Occasionally this space has received comments one would deem offensive (especially if one could remember the days when people apologized for saying damn in polite company) but they are all there, at the bottom of assorted posts. T/S has a “Call out” mechanism for making comments more public. I have occasionally called out comments which strongly oppose a post, but not included the gutter language. The truly offensive just lie there, hopefully unnoticed.
There has to be a limit. Lawyer/journalist Peter Scheer argues for the preservation of some degree of civil discourse in an op ed piece that appeared in today’s San Francisco Chronicle.
Some people have no choice but to live in a cesspool. (Consider the young protagonist in “Slumdog Millionaire,” leaping into a pool of human waste in order to escape a locked latrine.) But news organizations are not among them.
The cesspool that many newspapers occupy is the comments sections of their Web sites. This is the space, typically following a newspaper’s own stories and editorials, where readers have their say. If postings to that space are completely unfiltered, it is sure to be stuffed with the rants and invective of people who have too much time on their hands. Reading online comments sections, one can easily get the impression that bigots, psychopaths and conspiracy theorists make up a majority of newspapers’ online readers. (Note to publishers: This is hardly a desirable demographic to show to advertisers.) In reality, such commenters are relatively few in number, although they are, regrettably, loud and prolific.
Sociologists will someday figure out whether these readers are bona fide nut jobs or just average Americans transformed by the anonymity, and access to a broad audience, that the Internet makes possible. Not all newspaper publishers give free rein to miscreants in their comments sections. Among those who do, however, a commonly heard rationale is that they are forced to stay their hand because of legal constraints. In this they are mistaken. Misconception No. 1 is that newspapers, by actively moderating online discussions, and by editing (and selectively deleting) comments, assume liability for defamatory comments posted by readers. Although traditional print publication of “letters to the editor” does carry some of these risks, online publishers of user-generated content enjoy a degree of legal protection bordering on complete immunity, thanks to a 1996 federal law, the Communications Decency Act.
Facebook, Twitter, etc are, as far as I can tell, wayy outside the parameters of this act. Except for the time a True/Slant post of mine was blocked from Facebook by some anonymous person who objected to the mention of dogs and research in the same paragraph, presumably believing I was supporting cruel and unusual treatment of animals — you had to read the article, which the objecter did not — censorship seems rare on those sites. Not so obscenity and vulgarity and the randomly bizarre.
I am Facebook friends with my grandchildren — the only line of intergenerational communication open to those of us who draw the line at texting. But I try not to look at their pages. My college freshman granddaughter, in fact, recently asked for my Twitter name so she could follow me, but suggested I wouldn’t want to follow her. The brave new world is populated with abbreviated obscenities and codes which might totally replace English; oh, me. But back to the Communications Decency Act.
Section 230 of the act protects newspapers that operate their reader comments sections as a cesspool, permitting readers to post whatever they wish, no matter how libelous or harmful. Injured parties can sue the authors of those online comments, but not the newspaper. The newspaper is shielded, even if it has been given notice that statements in its comments section are false and it refuses to remove them.
But newspapers are equally protected if they act responsibly, screening comments or editing them. The act was intended to give news organizations a perverse incentive to refrain from editing user-generated comments. As long as editors don’t alter the meaning of a comment completely (say, by changing the comment to say the opposite of what was posted), the newspaper will be protected.
Reader comment sections have huge potential. The opportunity to debate both other readers and the journalists responsible for the paper’s news stories and editorials can reflect democratic self-government at its best. However, this ideal can be realized only if editors take seriously their responsibility to edit.
Misconception No. 2 is the belief that to regulate readers’ comments, enforcing rules of civil discourse on a newspaper Web site, is to engage in a form of censorship – and that censorship by a news organization, if not strictly illegal, is at least hypocritical. But this concern confuses censorship with editing. Although the online venue may remove the need to edit comments for length, it does not diminish the obligation to edit for substance.
Ah, substance. And propriety. And civility. And good old-fashioned print newspapers some of us still read over breakfast coffee. My age may be showing here.
Thanks Fran — Interestingly enough I think all the “trash talk” posted during the recent crime spree in Vallejo FED the positive outcome of forming 6 action groups addressing everything from neighborhood public safety to more efforts made in the schools. The posts that were made on Topix- the Times Herald “blog” for comments were stunning-both in their racism and in their whining and offering no solutions. So maybe reading the trash and then doing something about it will prove the tipping point for some really positive growth in Vallejo!
Well, hooray for positive reactions to negative Stuff. And may Vallejo thrive & prosper. There’s a great message in here somewhere.
Fran, I agree that there are those that post obsene,nasty,arrogant,vulgar,racist, etc.etc comments on the internet comment sections of news aricles and such. Try reading some of them on the Yahoo Buzz site sometime. It will make your hair curl for sure. However, I think they have the right to be this way even though it is very offensive. These people obviously have NO social skills, ethics, morals and so on, but they should not be censored. This censorship would be just the beginning of more and more to come. My suggestion…….don’t read them. I found that if no one reads and/or comments on their posts,they realize they are being ignored and eventually go away. These type of degenerates can’t stand to be ignored. The reason they post these nasty comments is, of course, to get much needed attention because of their obvious low self esteem.
I’m sure you’re right about the need for attention motivating a lot of ugliness and the wisdom of simply ignoring it, cato. It’s the racism (and other hurtful messages) that I wish could be at least minimized, because I believe such things often cause more harm than the good which freedom of expression is meant to preserve.
Keep your politeness and your rules of social interaction and all that, “There oughta be a law” crap at your weekly bridge club get-together.
This is the internet. If you can’t handle it, pull the plug. Don’t ruin it for the rest of us because of your demure sensibilities.
Sorry, Uncertain, I don’t have time for bridge, and neither does Peter Scheer I suspect. Happily, the internet has plenty of room for divergent opinions. Thanks for sharing yours.
Since when is being civil “ruining it” for the rest of us? Please don’t speak for me or anyone else who thinks Internet trolls are intellectually lazy and quite often cowards.
As a friend very wisely once said, “Never post anything on the Internet (including email) you wouldn’t want to see on a highway billboard in ten foot high letters.” Truer words were never spoken, and ones we’d all be smart to live by.
That’s probably a good rule, but I suspect many of those who use obscenities etc so freely wouldn’t care if their names were attached. I do support their freedom of expression but I lament the depths to which they would drag us all.