Op Ed: Free Speech Has Costs: Democratic Dialog Demands Care and Responsible Usage As Internet Matures

(SALEM) - One great and shining opportunity for all, in our democracy, is under open attack, with protracted and pernicious new damage: “Anonymous” now screams-and-runs, sometimes with cutting invective, on our most-open Internet channels.

Within the lines of comments written by readers in reaction to news stories, sports, entertainment and opinion is found the most diverse and unabashed demonstration of communication yet. People will write anything. Even foul language and physical threat is, too often, now found on what many contend is becoming the most powerful means for citizens to share --and even shape-- many demanding issues today.

Anyone brashly braving this insidious onslaught for needfully-open presentation of ANY issue, aspiration, problem or prospect - even “unchallengeable truth”— may become at once a target. Then, far too often, that truth comes under attack, via voluminous, volatile and often very mistaken and too-rapid “conclusions”. This is dangerous to the conversation. Such “conclusions” are, far too often, accompanied by personal prejudice and too-strong language devoid of checkable facts, but deep on desperate ploys; many from long-past historic situations, and are also devoid of updated information, facts that have been discovered and proven.

There are those comment contributors who wish only to belittle, beat away, and “best” whatever point, perspective or even prospect may be under discussion, for personal reasons.

The Internet does provide a place for that conversation, a full accommodation for all via its own considerably-used format: The blog. (Formed from the two words: web log)

For those who feel they must declare their own personal, sometimes particular and peculiar, strong feelings and beliefs, that’s the way --and the place-- to go. It can be productive and satisfying, as well as safer, as broad experience has already proven.

Established professional points recognize that those few are often desperately seeking any open channel, driven by their own political, psychological --even, sometimes, psychotic-- needs.

Communication research, ever since it began a century ago, is replete with similar instances, incidents, and solid situation-findings.

That was fact long before there was anything much but the “Letters to the Editor” outlet, much abused also early-on, until newspaper and magazine editors demanded definite ID, forced by these same situations. Most persons, managing their own messages for this new and seductively-open mechanism for “free speech”, utilize this new opportunity both productively and with deep regard for both the sensitivities --and the indisputably-remaining rights, too-- of others so inclined and participating.

Thus Internet dialog/discussion --in lieu of our vaunted-open “free press” now denied to so many for so much of what was once democratic dialog-- has the capabilities to become by far the most-useful and most essential rapid, convenient and valuable channel that our democracy has ever had.

That better-channel --the Internet-- now more readily and easily available, also demands precisely what the Editors found had to be handled for “Letters”: Responsible oversight, with professional supervision, to maintain the same “rights for each and every one” as originally bestowed by our once-vauntedly-”free” press; now well known to be manipulated and “managed”, far too often, for corporate and condign censure.

That is, unavoidably, precisely WHY the Internet has now become, by far, the choice of so many: They are driven by these circumstances to seek similar and more-open channels for their own ongoing --sometimes desperate OR despairing!-- declarations of very widely different political, social, economic and religious feelings, beliefs --and deepening concerns.

What some overlook, perhaps understandable since “the channel” is still so new for so many, is that ANY communication --to be credible and thus intensely applicable to situation, issue, event or even “opinion”-- must be documented from an easily-checkable source.

HOW ELSE to endow any statement with absolutely essential basis for believability? Otherwise we have only “belly-button” feeling, perhaps symptomatic, but surely unproven and unreliable, too. “The source” --and thus “the pitch” revealed-- are both unavoidable for any useful democratic dialog, in ANY channel, at ANY time --and, surely, more demanded NOW than ever before! Most basically-thoughtful citizens understand that is an unavoidable consequence, today, of what has been done by so many, in such devious fashion, to most of the channels in which we trusted as we grew up, learning the realities governing American life these days.

Given the longtime American-experience since the Reagan Era --and its own self-exposed, well-documented attacks on our governing principles at all levels-- surely this easily-accessed communications channel for honest, open democratic dialog must now be better-protected, somehow.

