One definition of "conversation" is "the discussion of great and small topics by people who practice mutual tolerance for opposing viewpoints". The key phrase is "mutual tolerance".
Recently, blogger Kathy Sierra had to cancel a speaking engagement due to death threats she had received at her website and other blogs. I haven't looked into just why her comments riled the hateful to such vile action, but for the purposes of my post, that is not especially important.
What is important, however, is to point out that our nation is facing a situation similar to that just experienced by two Texas fathers and their sons. They managed somehow to avoid death when their boat went over a dam. Our nation is drifting toward the edge of a precipice, and those of us who attempt to point this out to the rest get doused with abuse and calumny. I guess it's considered gauche to point out that the party needs to come to an end when the End is why there's a Garishly Opulent Party occurring.
To defend their "right" to drag us all over the edge with them, the Partiers resort to deception, manipulation of the truth, offering misleading red herrings of "logic" and negating reasoned effort through the presentation of demonstrable fact with bald assertions of "No, it isn't!" with no supporting evidence. Such a Peewee Herman arena will accomplish nothing tangible, but that is why the tactic of resorting to such verbiage is used. It enables those who wish to avoid exploring their own contribution to our current tense situation to lay the blame elsewhere ("It's all Bill Clinton's fault!")
Aristotle's Rhetoric proposed that in a democracy all citizens had a right and duty to participate in their own government, and each citizen must understand what can or cannot be done in public discourse and politics. When a society faces the kinds of troubles we in America now do, all points of view must be offered for consideration by the whole. No one point is any more valid than another until all of the aspects have been discussed pro and con and all participating in the discussion have reached an agreeable understanding on a solution.
But we Americans seem to have forgotten all of this, as Kathy Sierra's experience demonstrates. One of the best examples to prove my point is the Internet. Blogs such as this one attract too many of those who only seek to be difficult and obtrusive. As the Chicago Tribune posted, "The incorrigibly bad-humored, for example, find they can thrive on the Internet with no consequence and gather whole audiences of other bad-humored folks around them." Regular readers of our own comments know of several examples which prove the Trib's point.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Realist, as often happens, you have some great points here about a problem we've seen displayed right here on BC a few times, including in a rather intense burst recently. I think it's a serious concern.
I still wish you wouldn't undermine your own arguments with silly partisan crap like the end of the third paragraph. This isn't a problem coming from the right, it's a problem of the medium as a whole. The recent problems here on BC demonstrate that pretty clearly, and much of the most vile stuff I see comes from the left, including what can only be considered a (feeble) death threat directed at me and another BC writer.
Just as Kathy Sierra has suffered death threats, so has Michelle Malkin. There are crazy ideologues all over the political spectrum. You do us all a disservice by tainting this issue with partisanship and even suggesting otherwise.
I've now looked into the Sierra business and may look into it some more. In her case the hositility doesn't appear to be partisan at all, but more of a bizarre case of cyberstalking. Her writing isn't political and really isn't provocative in any normal sense of the word, unless she has more than one blog and I haven't found the other one. Damned if I can figure out how she attracted one or more psychos. She seems like a nice lady. It suggests that sometimes it doesn't take much to set these people off - that their anger and hostility is mostly generated from within their own twisted personality.
Dave
2 - jaz
funny..i didn't think the argument in the Article was undermined at all, in actuality...there are the whackos from both sides of the political spectrum, singling out one particular Individual while ignoring a plethora of others from the opposing partisan faction is more disingenuous than the open taking of a position that the Author presents
but here's the thing...
either it's Free Speech, or it ain't...ya can't tell folks to "be civil" or "type nice" or anything like that , without choking off their full range of Expression
sometimes the person being railed against IS a simpering mongoloid with the attention span of a tse tse fly on crack and the intellectual capacity of fossilized triceratops feces
if so, it needs to be pointed out...if not, then saying such should be argued against
the whole "politically correct" bullshit is a two edged sword that so many enjoy using against their Foe while not following it themselves...and that kind of hypocrisy also needs to be pointed out EVERY time
because that's how the miserable pigfuckers get away with it...some folks being too nice to them when they deserve nothing but contempt
so sign me up for the Wild West aspect of it all...open discourse, and Judge by the words in front of you...deal with it, it ain't easy...i know, especially when dealing with simpletons who only want to piss on everything and offer nothing to the discussion...not even Humor
in the End...nothing worthwhile is "easy", and whenever said "easy" way out is taken, a little bit of our collective Spirit is diminished
the slings and arrows serve to toughen one up, and sharpen one's tools...if nothing else, a far better outcome than simpering pablum of bland vanilla with no "spice"
your mileage may vary
3 - Clavos
jaz,
I agree with your comment, but also think that realist is right (!) with his basic premise of:
Ignore trolls making nasty comments of abuse or libel. "Never wrestle with a pig," is the advice. "You both get dirty, but the pig likes it."
