Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 34 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Human rights and the comment section
Published 12:00 p.m., November 19, 2009
Within two weeks the Fergus Falls Daily Journal will no longer allow anonymous correspondence to be published in the comment section.. In the most recent poll, 39% of the readers responded that they do not want people to know who they are. Supposedly, these people will drop out of the comment downloads.
Is this move a threat to the human rights for freedom of opinion and expression?
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights begins with the clear statement that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through media and regardless of frontiers.”
In a stunning affirmation of this principle, President Obama told a live audience in China that the government should protect the individual’s rights to publish on the internet—its blogs, twitters, and other forms of IT. It did not take long for the Chinese press to censor this statement.
Jwithin two weeks from this column the Journal will no longer allow the totally anonymous comment to be published in the Journal. In the most recent poll, 39% of the readers responded that they do not want people to know who they are. Supposedly, these people will drop out of the comment downloads.
So what is the Journal doing? And what does this mean for the individual? And for democracy?
Let us first look historically at how people converse with and comment to one another. It is not a happy history. In the third century before the Christian era, the Chinese philosopher Han Fei Tzu complained that people would not politely listen to him. They accused him of being flippant, insincere, conceited, a coward, and a social misfit. The local ruler ordered that he be put to death. Socrates found that monologues or speeches did not promote understanding. Truth could only be discovered through dialogue. Some found the conversations and the probing to be too subversive. Socrates accepted his punishment by drinking poison. He allegedly remarked that “A life that does not question itself is not worth living.”
These early threats to life have had a deep and vicious legacy in our relationships with each other. Most people are afraid to talk openly, honestly with others. In our own community there are certain topics that are not mentionable publicly. And other topics are not welcomed privately.
Some people argued that educational opportunities would introduce new topics and new frontiers of conversation. In 17th century Spain, Maria de Zayas y Sotomayor, a relative of our Supreme Court Judge, denounced the ignorance that women were confined by. This led to their long silences and their inability to carry on a conversation. Furthermore, a good conversation is one way to establish equality between people. It promises them the respect, and attention of the other.
In truth, we have still not spent as much time teaching how to converse as we have how to fight.
No place is more apparent than this than the atmosphere of the blogs, the twitters, and the phantom names that react to articles and published pieces. These writings are not the opinions of individuals, but the not so hidden anger and phantasms of public ghosts.
The IT of the computer has not created a new specter. It has made it more common. Richard Hofstadter’s description of the mayhem of political language in the 50’s and 60’s is applicable to today’s commentaries: “I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the qualities of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind.”
David Segal’s, “Call it Ludacris: The Kinship Between Talk Radio and Rap,” outlines how rap and talk radio relay on the same methods to deliver its message. They dramatize the ego, make gross claims of the number and strength of the enemy who hates them, engage in fictive feuds with other celebrities or competitors, champion lawlessness, and operatically accelerate verbal abuse and shock behaviors.
In my own experience, the comments on my work in the Journal have shared many of the above expressions. They have not engaged in dialogue. They have been abusive. I am definitely the enemy. And most worrisome to me, they have rarely even responded to any of my ideas, my logic, my methodology, my content. They just rant and rave. In fact, their audience is not me but an anonymous crowd in the wings of the political or ideological stage.
But what is worse, is that the attacks do frighten people. They do prevent them from trying to respond in an educated way. They resemble Freddy Kreuger and Jason Voorhees threatening Han Fei Tzu, Socrates, and Sotomayor.
The Journal’s policy is to remove the fireworks of the anonymous commentary from the press. This act tries to create a positive example and possibility for people to deal with each other and with issues in a civil and informative way. The Journal will allow anonymity if the response might endanger the person, but not to allow the conversation to result in wild language and threats.
As for Obama’s position, it is clear that the anonymous writings in China do attempt to protect people from recriminations. For many who are arrested in any case, their writings are a testimony to their support and belief in Article 19 of the Declaration.
Please feel free to write me in the comment panel of the Journal, or to my e-mail.
