A commenting controversy
To them, for example, choosing to delete or edit comments or even, in some cases, block comments on a story entirely, is something amorphous. It couldn't be called censorship, because, in their words, only the government can "censor."
That's patently ridiculous.
Sure. The majority of the UT's commenters have proven themselves to be boorish, hateful, bigoted, morons incapable of civil discourse. The UT chooses to remove or edit or block certain comments, they say, on the basis of "common decency" as they define it. That's their prerogative.
(and if that sounds familiar, it's because "common decency" is the mantra of book burners everywhere)
But what they are doing, for good reasons or not, is the essence of censorship. Suppressing speech you find inappropriate can't be anything else but, no matter what you choose to call it. The problem isn't necessarily with the act, though, but that the UT is incapable or unwilling of understanding what that "act" really is at it's core. If they can't do that, how can we trust they'll wield their power responsibly?
Case in point is the article on their recently retired editor, Karin Winner. Why were comments closed on this story? Deference to the subject, obviously (we're told later that Winner herself questioned that decision, to her credit). Does anyone else see how the UT is just mere steps away from suppressing comments that it doesn't find merely hateful or inappropriate, but inconvenient as well? The Winner story was roundly criticized for leaving out a lot of, well, critical comments about the subject. Did fear those criticisms would play out in the actual comment section affect decision-making? We can hardly be blamed for wondering. That the UT argues it's not censoring anything belies little trust.
Personally, while I might feel bad for a story subject who is offended by comments posted in response to a story about them, the journalist in me says those comments should be censored in only the most extreme cases. Everything in our legal history points in that direction: newspapers have greater libel protections against claims from newsworthy people and Web site operators, like the UT, are generally immune from claims regarding content provided by users. In other words, we'll find little excuse in the legal realms for censoring comment sections.
And there are better ways to manage comments than the UT's draconian policy (if we don't like, or think we won't like, it doesn't fly). Provide a mechanism to let users hide offensive comments, like Digg. Give the community the ability to rate comments, so those easily offended don't have to see any that have been flagged or hit a certain threshold. Force people to use their real names, live voiceofsandiego.org. That's not a fool-proof system, but people generally behave better when they have to stand behind what they say.
But I'll dare to say this: an organization that should be dedicated to furthering the ideals of free speech shouldn't be censoring anything, period. You might hate what they say, it might disgust you and turn your stomach, it might offend and hurt, but their right to say it -- no matter how vile they are -- should be protected at all costs. That's something a newspaper should get behind, instead of going on and on about how "not all speech is protected" or "that's not censorship" or ambiguous legal tests you can't even articulate (I'm looking at you @SDUTCustomer) or how someone's feelings might get hurt in the process.
In other words, if you can't handle what's in your comment sections, shut 'em down entirely. Selective censoring is a dangerous game and frankly, many of us aren't sure we can trust you to play by your own rules.
Fuck shit nuts.
How do you really feel?
In all seriousness and for the sake of discussion...
Last year, I posted a few blog items about a local gang war and, sure enough, the post became the equivalent of a tag wall. In some cases, the gang members threatened violence against one another. In a few cases, some stupid kids actually implicated themselves or friends in crimes.
Question: What should an editor do with those comments? I said keep 'em, but maybe that was irresponsible.
Links:
http://www.sfreeper.com/2009/07/15/slides-gangs...
http://www.sfreeper.com/2009/08/31/gang-shooting/
What good would deleting them do?
Well, I believe they were moderated comments, so it was an active decision whether to approve or not.
If, say, I foresee real violence resulting from the comments, would it be ethically reasonable to not approve it? Hypothetical: What if a gang member posted a notice to other members to go out and start shooting people or if a time-date were set for a street brawl?
I guess, what I mean, is if a comment goes so far as to actually be explicitly part of planning a criminal act, should it be taken down?
Eat a turd, IP-looker-upper.
You know you can't hide from me. :-)
I'm gonna post from my Tor computer later, bitch. I'll look like I'm in motherfucking Uzbekistan.
I guess I still just wonder what the goal is. Should you help plan a crime? No. That's a pretty extreme situation (see above, re: extremes). Generally speech that directly and immediately incites violence isn't included in the types of speech the framers sought to protect (stuff that most of us see as mean, hateful and bigoted -- like most of what's spewed out on the UT's Web site) and I can see having a valid reason, ethically, morally and legally for suppressing it.
It's still censorship. Just censorship with a reason attached. Even then, you're on a path that might take you places you shouldn't go. I think the best thing -- as you've pointed out -- is to have clear guidelines that are ruthlessly adhered to.
I used to be a paid contributor to Gather.com. That site is built entirely on user-generated content and they had a policy that they didn't edit or take down any one's stuff (save for copy right violations). The world hasn't ended and they seem to be doing fine.
You think I'm afraid of Tor? I eat those onions for breakfast.
I'm not sure how I feel about pulling down copyrighted things either.
The reason you have to do that is because if you receive a valid copyright claim and don't remove the infringing material, you lose immunity under the DMCA.
The La Jolla Light just updated their policy, requiring names and whatnot: http://www.lajollalight.com/opinion/264238-reco...
I think anonymous speech has an important place in a free society, but I'm all for requiring real names as a way to calm unruly comment sections. We should stand by our words.
I know, I know. I still think it's bullocks.