There are some "pigfuckers" (love that word!) even here on BC, against whom only that tactic works.
My comments on BC have reflected (sometimes badly, I admit with shame) both ways of dealing with them, as I perceive which is the best in a given instance.
Bottom line: free speech may well be our most important freedom. It should not be curtailed unless it involves an actual crime.
I'm home ill today; as I previewed this comment, I saw that it shows in my writing. Apologies.
4 - jaz
and Ignoring someone is a perfectly acceptable methodology, Clavos
one i use at times, for my own sake...and to spare the delicate sensibilities of others (including our illustrious Comments Editor)
but Ignoring an Idiot is far different than squelching their expression, and removes the ability to spot the mangy curs by actually reading the evidence of their dysfunctional mewlings
Bring the Noise!
5 - Servant
Meh. As long as the human race exists, it will be stupid and piggish. Is free speech really that important? This is just a question, please don't be a pig to me.
6 - jaz
what is - yes, Free Speech IS that Important...
it's the root of our Republic, and the basis for individual freedoms...without the Right to speak our minds about anything in any way we desire, all that's left is totalitarianism by inches
7 - Lumpy
With other rights a line is drawn as far as the extent ti which they can be freely exercised at the point where you would harm others.
The same ought to be true of speech, but it's a lot harder for a diverse society to agree on the point where speech does real harm. It's not like the right to bear arms where the point of harm is relatively clear. The harmfulness of words is a lot more subjective than a bullet wound.
Where there's subjectivity and ambiguity some will try to take advantage, be abusive and hide behind their rights. How do you stop them without harming everyone else at the same time?
8 - troll
imo going for the 'high ground' as Dave has done in the face of 'offers' of violence is a mistake
some of us have to be willing to rub our noses in it and hound such offenders into the ground
9 - jaz
depends on what ya call "harm"
just because someone is Offended doesn't mean they are harmed in any real or legal sense
it's in the very name of protecting Diversity that maximum freedom of speech is crucial and requires protection
but don't be confused by the huge difference between someone being offended, and being harmed
10 - troll
when an out of control parent says to a 4 yr old: 'I hate you and wish you'd never been born' that's harmful
what about when some homophobic commenter says the same to a sensitive homosexual - ?
I don't think the line between offense and harm is all that clear
11 - Clavos
I think the laws already in place here in the US regarding what constitutes "harmful" speech are fairly comprehensive, and certainly clear enough.
I'm referring, of course, to the laws which define the concepts of libel and slander and what constitutes those offenses, as well as those regarding defamation and even pornography.
I agree totally with jaz; freedom of speech is the bedrock on which all our freedoms stand. It MUST be kept wide open; even to the point of allowing some to offend substantial parts of society.
Some months ago, on these pages, I argued against the picketing of military funerals as practiced by Fred Phelps and his followers in protest of gays.
I argued because I'm deeply offended on two levels by Mr. Phelps: First, he chooses to picket military funerals, which naturally sticks in my craw as a veteran. Secondly, as a social liberal, I abhor discrimination in any form, and discrimination against gays is no exception.
I was opposed by a somewhat obnoxious but otherwise articulate person (who was, I think, a one-time visitor to BC; I've never seen him since), whose argument of course, hinged on the necessity to keep speech completely free, regardless of its offensiveness.
He was, of course, right, though it took me a while to think about it and admit it to myself.
12 - jaz
troll - aren't to child is completely different than between adults
as for your second example...i'll defend both the right of the Ignorant to express their silliness, as well as defend the sensitive person who was harshed
as much as that person may feel offended by it, the only thing harmed are their sensibilities...and as much as that bothers me...the loss of freedoms far outweigh bruised sensibilities, imo
good points raised, as always
and Clavos..the incident you are talking about involves private property and personal space (a funeral) ...a FAR different matter than public discourse on many levels
13 - Clavos
Actually, jaz it was more than one incident, and what I was referring to were his attempts to picket funerals at military cemeteries, which of course are Federal property, not private.