Richard C. Kagan
Professor Emeritus
rckagan@gmail.com
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post. To post a comment you will need to register. Or, if you're already registered but have not included your true, verifiable identity with your registration, you will need to update your account to include your identity. Effective Dec. 1, 2009, all posts appear with the commenter's true identity, which must be verified by site staff. Those who registered prior to Dec. 1, 2009, should be aware that once you update your information with your true identity, all prior posts under your user name will also indicate your true identity. If you do not wish to link yourself to prior comments, you should register again with a different user name.Posted by mgordansons (Marty Gordansons) on November 19, 2009 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Professor,
Your journalistic standards are absolutely impeccable. Go back and read your 1st and 5th paragraphs. You might want to think about not writing the same paragraph twice!
Posted by FindTheTruth (anonymous) on November 19, 2009 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Some of the crazy comment writers may resemble Freddie or Jason, but in no way do you even remotely resemble Socrates.
Posted by ffprofessor (anonymous) on November 19, 2009 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My Dear Professor Kagan, do you believe for one moment that had you taken a position on this issue that is/was contrary to that of the FFDJ that your article would ever have seen the light of day?
Posted by metasonics (Jamie Cooper) on November 19, 2009 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
correct me if I'm wrong but, no one is being denied free speech by the Daily journals policies.
they are still providing the same outlet for free speech. they are simply requiring posters to also sign their name.
it will cut down on the serial murderer type comments you cite in your letter. it will reduce the attempts by posters from outside our community from abusing these blogs to affect local issues simply to massage their mental illnesses.
just as caller ID has for the most part put an end to threatening and harassing phone calls.
the Daily Journals decision to require posters have their identities verified is long overdue and I applaud them for this decision.
buy then again I'm not a two faced snake in the grass.
Posted by Geo (anonymous) on November 19, 2009 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Agree completely with Jamie Cooper. Long overdue.
Posted by thethinker (Todd Leucuta) on November 19, 2009 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is too bad the Journal will require everyone to say who they are. Inflamatory rhetoric or not, people will disagree with what other people say. I hope nobody gets hurt for speaking their mind now that everyone will know who everyone else is. The world has many crazies.
Posted by deborahrose (anonymous) on November 19, 2009 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I was thinking the same thing about all the nasty commentators who wish to remain anonymous - hoping that none of them are "crazies" that actually do more than blow off steam on the comment boards.
Posted by whostruth (anonymous) on November 19, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with Jamie, I have learned that it is best to understand we can agree to disagree, and collective consious discisions can be acheived only if we keep our minds open, I beleive we can acheive a higher level of learning when we go beyond dysfunction, self centeredness,the need to control others, misunderstandings,spontanious bad judgement,and the list goes on, which the result would be a more comfortable, caring life for ourselves and others. I am not ashamed to say I am guilty of the above at times however, my goal is to hopfully to be an asset in helping my fellow humans to lead a less distructive life, I like the saying its OK to be embarrest but not for long .And about the 2 faced snakes in the grass, they know who they are and I have never really liked snakes.LOL
my name -Fonda Knudson
Posted by jafo (anonymous) on November 19, 2009 at 5:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I went back to check some of Prof Kagan's recent writings, and found few, or no comments at all. ?? Hmm, maybe they were deleted. Oh well, this appears to be another broadbrushing of anonymous posters from the Journal, in order to justify their decision to require real names to contribute to the comments area. You know, everyone who comments anonymously is an angry, phantasmic, public ghost, just Freddie Kruegering away at everyone and everything. That's fine, it's their game, and they have every right to make the rules. And, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech, as Jamie said, all you will have to do is sign your name, and you can speak all you want. What this is about is not wanting to allocate the resources necessary to maintain the anonymous comments. Because, yes, they do need monitoring, and, yes, there are people who will abuse it, there's no doubt about that. Anonymity breeds bravado. Some folks feel they can attack and abuse when they would never, ever do such a thing in person, or if it were known who they were. Anonymity also breeds an honesty that comes from knowing that you can express an opinion, especially on a controversial issue, and know that you are safe from those who would not hesitate to attack in real life.