No, unbridled comments are not a right and it's not unethical to delete them. If a newspaper website or any other website doesn't want your comment on their site, they can delete it without breaching any kind of implied social contract or ethical construct. Those sites are a commercial (or private) enterprise and they can limit the content that appears there, whether its proprietary or user generated.
I think what you're talking about is less about censorship of Free Speech than a limitation of convenience. The sites aren't stopping you from saying what you want, they're just keeping it off their site. My experience has been that sites enabled comments for extra pageviews, not because it did the public any good.
You have a huge amount of resources at your disposal if you have something to say, free blog hosting, Twitter, free site hosting, forums, etc. This IS your blog. You win.
State sponspored censorship, like the slippery slope your implying, usually shut down the means of distribution, burned down printing presses, or jailed or killed journalists.
That's a huge leap.
The ideal is that the community will police a discussion. Have you actually seen that happen on non-tech sites with nobody else willing to verify what they're saying or cite a source? Or, that someone will post a link that illuminates the topic that isn't from a conspiracy or zealotry site?
Take a look at spot news reports from any large metro. If it's a shooting or drug bust, you can assume that the comments will begin with "Glad they're taking themselves out. Good riddance." Usually, much harsher.
Is that useful? Even worse, I live in the South and I see the most vile crap you can imagine on the daily's comment threads. Maybe they should shut the comments off, like you recommend, like the NYT for non-commentary.
But, to your point, so what if they exclude asshole comments from their sites?
Moronic comments make a news story more entertaining. I think you're disappointed they are limiting your entertainment, not the loss of Free Speech.
No, actually what I'm talking about is the danger of an organization ostensibly upholding First Amendment principles choosing, at its whim, to suppress speech that it deems not okay for others to consume. That's censorship. And it's not something any news organization should engage in.
You're supposed to be a journalist? Newspapers hold a position of public trust and when they start shutting down comments completely, like the UT did on the story about its own editor, they've breached that trust and are better off not letting anyone comment at all.
It is censorship and the danger is that the censorhips will go beyond just deleting obsecenities or swear words, but things the dominant media would rather we not know, again, pointing back to the whole UT / editor fiasco.
ANd just because you assume something is "vile crap" doesn't mean that it should be shielded from public view. If newspapers want to allow their users to comment, they need to be prepared for the diversity of human expression -- nasty as it can be sometimes.
AZCentral.com has done this for years. It's sadly what I've come to expect from newspapers and why I never bother to comment anymore.
And the commenter are 99% dipshits.
Ah, just read the UT story you linked to. I get it. I can see why you guys wanted to jump in on that.
"what I'm talking about is the danger of an organization ostensibly upholding First Amendment principles choosing, at its whim, to suppress speech that it deems not okay for others to consume"
More like what's inconvenient for the company. It's not a conspiracy to suppress Free Speech than just a lame attempt at marketing control for UT. It still sucks, but is less insidious. I still don't think it's the slippery slope you're looking down on.
Kyle- "You're supposed to be a journalist?"
I guess that was flamewar bait. I do write stories and shoot photos, and have authority to deal with comments. Yes, I delete some of them when they are overtly threatening or libelous. But, we as a publication leave the vast majority of them alone, even when they are vile crap.
"Newspapers hold a position of public trust"
Really? Not anymore. The public trusts information density. They trust how many of their friends or family talked about it, how much it's trending on Twitter to make it to CNN. Or, at least they believe it. A lot of people do count on MSM sites though, to hear what AP had to say, to their doom.
I think you guys are missing my point, and why I commented on a blog 3k miles away from what I deal with.
Are comments on news stories useful? No, we don't need to silence idiots, but where is the "diversity of human expression"? What diversity? I'd love to see it.
Those are pretty broad questions and depend on the stories. But, how often do you leave a news site, reading the comments, and feel more informed? Or, do you tend to remember the negative shit that simplified it all and let you off the hook for not reading the story?
<img src="http://sdcitybeat.wordpress.com/files/2010/01/dog-pooping-on-justin.jpg">
Your not allowing me to post photos is fucking censorship. Link:
http://sdcitybeat.wordpress.com/files/2010/01/d...
I know some people are entertained by moronic, flame-war comments sections, and there is virtually limitless bandwidth with which to provide them. I prefer places that treat comments like a house party, where the host has some responsibility for setting the tone and protecting the experience of the guests who choose not to act like assholes just because they're on teh interwebz.
The issue with newspapers isn't that they censor. It's that they let people comment, but they do it for the wrong reasons, and then they don't like things that get said, and then they don't know what to do, and so then they do the wrong thing, and they get criticized for it, and they get defensive, so then they get dumber and dumberer, and pretty soon we're having conversations about protecting the first amendment online. As Justin said, you're kinda missing the point about that.
If newspaper websites want to have comment sections that rise to something of the level of "civic forums," then they have to invest some manpower in them. Which most won't. And frankly, if you're going to care about what people say, but you're not going to engage with them, then you're just Lost in Space, and you really ought to toggle off the comments feature and drive on.
There are all sorts of smart options shy of deleting and banning, and The Lawrence Journal World site (ljworld.com) makes use of most of them. Some are tech-based, many are based on trends in trolling, and others are just about having grown-ups involved in dialog with the site's online community. But all of them involve taking online seriously, and cash strapped papers have other priorities.