Trevor wrote:Well, that is the trick, isn't it? Knowing what to avoid and how far one can go. It looks like the safest thing to do, in order to preserve anonymity, is simply not to draw attention to one's self by criticizing another person repeatedly. Obviously, if one is willing to put one's full name to something, and bear the consequences, then that is what one should do.
I'll be quite frank here. If this is the future, then I will be calling it quits. I started out with something of a Robin Hood mentality about the whole thing. I was a grad student, and I didn't really think of what was truly at risk. I had the American tradition of pamphleteering under a pseudonym in mind. Being discontent with my experience in the LDS Church, I looked for an outlet and a community of fellow discontents to share it with.
Overall it has been a good experience. I have met lots of interesting people across the country and the world, and I have found that I am not alone in my sense of the problems the faith community of my youth labors under. One of my particular peeves has been the practice of apologetics, which I saw being undertaken in a spirit and tone contrary to the values I had grown up with. I still firmly believe that certain aspects of what goes on in the LDS apologetic community are deleterious to the LDS community. Whether those in power agree with me has never been my concern. My sense of right and wrong was my concern.
I weigh in on both sides of the question. At the moment I'm engaged in some heated debates on the Oz politics board I got this link from, and trying not to take sides while expressing my opinions. Basically, there is a poster, also a moderator, who has for several years now been very critical of Islam. He's a Christian who has an obsession with exposing Islam and portraying the majority of Muslims if not as terrorists, then as potential terrorists, or secretly supportive of terrorism. When I first went on the board last year I felt his criticisms bordered on fanatical, and I opposed many of his stereotypes of Muslims, but to no avail. So I ignored his posts on Islam, as did most on the BB, because for the most part he wasn't interested in reasonable discussion, but mainly in demonising Islam. It did really bore me. But a couple of weeks ago several Muslims decided to reply, and they were pretty angry. One said he might sue for personal defamation (for being personally called a terrorist), and to this date has said he's going to report the offending poster/moderator and the board Administrator to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, for religious vilification, and attempt to have the BB shut down, unless the BB owner did something to stop the excessive criticisms and vilification of Islam. Note here too, that it was not the criticisms per se which offended, but the
constant several years campaign to vilify Muslims. Although I could see their point of view, I opposed this radical move, and encouraged the Muslim posters to stay on the board and debate the criticisms by this poster, rather than trying to gag free speech. And it was very interesting when the Muslim posters came on, and many of their posts were effective in rebutting stereotypes. So my approach to this basically was according to the old adage, "I vigourously disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
At the moment, as things stand, the Muslim poster has restated that he will come good on his threat, and the offending poster has effectively been gagged. The board Administrator is not taking the threats seriously, no doubt on legal advice he has, and most of the other non-Muslim posters are now supporting the critic's right to free speech, though they seldom read what he wrote in the past. But that's also why I said I think this heralds the new future of the Internet. Vilification laws will be enforced (Oz does not have anything like the 1st Amendment), and this board in Oz may well become an Internet test case, because the laws are not adequately defined as they relate to the Internet, we are in early days yet, nor the avenues for successful prosecution. They are already in place in the electronic media, and any editor who steps out of line will find his sorry ass in court. I know of journalists who have been destroyed by this, and subsequently regretted ever doing what they did, because it left them in financial ruin. That is one reason I haven't written to the print media for two years now (after 13 years of doing so quite prolifically), because editors chop up what you write to avoid potential prosecution. The AJA (Australian Journalists Association) also has a code of ethics (I've added the bold):
AJA CODE OF ETHICS
Respect for truth and the public's right to information are fundamental principles of journalism. Journalists describe society to itself. They convey information, ideas and opinions, a privileged role. They search, disclose, record, question, entertain, suggest and remember. They inform citizens and animate democracy. They give a practical form to freedom of expression. Many journalists work in private enterprise, but all have these public responsibilities. They scrutinise power, but also exercise it, and should be accountable. Accountability engenders trust. Without trust, journalists do not fulfil their public responsibilities. MEAA members engaged in journalism commit themselves to
Honesty
Fairness
Independence
Respect for the rights of others
1. Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis. Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply.
2. Do not place unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics, including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family relationships, religious belief, or physical or intellectual disability.
3. Aim to attribute information to its source. Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the source’s motives and any alternative attributable source. Where confidences are accepted, respect them in all circumstances.
4. Do not allow personal interest, or any belief, commitment, payment, gift or benefit, to undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence.
5. Disclose conflicts of interest that affect, or could be seen to affect, the accuracy, fairness or independence of your journalism. Do not improperly use a journalistic position for personal gain.
6. Do not allow advertising or other commercial considerations to undermine accuracy, fairness or independence.
7. Do your utmost to ensure disclosure of any direct or indirect payment made for interviews, pictures, information or stories.
8. Use fair, responsible and honest means to obtain material. Identify yourself and your employer before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast. Never exploit a person’s vulnerability or ignorance of media practice.
9. Present pictures and sound which are true and accurate. Any manipulation likely to mislead should be disclosed.
10. Do not plagiarise.
11. Respect private grief and personal privacy. Journalists have the right to resist compulsion to intrude.
12. Do your utmost to achieve fair correction of errors.
Guidance Clause
Basic values often need interpretation and sometimes come into conflict. Ethical journalism requires conscientious decision-making in context. Only substantial advancement of the public interest or risk of substantial harm to people allows any standard to be overridden.
It it very clear that "Hack and "Caz" thumbed their noses at this code, because they could do so anonymously, until they got caught. But I think what we're going to see (looking at my Seerstone here), are similar codes applied to the Internet, eventually, at least here in Oz. It will be a sad day if the Internet goes the way of the electronic media, but there is really only one way to stop this, and that is to do exactly what's now being done to Hack and Caz. Here is the answer to their blog,
The Spin Starts Here: The Lulz Starts Here:
http://thelulzstarthere.wordpress.com/
Legal avenues may not be the best course to take. The best course to take is shaming the offenders who flout accountability, and letting bloggernacle loose on them to serve as a warning to future offenders, which is what's happening. As a non-anonymous blogger I plan to keep blogging, but I'm not prepared to face prosecution or financial ruin, so I'm careful what I write in regard to the laws of defamation (in Oz), within the parameters still now allowed on the inadequately defined Internet, which could have retroactive consequences should more definitive laws materialise in future. I don't want ever to have to spend hours and hours pressing "delete", so I simply stay within the guidelines of fairness and accountability. If I'm going to attack someone I need to have my facts right, do so with my name signed to the criticisms, even if I have to protect my anonymous sources. Journalists are allowed to do this, unless society or individuals are under serious risk of harm.
Bottom line: I don't see any need to stop bogging, because I'm prepared to stay within reason on my blog, and it's none the less enjoyable. Most criticism is
welcomed by the thinking public. What is shunned is the approach taken by Hack and Caz, because it is viewed as moral cowardice, people unwilling to accept accountability for what they write, and that is a gross infringement of the Journalists Code of Ethics. And here's another aspect we seldom think about: We want to be anonymous to protect ourselves from real harm, so the most prominent argument goes. So then, should we not be even
more concerned about the potential harm to those who enter cyber-space using their real names, which gives them more credibility? And I think of Bob McCue here. It was okay for FAIR to "expose him", and in my opinion they are just as liable as Hack and Caz, and just as cowardly and shameful. This game will have no winners. And I will defend Mc Cue on this matter as I would anyone else, because though I might disagree with him, I admire his pluck to write what he does and sign his name to it. If people like Mc Cue can't do this without personal and anonymous and defamatory attacks on their personal lives, then in the end we will all be the losers.