Those routinely passing along any “no-named non-ID’d” dialog must also now --driven by the same necessities as the print-side “open” press-- take similar care to provide responsible, professional oversight for all.

The fact is that Internet addresses are essential for any message-delivery; they can be utilized as basic identification for back-checking when forced by circumstance or consequence - a fact perhaps unknown to most “Anonymous” contributors. As with print-side experience, a few inevitable follow-up court-cases may make this point - painfully. For proprietors and professionals providing oversight on any site for all others, the demanded answer to all insisting on irresponsible avoidance of due care-and-concern for the overwhelming rights of others, there’s this simple answer: “It’s my publication, AND my public responsibility, and I WILL protect it from any-and-all malign influences OR similar irresponsible invasions.”

Given the longtime and responsible open history of the American “free press” --until now-captured and considerably altered by big-corporate combination-- what else can competent, caring and contemporary web-publishers now do with this Internet channel?

To allow this burgeoning new opportunity to return to “tell it true for me-and-you” --via documentable and easily checkable source-situations-- is perhaps the most workable-way.

Credibility. It’s what readers want the most from this new medium, and it’s in short supply.

Which is why we do our Op Eds the way we do: Documented for all to see-and-learn, via our early-on statement; see How and Why We Do Our Op Eds.

(Disclosure: My “checkered” background includes distressing similar experience with “Letters” at daily, weekly and magazine-levels. I now seek “openness multiplied” via Internet, but with needed responsibilities.)

Go to STAFF section on our home page, seek out HCR-section, click on “Written by...”, for:
Salem-News.com (May-24-2006 13:39)
What, Why, How
Re Op-Ed Generation
Where Salem-News Op-Ed Content Comes From -- And WHY.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

RC April 25, 2007 2:08 pm (Pacific time)

HR may be that tree that fell that never made a(meaningful) sound!

Hank Ruark April 20, 2007 7:18 pm (Pacific time)

Marc: Yr point re "every side is building its documentation underlines its importance. But basic skills easily learned can separate the truth tellers from others by rapid check --esp. with Internet sources today. Most distorters make easily spotted "errors" or generalize statements beyond credence, as you see in many "anon"-written cases here. That's why they hide behind masks,changed as needed using other names, then shift again. IF real name,job-ID, other checkable info given, then you can hold writer responsible to the publication and its reader group. Even if working by-line used, you can check that, too. It helps if policy is stated publicly and readily available as here: See Staff notes. (Forgive my old photo - 1940s) Masks mean "I don't dare show my face..they'll know me next time !!" SO if they go-anon, always be suspicious - there is always a reason. That's basic Jrnlsm 100 but also first street lesson for any reporter...if they not willing to be named, find out the reason. IF it is solid-sense, then listen...but if they refuse to ID, walk, for your own and your paper's protection.

Hank Ruark April 20, 2007 6:29 pm (Pacific time)

R/C: Glad to win your attention but sorry it did little for you... Re documentation, not done for you but for those who can and do value open, honest, complete, factually-based information --checkable "with own eyes". If that not useful for you, it's hardly my fault. Re NYTimes, when did you win your Pulitzer ? They have several and century of tradition for solid stance re democracy and its values. You may not agree --that's your American right, along with "speech" and others --but you are still held to same responsibilities as we all are, including checkability on your statements (Read source documentation.)

RC April 20, 2007 5:48 pm (Pacific time)

Marc, right on about the documentation. A good reason why I could care less about the documentation from a paper target shooter that sways to the NY Times fiddle.

A Bored Mouse April 20, 2007 2:05 pm (Pacific time)

"Surely there is a place and frame for that, but doubt if it is workable in our democracy," "DOUBT" it is workable??? Your either ignorant/naive or co-conspirator Gollum. This society will destroy anyone with self-reliant/free-will attitudes and actions. All 50 year old nanny laws enforced under threat of extreme violence/death. (How did you survive your youth without them?) Jail sentences given for "gun-crimes", (and all other zero victim crimes YOU have called for more police to enforce). And you wonder why society embraces "waiting out the storm" in the anonymousness of the internet??? Also reason village wants control over same, (likely same reason YOU want anonymousness removed). Bored stiff. Your reply is predictable. Remember this, my kind never consented to the destruction of YOUR life.

