To the immense credit of somebody at The Courant or Tribune, the toxic Topix message boards were not included in the relaunch and redesign of Courant. com.
I’ve made no secret over the years that The Courant’s indulgence in anonymous, unmoderated, instant posts from readers was a violation of everything a good news organization should stand for. I wrote a number of memos to my bosses to that effect when I worked at The Courant, and all of them were essentially ignored. I began to think that the bosses were themselves cowards or, worse, that they were willing to trade their journalistic integrity — indeed, their personal integrity — for a few additional page views.
I’m sure a number of low-life bigots will be disappointed that they now have to register before trying to spew their venom, but the rest of us can rejoice that meaningful comment on the news can take place without individuals being unfairly maligned and without having to co-exist with a bunch of racist bile.
A little of my faith in the company’s management has been restored.
Loading ...
Hurray! That’s a change that’s long overdue. It was impossible to police and just gave racists, sexists and hatemongers a cowardly, anonymous platform.
Although the Courant is a shell of what it once was, it is clear that this is a good decision.
Anyone found in the crosshairs of posters to the Topix Forum can celebrate today.
And even if Paul’s memos were ignored, he deserves applause for doing his best to salvage the courant’s integrity when the bosses no longer cared.
Hallelujah! Larry, you are so right. I applaud you, Paul, for all you’ve done and continue to do to try to help The Courant stay on an ethical and right course. I’m sure the reasons for requiring registration have less to do with integrity and more to do with money. But that’s OK if it cuts down on the hatred spewed under the courant.com banner. (Is it still a banner when it’s on a website?)
I was told a few days before the launch, as I brought some venomous posts to the attention of the web dudes, that this would soon all end.
As a future refugee, I’m sure glad they’re gone. There was a lot of heat but very little light. And it was an absolute haven for mentally ill bigots.
Oh, and Hi Tim. Glad to see you dropping by.
Dave Owens
No surprise that the leftist Courant “alumni” applauds the denial of free speech.
Buh-bye Courant. Good riddance.
Normally I would let an ignorant remark such as Robert’s slide and forgive him for his undiscerning mind. But on this subject I am less forgiving. Robert confuses irresponsible anonymous speech allowed by Topix with the freedom to speak afforded by our Constitution. Speaking freely should not — and does not — mean not having to be held accountable for what one says. That is cowardice, not freedom. And my name, as everyone knows, is Paul Stern. Robert, apparently, doesn’t have the stones to give his. Or maybe if we knew it, we would think even less of his remarks. Anyway, since I’m no longer an employee, I can say what I’ve always wanted to say to readers like Robert: “Sir, I’m glad you are canceling your subscription.”
I’m with you Paul. These mental midgets are upset because they’ll have to find some place else to spew their hate and simplistic views of reality. His ignorance of the First Amendment is sad.
And since I created and administer this blog, and exercise my Constitutionally granted freedom to control it, I can freely elect not to publish any of Robert’s future rantings. This also allows me time and space to pursue my left-wing agenda, monitor my portfolio of capitalistic investments, and mow the lawn.
Whenever I hear someone speak of newspapers abridging their free speech, I want to recite this to them:
CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
Whoever owns the medium gets to decide what is published in that medium.
And I’d like to thank Peter Voelz, my old history of journalism professor at Eastern Illinois University, for drilling that into my head nearly a quarter of a
century ago.
Do we need a two-thirds vote to add to or alter the left-wing agenda? I’ve always wondered.
I just have to re-post this quote:
“This also allows me time and space to pursue my left-wing agenda, monitor my portfolio of capitalistic investments, and mow the lawn.”
People, to eliminate the Topix from Courant.com is a strike against freedom of speech! Just because you may have been a target of hate postings, does not mean it is not protected by our constitution. Even the Supreme Court upheld the pornography of Larry Flint and his outrageous cartoons and articles. What makes this so different?
