant here. It's on a topic that I regularly become exercised about, and would likely cause consternation among some of the people who read the blog. And having practically written the post in my head I've had chance to moderate my language and insert sufficient clauses to make my opinions clear and unambiguous, so that those who disagreed with me would hopefully see the points of my argument rather than react to the raw passion.

But I've decided it's really not worth it.

This may sound strange coming from someone who's both a libertarian and a journalist, but some things are more valuable than freedom of speech.

It's all well and good using the blog for rants about things like the war, the Oscars and Valentine's Day, but some subjects are just too sensitive to raise, cutting to the very core of people. Despite the fact I've discussed the issue in question with friends of all opinions, I know that if I wrote exactly what I wanted, I may well hurt and offend several people I love or care about. And that isn't worth trading for the luxury of opinionated incontinence.

Remembering my first principles of blogging, I feel the need to add:

Sometimes, however frustrating it might be, you've just got to keep your mouth shut.

The sooner I can apply that to real life as well as the blog, the better. :)