Posted by whostruth (anonymous) on November 19, 2009 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well said jafo
Posted by Josephine (anonymous) on November 19, 2009 at 9:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Some can only be "anonymous" so they don't have bad things happen to them, or have their jobs taken away.
Posted by BWD (David Adams) on November 20, 2009 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Mr. Kagan,Professor Emeritus, To bad you can't or won't quote the Constitution of the United States. But then, I understand you would rather quote the bylaws of your own club rather than the bylaws established on Lexington Green in 1775. That's right, the Commission of Human Rights is just a club, not a sanctioned agency of any existing government, and you, Mr Kagan, have no authority here.
Do you know what a real patriot is, or is Jane Fonda your Hero? Cicero far outstrips your logic.
Go back to the twin cities and sing your universal socialist cum-by-ya there. We don't want to hear from you or hear of you. Your socialist lick-spittle is so much drool, so naive, and not welcomed.
David Adams
Posted by LoisMustDie (anonymous) on November 20, 2009 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't sugarcoat it, how do you REALLY feel?
Posted by proterrorist (anonymous) on November 20, 2009 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, judging by Mr. Adams' remark, its safe to assume that the end of anonymity on this board will not bring about the end of ignorant offensive comments. I commend the DJ's effort on trying to clean this up, but unfortunately idiocy knows no boundaries
Posted by proterrorist (anonymous) on November 20, 2009 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
for the record, how are we sure that making people state names by their posts will have any effect? What will keep people from, say, using an alias or something?
Posted by BWD (David Adams) on November 20, 2009 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"idiocy knows no boundaries": from proterrorist
Looking in the mirror again are we?
I use my name here. I do not see yours...anywhere...
Mr. Adams
Posted by hugh1936 (anonymous) on November 20, 2009 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Strange that you should refer to Obama as an staunch advocate of free speech referring to his China trip. The next article in the newspaper I read quoted him as " a firing offense" regarding an official publicly disagreeing with him on Afghanistan troop level needs.
Posted by mgordansons (Marty Gordansons) on November 20, 2009 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"it will cut down on the serial murderer type comments you cite in your letter. it will reduce the attempts by posters from outside our community from abusing these blogs to affect local issues simply to massage their mental illnesses."
So, do you think that anyone outside of Fergus Falls is mentally ill and massaging themselves?
"I use my name here."
BWD, is that your name?
Posted by proterrorist (anonymous) on November 20, 2009 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Adams I am enjoying your willingness to humiliate yourself in front of the entire community. Idiocy may not know any boundaries, but it sure is enjoyable to watch.
Mr. Smith
Posted by watermelon (anonymous) on November 20, 2009 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Crux of the matter: the employees of the journal are thin-skinned regarding critiques of their 5th grade writing skills, so they need a professor of Asian studies from Hamline (who is a unitarian) to bolster their point.
It still sets a dangerous precedent. And none of the other boone-owned newspapers have such a policy.
Posted by ffprofessor (anonymous) on November 20, 2009 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
After December 1st, 2009 we can look forward to such enlightening comments as. "I use my real name, is that your real name"? "you are lying, that's not your real name"! "Prove that's not my name".
I think I will sign up and use my real name after December 1st, 2009....there are four of us with the same name in the area, three in Fergus proper. I wonder how the others with the same name will feel about being confused with me? Maybe if I'm real obnoxious I could get one of them fired. He works for OTP and I bet if I post some comment about how we determine rates and keep books, I'll bet he gets called on the carpet to explain that it's not him, that he is innocent.
What do you think? Do you think his boss will believe him? Or do you think it will always be in the back of the bosses mind.
Posted by votedem (anonymous) on November 20, 2009 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To think that people are going to use their actual names is laughable. There's no way to tell who is using their real name and who isn't. Even if they go off your email address...it takes 2 minutes to set up a fake email account. My 11 year old nephew could pose as Hal Leland and nobody would know the difference.