For the Courant’s staff to ask for Topix to be removed because they have thin skin is a form a censorship. Not only are hard copy readers canceling their subscription, myself included, but once loyal web viewers are jumping ship in droves.
Dear Highway Worker… I think the distinction that you are missing here is that the hate speech on Topix is anonymous. Freedom of speech under the Constitution does not — and never meant — that individuals could say anything they want without accountability.
The Constitution says that government cannot limit free speech…
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
… it does not say that the press (The Courant, in this case) must grant anyone the opportunity to comment anonymously under its banner at the expense of its reputation as a newspaper and at the expense of its ethical standards. To call the exercise of this freedom to limit comment “censorship” is to deny the very freedom the Constitution granted. It boils down to this: You can say anything you want at your own expense and on your own site. You will also be held accountable for what you say by the public.
Dear Mr. Stern;
It was always known that Topix was and still is a separate entity from the Courant. I guess people “assembling” in the form of Topix does not appeal to the courant staff.
Just let me say this, I hope you will enjoy your unemployment checks at the end of this year because your website is losing readers.
I wish you all luck.
Anonymity and the First Amendment — an interesting topic. Of course the Courant has the right to moderate its discussion forums, and of course the First Amendment doesn’t require the press to grant anyone the right to comment anonymously (in newspapers or Internet forums, for example).
That aside, the subject of anonymity and the First Amendment is another issue entirely, and a complex one. One site (among many) with more on the topic is:
http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
The site points out that a 1995 Supreme Court ruling (McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission) stated:
“Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.”
And the Electronic Frontier Foundation writes:
“Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment.”
“The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym ‘Publius,’ and ‘the Federal Farmer’ spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.”
All this has nothing to do with whether the Courant can (and should) moderate its forums, of course. The right to speak anonymously doesn’t mean the right to speak anonymously on a privately owned site such as Topix, needless to say.
Correct. Anonymity is fine — when it is granted. It’s a problem, however, when someone else’s anonymous hate crap violates its host’s ethical standards and reputation.
And a note to Reality Check: I have been enjoying my unemployment checks for many months now, thanks in part to the Tribune’s need to pay off a $13 billion debt.
… and you forgot to mention Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It shields Internet providers such as Topix from liability derived from anonymous posts.
Wow, Paul, I cannot believe they followed you over here. Amazing perseverance, yet still, they must hide behind aliases.
On a lighter note, I made a nice Manhattan clam chowda today.
Cooper
I am sorry to hear that Paul and would wish you find a job or project soon. Also, I have no problem meeting anyone in person to discuss this issue…coffee anyone?
Not all posters were hate mongers and usually the rest of us who wanted to have creative dialog would just ignore the poster. It was really simple. I have admit there were some who took the hate too far, but then again, it is their right to spew their hatred.
Then why don’t you identify yourself, Reality Check? As they say, talk is cheap. Trolls hide. People with a set stand behind what they say.
Spewing hatred may be a civil right, but The Hartford Courant never had the slightest obligation to provide a platform for it. Topix is a cesspool that no respectable publication should tolerate. Paul was right about it, and outspoken, but he was not alone in opposing it.
I, for one, enjoy Topix. I would rather see real opinions, good or bad, rather than opinions that have been sanitized or repackaged to make them sound all nice and pretty. I rarely buy the Courant anymore anyway because the journalists there are no longer the kind that act as government watchdogs or the kinds of reporters who will bring you the truth no matter what it takes. Like opinions, I don’t want a sanitized version of real events.
Real opinions, fine. Racist slurs and lies, not fine on my dime. Get your own site and put your name on it.
I’m detecting some serious arrogance and self-righteousness in your responses. Fine. You want to play King of Everything then be my guest. I don’t need to come onto your almighty site and I’ll use the dimes that I don’t spend buying the Courant on something else. You guys are the ones running your own paper right out of business and costing you your jobs.
