Commentary 18- Shure on Internet Civility

From the New Jersey Star-Ledger

To blog or not to blog
Posted by Jon Shure February 15, 2008 10:09AM

When njvoices.com invited me to share my thoughts here from time to time, it seemed like a good way to help promote debate about issues I think are important.

I never assumed everyone would agree with me. What fun would that be? I run an organization whose aim is to inform and provoke. And, yes, its ideological point of view can accurately be described as liberal. We like to participate in the rough and tumble give and take of ideas. Sometimes that's controversial; it often arouses strong emotions. Nothing wrong with that, if you believe in democracy (which we do).

I'm having mixed feelings, though, about whether blogs like this are a good outlet for public discussion. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I still believe people can debate and argue with each other without being mean, without demonizing and trivializing those with whom they disagree. That doesn't seem like too much to ask. But a lot of you just don't seem to want to be civil. You seem to think that someone who takes a position other than yours is fair game for schoolyard taunts and character assaults.


Not that she needs me to defend her, but NJPP Research Director Mary Forsberg is a professional policy analyst. She worked 14 years at the nonpartisan state Office of Legislative Services. She knows more about the state budget than me or any of you. Which doesn't mean you have to agree with her when she writes about raising the gasoline tax. But do you have nothing better to do than call her names and impugn her motives?

Like the others who blog on njvopices.com, she puts her name right there on top of what she writes. She's willing to take her chances. But you hide behind anonymous handles and take pot shots. You even bite the hand that feeds you: blasting the Star-Ledger for what you see as bias even though if not for the newspaper creating this site you wouldn't even have a place to express your views.

It's not just blogs I'm talking about. Many people who read of our gas tax report have sent emails to me filled with foul and profane language I'm betting they wouldn't use if they had to say who they are. Some express graphically just which part of my body I should stick my liberal ideas up, but then cowardly leave out their name.

And it's not just average citizens. Elected officials--people whose salaries we pay--are taking part. When NJPP put out our gas tax recommendations one legislator, Sen. Anthony Bucco, issued a needlessly personal and partisan attack against a report that never criticized any politician by name nor singled out any political party for blame. On another newspaper's blog Assemblyman Rick Merkt went out of his way to call me "a little twit in Trenton who thinks tax hikes are the answer to every problem in the world." Sticks and stones, Assemblyman. But, really, is that a responsible way for a public official to respond to policy recommendations?

I think we all can do better. I believe we can put together our opinions and arguments in a way that attracts support and respect. I think we could all get it into your heads that those whose views we want to rebut are people too and that we could treat them the way we'd want to be treated.

I imagine that more people read the postings on njvoices.com than respond to them. So, let's try something: if you're one who reads but doesn't answer, and if you think we ought to strike a blow for a little bit of civility toward each other, take the time to register and write a comment below. Let's make this the forum it has the potential to be.

Original Referenced Post


My Commentary:

Posted by Zemack on 02/17/08 at 1:06PM

"I do not care to put my personal information all over the state when I have no protection as to who will have access to it and how they could use it."

Jessea's point cuts to the heart of the anonymity issue. Many of us, especially those of us with modest means, just don't feel comfortable exposing our identities in an amateur capacity on these forums. Would the Star-Ledger be willing to jump to the legal defense of a blogger hit with a frivolous libel suit?

According to my trusty (and a bit dusty) 1979 Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, second addition, the definition of "libel" is:

"any written or printed statement...not made in the public interest, tending to expose a person to public ridicule or contempt or to injure his reputation in any way...
"anything that gives an unflattering or damaging picture of the subject with which it is dealing...
"to say or print unfavorable or false things about."

Pretty vague stuff. Considering our litigious society, and how easily people become "offended" these days, I think it rather prudent for most forum participants to post anonymously. Call it cowardice if you want, but as long as anonymous participation is allowed I will continue to post on these forums under my internet "nickname".

Having said that, I do sympathize with Mr. Shure's point. One should not utter a single word that he would not utter under his real identity. But by making the insulters the main subject of an essay, perhaps Mr. Shure is elevating them to a stature they don't deserve. My advice would be to simply ignore them.

I wonder also if Mr. Shure may be blurring the distinction between "strong" and "uncivil" commentary. It is important sometimes to look past specific words or passages that in isolation may seem (or actually be) offensive, and instead focus on the ideas presented. We amateurs are not always as polished as professional writers. I am new to these forums, but most of what I have read here is reasonably civil and respectful, if not a bit strong.

Mr. Shure's suggestion that "blogs like this [may not be] ... a good outlet for public discussion" may be understandable, given the nature of some peoples' rhetoric. These forums are certainly not perfect. And, as he says, I think "we all can do better....[and] put together our opinions and arguments in a way that attracts support and respect." But I think these forums are a great outlet. I know it's not easy reading some of the nastiness. But it's all about ideas. Make your case. Respond to reasonable, principled, and intelligent commentary. And ignore the rest.


Other Commentary:

Posted by studmoose on 02/17/08 at 1:27PM

Zmack has a valid point; however, if one were to pursue legal action against a poster an anonymous nickname will not harbor them. Subpoenas will be executed on the hosting site, the user's ISP and their e-mail site where their nickname's e-mail address is located. That, along with the MAC address of their computers will identify the writer.

There is only one way to get around this matter. That would be to open up your wireless router or not to use WAP encryption. (Standard 128 bit encryption can now be hacked in less than 10 minutes on a laptop so those networks are no longer secure.) By opening up your network, as a residential layperson you are not expected to know how to stop people from accessing your home network. Heck, most businesses can't stop them. You could claim someone else hijacked your network. Then use a dedicated laptop that is not used for any other purposes. Create your e-mail account from that laptop and only use that laptop to access it. Then all your posts would have to be from that machine. Then keep the laptop off-site in case the search warrant follows. I don't know of anyone doing this.

So, my point is that anyone wanting to know who you are can, especially if they have state resources at hand. The anonymous userid just prevents casual people from identifying you.


My Commentary:

Posted by Zemack on 02/18/08 at 11:26AM
"Zmack has a valid point; however, if one were to pursue legal action against a poster an anonymous nickname will not harbor them. Subpoenas will be executed on the hosting site, the user's ISP and their e-mail site where their nickname's e-mail address is located. That, along with the MAC address of their computers will identify the writer."

Studmoose: point taken. I'm not well versed on the legalities of libel law, but wouldn't a judge need to review the validity of the lawsuit before issuing any subpoenas? It is against frivolous lawsuits, which can be financially painful, that anonymity may protect against. I certainly don't believe that anonymity should be used as a shield to protect a person from a valid libel claim, or any kind of criminal activity for that matter.

In any event, I'm not interested in going to great lengths, such as the example you provided, to hide my identity. And, as I implied in my previous post, I would certainly continue participating here under my real name if the rules changed. I have had several letters and an op-ed published under my real name in the Star-Ledger over the years, because identity is required. Nonetheless, anonymous posting gives me a certain comfort level, so for the time being I will remain Zemack (which is created out of the first letters of the names of my 6 grandkids).