Because those funerals were on public land, they were not private affairs, legally, and Phelps and his people had a legal right to be there, which is why they weren't arrested.
Private property is a completely different situation.
14 - Servant
But does freedom of expression really exist? For example, if I walked around in a KKK outfit, shouting racial slurs, I would get thrown in prison and crucified by the media. Yet radical Muslims do that to so-called infidels every day and we're supposed to make nice with them? How is that issue resolved?
15 - Clavos
Actually, Servant, the ACLU has successfully defended the right of the KKK to do just exactly what you've described.
16 - Zedd
Servant
The members of the KKK have a right to do exactly what you just said. Its not against the law.
You use them in the example as if they are martyrs. That's odd.
17 - Andy Marsh
Sticks and stones people...sticks and stones...
just a thought.
18 - Mark Schannon
Great article, realist, and well thought out. I must disagree with my "boss," Mr. Nalle that it's the lefties who cause most of the nastiness on BC. We all know it's those righties, right?
I mean, come on Dave, what's one little death threat. I didn't mean it.
But seriously folks, these comments have really thrown me because I find myself agreeing with both sides. Tampering with free speech is worse than tampering with an underage whatever...and yet we do restrict it in ways that everyone accepts. Fire in the theatre and all that.
As much as I wanted to be in the crowd with a machine gun to mow them down when the Nazis marched in wherever Illinois, I supported the ACLU's efforts to protect their free speech rights.
But that's a relatively easy one (oh sure) compared to some of the issues we're confronting here. When does my right to say whatever I want so interfere with other's similar rights that society (or an organization) has a duty to first try to calm me down, and, if all else fails, muzzle me.
I know, better a hundred guilty go free than one innocent be convicted...and I agree with that too.
One last point. This has been a great series of comments, and it's got me confused in a good way. Could this have happened if some, shall we call them, trouble makers been jumping in after every comment? I leave it up to you.
But as for me,
In Jameson Veritas
19 - Sisyphus
I am reminded of Ronald Reagan's famous line, when a debate moderator asked to have Reagan's microphone cut off: "I paid for this microphone!" -- (the line borrowed from a 1940s Spencer Tracy movie.) When one is offering comments in someone else's space, one should be expected to behave as a guest and respect the house rules. In this context, the "free speech" argument is groundless as one is free to spout anything in one's own blog without restriction (apart from breaking copyright or libel laws or what-have-you). By the same token, bloggers can and should exercise control over his or her own blog. If one invites anonymous, unmoderated postings, one will get exactly that. And bloggers who are unwilling to take the time to moderate postings deserve the outcome. People expect to have this nice, manicured lawn but are unwilling to mow, weed or hire a gardener.
20 - jaz
Andy sez - "Sticks and stones people...sticks and stones..."
great point...
my Response?
"sticks and stones may break my bones, but a .357 gonna blow yer damn head off..."
21 - Andy Marsh
Gotta luv youtube!
22 - Andy Marsh
Didn't even realize who that was....how are you my friend!!!
23 - Dave Nalle
imo going for the 'high ground' as Dave has done in the face of 'offers' of violence is a mistake
You have to take each situation on its merits and consider the source. Idle threats of violence from some self-obsessed old crazy lady in another country don't worry me. If it was a credible threat from a person who might potentially be more dangerous, then my response would be different. And remember, my security gate is alarmed and 120 yards from my house. Good luck getting past the dogs and through the kill-zone between the pool and the house while I'm on the observation deck with my rifle. The coyotes are always hungry.
Dave
24 - jaz
for Andy - mean and cranky, and not as prolific as in times past...how goes the reading? and my best to you and yours...
for #24 - IR scope and a .454 magnum Marlin with fulminate of mercury tips...luck has nothing to do with it..as an olde Teacher once told me "prior planning prevents piss poor performance"
but i've mellowed in my dotage, and have no desire to ever visit the Lone Star state...be thankful
25 - Andy Marsh
you forgot proper there jaz...it's prior proper planning prevents piss poor performance...at least that's the way pop told it to me...
the reading goes well...although, right now, I'm rotting my brain with some Koontz...but i have read a little more of the good stuff...and I got my youngest to read "Stranger"...she loved it...
...and back at you to you and yours as well...pop gots a new heart...he now must respect his elders...heart wise...he's only 24!!!
Life is good!