Marc April 20, 2007 12:06 pm (Pacific time)

The editorial was interesting. The only piece have trouble with is the part about documenting. There are political and scientific groups out there creating documentation for every side of every issues. It's easy to find documentation on both sides of the global warming issue and on the success of welfare reform. Documentation won't always preclude the established from bias any more than a blogger.

Hank Ruark April 20, 2007 10:59 am (Pacific time)

A-Non: Oh, now I get your frequency, loud and clear: "someone who believes the doctrine of free will." Surely there is a place and frame for that, but doubt if it is workable in our democracy, esp. with some of the points you make yourself. BUT greatest possible offsetting factor is simple credibilities established by knowing who saying what, to deduce the why-behind-those words. Which is why news stories carry by-lines, books carry author names and even who publishes, and sports teams revel in revealing labelling. IF you have no reason for being "anon", why hide those major factors in any impact you may have ? Allawhat you responded is indeed intriguing, but hardly "on the money" for this topic. Why not write book, or even start yr own blog ? I'd be happy to see latter since it then opens you in volume to precise and penetrating further analysis.

Hank Ruark April 20, 2007 10:12 am (Pacific time)

R-C: Yours revealing, again...if your attitude is as stated, won't worry much whether my steps are same or as fast as yours. Proof: "..very easy to be invisible". IF you doing nothing to be ashamed of publicly, why be invisible ? Re "behind", been beating on denigration in news for longer than you've been breathing, judging by your juvenile attitude so neatly revealed.

RC April 20, 2007 8:57 am (Pacific time)

Actually I may be pirating a neighbors wireless signal right now because they failed to protect it. Very easy to be invisible out there Hank...you are many steps behind, as usual.

A Non Mouse April 20, 2007 12:16 am (Pacific time)

YOU dead-sure re no-trace?

Absolutely, and I'm not one who even tries. IP addresses have never been identification. A big reason music industry lawyers continue to avoid courts, unless/until some type of confession is made. Yet, for some reason, an IP address IS given enough weight by our judicial system to issue warrants. (There's another Op. Ed. that doesn't fit your agenda).

You also asked about if we were all in this together, against "the bad guys." Unable to define "bad guys", the answer is still yes. But I won't be supporting a Gallom, who supports the state's continual destruction of liberty. All crime against ACTUAL victims was established almost 100 years ago. Yet our system has created another 100 years of victim less crimes -- from helmet/seatbelt laws, (ignored by the elites re gov. N.J.), to laws absolutely forbidden by the consent of the governed, (ordering Liviu Librescu unarmed, much the same way Hitler did).

Further Gollum attitude example -- "What could possible be wrong with more police on the streets?" -- "War on drugs." -- "War on guns." -- "War on West." "Asset seizure." Continued without end.

Even if Gollum is ignorant of his effects on fellow man, I have no desire to give him another 100 years. At this point, a complete reversely wouldn't absolve him of his crimes against humanity. Example -- leaving 25,000 law-abiding, peaceful students and staff at Virginia Tech without arms to defend their natural right to life. Even worse, teaching the defenseless a mindset of non-resistants in the face of evil. Flight 93 should, yet will never, be added to the curriculum.

While the treasonous elite control power, any non-elite/non-Gollum can only wait. Power is everything to tyrants. The founders knew, (the 2nd Amend.), the V. Tech killer knew, (suicide moments before police arrival), even reporters pray it true, ("pen mightier than the sword"). Until balance of power is re-established, soapbox yelling amounts to waiting-in-denial.

Sadly, most soapbox yelling only calls for more of same. Self-reliance doesn't fit in with "it takes a village" mindset, (in fact, if publicly declared, numerous 20 year old laws will be applied). On that note, back to the sidelines for me.