Posted by metasonics (Jamie Cooper) on November 20, 2009 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
the journal goes off you name, address, phone number and email.
they actually call and verify your identity.
certainly some jerk like for instance the individual or two who are constantly complaining about losing their privilege to exploit the Daily Journals blog to harass, threaten and all around abuse the people who post here may find some way to falsify their identities, at least until they are reported and removed, but the fact of the matter is, more public forums should consider the policy being enacted here and follow suit.
I know I'll be recommending something this to the few who post over at the Fergus forum. I'm sick of the harassing and threatening emails from the same crying bellyaching baby over here.
if you didn't abuse your anonymity, this would have never become an issue.
Posted by mgordansons (Marty Gordansons) on November 20, 2009 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"the journal goes off you name, address, phone number and email.
they actually call and verify your identity."
You could not be more wrong!
Posted by BWD (David Adams) on November 21, 2009 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
proterrorist.
Now what kind of insidious individual uses that for a comment cover name?
I bet you stay home during hunting season, don't ya.
Posted by BWD (David Adams) on November 22, 2009 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
proterrorist:
Lets really get to the brass about your use of your anonymous name this morning!
You use the anonymous name 'proterrorist' to hide behind your comments in this newspaper.
Does this mean you enjoy seeing U.S. Servicemen killed by terrorists? Are you celebrating 911 and the deaths of almost 3,000 innocent people at the hands of terrorists?
Does calling yourself 'proterrorist' meaning you are happy when a Minnesota Serviceman is killed in action by your 'loving terrorists'? By using such a name to hide behind your insulting comments, I can only assume you support terrorism and celebrate their murders. Obviously, you approve of their methods, "Mr. proterrorist anonymous".
Sign:
David Adams
Fergus Falls
Posted by ffprofessor (anonymous) on November 22, 2009 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dave Adams, are you really that dense. Have you no concept of sarcasm, scorn or mockery. Proterrorist is a username not a philosophy. Get you head out of your right wing appendage.
Posted by lamp05 (Seth Goltz) on November 22, 2009 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Anyways, yes the offensive posts are rather frightening, and ridiculous. I have to admit my jaw has dropped more than once while reading blogs on this site. But whats wrong with the journal doing what they state they are going to do, by simply deleting them? I don't think more rules is the answer, I think that's a slippery slope. How many people have been hurt, or physically assaulted because of what they have written on this blog?(That was an honest question.) Have some of you actually received threatening emails?
-Seth
Posted by lamp05 (Seth Goltz) on November 22, 2009 at 7:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For fear of sounding paranoid, anyone else find it interesting that this is coming at a time when the ice arena is being so heavily pushed, and there are petitions to remove members of the city council?
Posted by Timray18 (Tim Ray) on November 23, 2009 at 6:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
wow...i am a bit frightened that by exposing i am Timray instead of Timray18 i will be exposed to hateful comments....personally i have never cared
Posted by pilsnerurquel (anonymous) on November 23, 2009 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As if anyone will actually use their "real name" when this new rule goes into effect. For crying out loud, the Daily Journal isn't going to come into your home and request a picture ID before you can post your comment. If you're that worried about being "outted", just do what everyone else does and make up a phoney first and last name and be done with it. What's the big deal?
Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on November 24, 2009 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm just happy that there will not be any more "senet" incidences. Those of you who have been around here long enough to know what that means will no doubt agree with me. "That guy" was an absolute nutcase. Any measures that get rid of people like that are definitely welcome and long overdue.
Posted by Timray18 (Tim Ray) on November 24, 2009 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
i am still freaked out having to drop the "18" and exposing myself....then again, might be fun....Human Rights? go to Afghanistan and preach your Human Rights....oh i forget, you get to sit in the car parade day and be someone....dorks the lot of them....
Posted by normqwest (Steven Stoa) on November 30, 2009 at 9:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As far as "idiocy knows no boundaries," I don't know. But I'm pretty sure it does know where to go for a hot meal and a quiet nap by the fire when it's feeling out-numbered and out-reasoned.
Steven L Stoa
St. Paul, MN
a somewhat, but not all of the time - proud former resident
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)
You may also register to comment in our forums at www.fergusfeedback.com.