censorship?
i'm no free-speech absolutist like justice black, but i've always treasured the first amendment. now hate speech from white supremacists is showing up in this blog's comments section and i've got a dilemma.my students, my kids, and my friends read this blog. i can't let the bile just sit there without reply, but i'm not going to waste time and energy responding to comments of the "black men in particular are like this" variety.
so what should i do?
1. turn off anonymous commenting, which would chill some useful discussion.
2. zap individual comments i deem "offensive" (e.g., hate speech, personal attacks, spam).
3. work up some sort of comment disclaimer that says that i in no way endorse anything posted by commenters.
4. ignore it and hope it goes away.
none of these are desirable. i'd really appreciate some advice from others who have dealt with such situations. i didn't list "zap individual comments that piss me off for any reason" because i just don't believe in practicing that sort of decision rule. yet.
posted by christopher uggen @ 7:29 PM
11 comments
11 Comments:
I think disemvowelling is a good solution. It indicates displeasure without actually wasting time on a response or outright censure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disemvowelling
While I wanted to originally vote for prohibiting anonymous comments, evidently there is a good reason for doing so.
I second quiet deletion. Some people don't deserve a response, and anyone promoting stormfront surely falls into that category.
Ger rid of anonymous commenting. As it stands now, you gave people a forum while at the same time allowing them to hide from being associated with their cowardly comments.
It is no big deal, make people identify themselves. And really, its not like they still can’t be anonymous anyway, a 5 year old could get a blogger profile that doesn't have identifiable information.
I think it zapping comments is wrong. It goes against the whole idea of blogging, no one person should decide what it fit for public consumption.
Dr. Massagolia seems to fall into the temperment of Machiavelli's lions. I would remind him there are Foxes in the world, and we sometimes express "anonymous" views to make issues/points that we consider important, but very unpopular or politically risky. As long as it doesn't offend or hurt others, it allows for statements that we might not make with names attached. That's at least the motivation of this anonymous.
"Censoring" is sometimes "Not letting bad things occur". If something violates a categorical imperative of not harming others or a not allowing hatred to spread, its unacceptable. Very different than disagreement, and should be treated accordingly.
Is there maybe an angry faculty member, angry neighbor, or former student making outlandish statements? I would lay odds on that. White supremacy exists, but its very rare.
Regards,
Charles Kain
Hi, Chris.
I had to deal with something similar recently. I also have a blog that my child, family and a few friends read, and my rule of thumb is that I don't post anything that I would not care to see reprinted in the Star Tribune, because a blog is accessible to the public. Recently, an old friend and pseudonymous blogger started receiving a rash of hostile, hateful comments from a verbally abusive ex-boyfriend everywhere she commented. When he started doing it on my blog, I decided to initiate moderation in the comments, and deleted his nasty remarks. I do understand, and respect, the different policies that others have around what they regard as censorship, but I don't think of a blog as an extension of the street. I see my blog as somewhat more analogous to a classroom or a bar; yes, it is a public place, but I am the "host" and I have no problem with requiring participants to observe a reasonable code of conduct, or be excused.
Hey Charles,
I appreciate the formality, but Mike works fine, and I am not sure you are in a position to judge my temperament. Although it been a while since I read it….the lions were loyal, willing to use force if necessary….. but on the flip side, seen as religious/militant zealots… a pretty uncomplicated lot, correct? I like the reference, but am not sure it applies.
I get the basic point of what you saying, and without being disrespectful, I think it is somewhat overblown. In a person specific context, I know Chris as well as anyone who posts here, and I can't imagine any repercussions from him for a posting challenging his position. More generally, while I can imagine a scenarios where it might happen, I don’t think there is anything politically risky about posting a reasonable -- even if extremely unpopular --- opinion here. The blog is just not that big of a deal.
And I have found your posts interesting and thoughtful, anonymous or not. I get your point about an unhappy graduate students or faculty, and it makes sense to me. But clearly some of the white supremacists have made their way to this blog. So, when asked, my suggestion was to turn off anonymous commenting. That being said I will continue to post publicly, so I guess I really don’t care too much one way other.
In fact, it really should be the anons who are reasonable that make the call… you are the ones who might be silenced.
thanks much for the thoughtful responses!
allen, i had never heard of disemvowelling, but it seems like it could come in handy.
mike w. and punk, i hear you, but can also see kain's point that anonymous commenters can be very constructive. i'm especially concerned about making a place for people who are or were involved in the justice system. plus, someone could presumably continue posting nasty stuff under an assumed identity if they so desired.
charles, that would be really sad if it was a poser, wouldn't it? it seems like the punch line to a bad joke: Q: what's worse than posting racist comments on a blog? A: posting pretend racist comments on a blog.
joanna, i love the analogy with the classroom or a party. when teaching, I have no difficulty requiring participants to observe a reasonable code of conduct, or be excused.
thanks much. i feel a bit more empowered to experiment -- either zapping away or turning off the anonymity on a trial basis.
...but I only comment anonymously! Seriously, I had to search recent comments for what was causing the concern, but see that you were visted by someone from the "stormfront" crowd. It is a pickle, but I would simply strike the offending comments as they emerge, rather than turning off anonymous commenting. Nobody has a "right" to post to your blog.
Why am I anonymous? Because everything said on the internets is forever and I don't want my random thoughts out there, available for googling, FOREVER. I don't want to raise the old "blogging: bad or good?" debate, but I stay anonymous based on my experience with reading blogs. I've found - and in talking with colleagues I think this is disturbingly general - that my opinion of someone's quality of mind is lowered far, far more often than it is raised when they start blogging. [FYI, You-gun falls squarely in the smaller, second category!] I think this is only natural, as it is much harder to keep the backstage firmly backstage in a "personal" medium, but I don't want any part of it. For this reason, when bloggers shut off anonymous posting, I sign off.
I encourage you to allow anonymous comments; there is something to be said about safety in exercising one's First Amendment rights, and I have not always been sufficiently emboldened to give my name in expressing my opinions (especially during my conservative-to-liberal transition, a painful time). However, I have at times given up on weblogs where too much crap pollutes an intellectual blog space--even though the bloggers shamelessly identified themselves. Still, one hopes for rich discourse, and without dissent, what have we left? Perhaps, as a compromise, one could redirect an overabundance of useless or redundant negativity to a separate page or section (if it's even worth the effort), if only to save those who prefer to stick to the topic at hand the headache of sifting through such distractions.
That said, I am pleased by the publication of your new book on felon disenfranchisement, and hope this remains a hot topic until the situation is corrected.
anon and renee, thanks much. i've deleted all but one of the overtly racist quotes. i agree with you both about the value of anonymity. i made a conscious choice to put my name on this blog (though i was prepared to roll out some clever pseudonyms).
hey chris,
i have had the same problem with a facebook group discussing affirmative action. attacks have been overwhelmingly racist and personal. i tried ignoring them, but they only grew worse. i asked them to argue a different point, didn't work, just continued. finally, i had to block them. i think deleting the racist ones was a good move.
Post a Comment
<< Home