Hank Ruark April 19, 2007 6:06 pm (Pacific time)

A-N: A rousing defense of blog role now vs traditional news dailies is "a blogger says:save the MSM!" p. 50, in MotherJones Mr/Apr. (their typo-style downcase !) It makes strong point re the role blogs now play, without much on anonymity but deep on content and impact. In best interests of all reading-this, suggest anyone wanting more depth than either of us supplied see this issue of "the Mother", which also has strong report on "breaking the news",showing it's not the Internet that's killing daily newspapers but the unrelenting desperate drive for outsize profits, endangering a free press. DO believe yours re blog somewhat misdescribes actual situation (re anonymity) thus denigrating actuality for our readers here, so reported this material here for them and you. Demonstrating right-role for S-N in any controversy: "telling it true, the best we can do."

Hank Ruark April 19, 2007 3:48 pm (Pacific time)

A-N: Further reading of your diatribe indicates rather poor comprehension of clearly stated sentences. NEVER even implied only honest news comes here...that is stupid on face of statement itself. YOU dead-sure re no-trace ? Try treasonous statement and see who arrives rapidly... IF you have allthatinfo on blogger-service by "news", why not publish yourself ? IF "unnamed sources" as you propose, why should we grant you any credibility ? You well might be part of problem... Eveer since science took over world, proof of work (as well as pudding !) has been in the-eating, which means documentation and definite credibilities. SO you wanna run a "black" publication ? Go right ahead, but never count on any profit from customers... Re stories broken by bloggers, Tim stands ready for your copy anytime submitted, and will even make room for you on my allotted space...so put up or shut up...

Hank Ruark April 19, 2007 3:29 pm (Pacific time)

A-NM: Yr strong feeling evident, indicating something more than simple fact involved. Anon-danger is recognized, fought by any/all public agencies, fact-of-life in all communications research. Yr statements simply reflect why, revealed nicely here. IF true, why bother with any name-record in Legislature ? Yr way relieves even the pol of telling truth since ties to him solidly by name-listing. You really wanta live like that ? Nations where it goes on not-so-nice... Re denigration of dailies, have lived thru it since '40s, including extremely varied experiences --yr anon-status provides convenient cover unless you choose to ID-self to Editor...standing offer for those who prefer mask like intruder in night or other example. IF you've got real working experience, why not declare it and share writings or other product of professional job ? IF you worked that way in daylight with colleagues or employer, how long would you last ? Allasame Internet, too --not just courtesy but demanded for reliability...or you could be three, four, five, six names, each for unfair advantage, as we already know takes place. SO what are you afraid of ? Why ? Can you enunciate it ? We all inasameboat here now, as in any other struggle where all under attack by "the bad guys", right ??

A Non Mouse April 19, 2007 1:21 pm (Pacific time)

Your continued belief that someone willing to identify him/herself is more responsible reporting the facts is unfounded. Politicians love seeing their name, and they are constantly lying, distorting, and twisting the truth. Even this current Op. Ed. could be seen as doing the same. You cover an issue which is important to the paper, your employer, complaining about the direction of the internet, and S/Ns desire to rise above it. Honest news only comes from us... blah, blah, blah... Why didn't you do an editorial on the numerous national news stories that were broke by these web logs you denounce? And some of those blogs are run by completely anonymous posters. Yes, COMPLETELY anonymous. Switch your user agent, use a proxy server, or two, and no internet address will be left behind. That's implying an internet address equals identification, which it doesn't. They can be spoofed too. That also means your above statement; "The fact is that Internet addresses are essential for any message-delivery. ..." is NOT fact. And you told me S/N only used "facts" "...documented for all to see-and-learn."? I'm shocked. So, when will we see an Op. Ed. on news stories broke by bloggers? Just a guess here, never. It doesn't fit your agenda, even though it would be true and completely documented. Being honest with your readers is more than selectively reporting 'true' stories. Lots of 'truth' is left on the newsroom floor. Anyone can use the internet to find ALL the truth, and that scares the hell out of your employer. (There's my "foul language" again. Use it, and grammar errors, to justify ignoring my opinions.)

[Return to Top]

Op Ed: Free Speech Has Costs:
Democratic Dialog Demands
Care and Responsible Usage
As Internet Matures

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News