And please, don’t bother unsheathing your “I’m banning you” sword because I won’t be back. You can surround yourself with people who will agree with your every sanitized word because it is “your site” but I’m going where people have lively and spirited debates and discussions. The Courant forum, and your little site, are about as lively as a wake. You guys can just sit around agreeing with each other on everything. Adios!!
Finally, somebody who responds appropriately.
Is that his real name? If so, congrats for having a pair.
But the guy says he doesn’t read the paper, then goes on to say what it doesn’t do. How does he know, he doesn’t read it?
He hasn’t spent much time on your site either, Paul.
Dave Owens
(Real name, honest!)
Dave, it’s possible that he’s speaking about the content from experience because he is a former customer. I have also stopped buying the Courant, but I also can give reasons for why I don’t read it anymore simply because I once was a Courant customer.
I chose to drop the Courant because they changed the format to attract younger customers while disregarding those of us who had been supporting the Courant for several years. They didn’t care about the loyalty of their long-term readers.
They destroyed, and then discontinued, the Northeast section, dropped Parade, kept cutting down on the content and were constantly writing stories about racism, racism and more racism.
Someone would have to have been a Courant reader in the first place to be able to actually drop the Courant.
The loss of so many staff is sad considering that the Courant is our states biggest paper. I did buy a copy the other day and I liked the format a little more than some of the previous efforts. However, I beseech the Courant to think about bringing back the Northeast section. I miss the essay format that took a little break from straight-up news stories.
Also, I noticed the tabloid section in the Sunday edition pretty much just offers a recap of the previous week’s news. I would prefer to see new stories from around the state than a rehash of what has already been printed.
A slightly more frivolous complaint is how the Courant does not print Dear Amy’s full column. I know it is on the website but if I buy a paper I want to get the full content. Not everyone likes to read off the computer.
Good luck in the future.
I loved posting on Topix. Sure, the “debate” was low rent, often snide, sometimes vulgar and frequently indecipherable. So I would expect that when I dove in with my generally unpopular liberal comments. My goal was to use a combination of facts and sarcasm to best the legions of right-wing attackers. Then one or two or more progressive allies would join me in the fray. It was free-wheeling fun!
Hey Stern,
What do you mean “held accountable”?
Generally when I say that I mean “made to take responsibility for” and, if appropriate, “suffer the consequences of.” But, in this case, I haven’t a clue what the context is. Help me out, please.
Your comments on 6-30-09 and 7-8-09 refer to accountability for what one says. I’m wondering what it means to be “accountable” or “responsible” for a statement. Do you simply mean statements should be non-anonymous? Do you mean people should be accountable for the consequences of their statements?
I mean people should be held responsible for any negative consequences their false or hateful statements cause. For example, if I post a statement falsely to the effect that Mr. X cheated on his wife, Mr. X ought to know who posted it and be able to pursue a libel case against me. If I post anonymously, he has no recourse and I am not accountable. If I call someone some sort of racist slur, I ought to be identifiable to the community so they can know who among them is a racist.
But news reporters routinely cite un-named sources who may or may not exist. They do it all the time and the anonymity of their sources is almost always protected by law. Suppose someone on your blog asserts that he has a reliable source who says that Mr. X cheats on his wife. If reporters can have secret sources, so can he, right?
The responsibility for the information in a story quoting an unnamed source rests with the newspaper itself. If a reporter (and, accordingly, his or her newspaper company) uses an unnamed source to say Mr. X cheated on his wife, then Mr. X has a cause of action against the paper. (Not to mention the fact that one unnamed source is generally not enough by industry standards. Most editors want three.) The paper becomes accountable for what it prints, period. If the reporter does not disclose his sources to the courts when ordered to do so (via due process), then the reporter sits in jail on a contempt count. It has happened on numerous occasions.
Online platform providers have no such standard. In fact, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects them from libel charges as the result of those who post. So an anonymous post can malign someone (even you) and you have no recourse against that person and none against the person (even me) who allowed it to be there. In my world that is not ethical or fair. Some sites don’t have any such standard.