Homer Simpson, in his infinite wisdom, once famously declared alcohol “the cause of, and solution to, all of life’s problems.” The same might be said of anonymous comments on blogs: the potential solution to, but often instead the cause of, all of digital journalism’s issues.
Both alcohol and anonymous comments are superfluous to a healthy diet, but can add a lot of texture and value to a meal or a post. Unfortunately, they also run the gamut from delicious to destructive. I’m prone to indulge in them both until their evils outweigh their benefits.
Such, I think, has become the case with RI Future’s most prolific commenter who goes by the moniker Right To Work. His contributions have long been mean-spirited, misleading and uninformed, but yesterday when they became potentially libelous he crossed a line that shouldn’t be tolerated – especially given how frequently we needed to remind him that he had again run afoul of our house rules.
But silencing someone, for whatever reason, is no small action. If you’re in the business of disseminating information, like RI Future is, it deserves both careful consideration as well as a diligent disclosure as to why.
First off, I should remind everyone that no one has a First Amendment right to speak wherever they wanted. If we did, I would sue the New York Times for not running my stuff on its front page. RTW has plenty of places he can spew his hate, so I’m not at all worried about violating his rights.
On the contrary, it’s him violating the rights of others I’m worried about.
In his incessant and constant attempts to smear the left on RI Future, he likened local teachers’ unions officials to murderous mobsters. A statement not nearly as libelous as it is ridiculous but not at all a risk worth given it meets both thresholds. I’ve personally warned RTW on several occasions to attack ideas rather than people. Like you’d expect of a four-year-old, he would counter that others were guilty as well. (And here I was thinking that a component of conservative values was personal responsibility. Guess not as far as RTW is concerned.)
Furthermore, the Spokesman-Review in Tacoma, Wash. is being sued for defending the anonymity of an equally ridiculous and potentially-libelous comment that appeared in their comment section, reports NPR. It’s worth noting that if RTW thinks I would protect his anonymity he is putting more stock in my journalistic principles than he claims to in his comments.
That alone is reason enough to delete his account. But, sadly, there are other reasons.
RTW is the definitive internet troll. He comes to RI Future for no other reason than to besmirch our work and bemoan our ideas. Even the screen name he chose is a none-too-tacit fuck you to our product’s politics. His comments are often off-topic and off-color. They range from simple vitriol to misleading to patently false to debate damaging.
Which is too bad, because he seems to be one of the few conservatives willing to frequent our comments section. Open debate is definitely a progressive value, and I for one believe that the comments section of RI Future often boasts the best and most nuanced political debate in the local marketplace of ideas. Here’s hoping RI Future’s comments section can begin to attract a more intellectually honest foil (I’m looking at you, Jason Becker and Dawson Hodgson) and fewer like RTW.
I really appreciate the shout out at the end of this post, so I thought I’d sign in and share some thoughts.
I am not a huge fan of comment sections, particularly on news or broadly political sites. In my experience, the most robust comment sections develop when either the site or the topic it covers is obscure enough that a community of deeply knowledgeable folks can have a respectful dialog. Alon Levy’s pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/ or Greater City: Providence www.gcpvd.org/ are great examples of this. In a more broadly political vein, I have found the comment sections at bleedingheartlibertarians.com/ also adds, rather than detracts from the conversation.
But it’s very, very hard to talk politics and not devolve into internet mudslinging. There are many comments left on this site and other local RI blogs, even from RI Future contributors, that are not meant to stimulate conversation, but rather are meant as nothing more than heckling. I see a lot of that from folks on the left on this site. So while I think a lot of RTWs comments were not appropriate in tone, at least many of his initial comments on stories were criticisms and alternative ideas that SHOULD be discussed, even if they are outright wrong.
The truth is, RIFuture, by design, is downright hostile to certain view points. I don’t consider myself an “edreformer’ of the likes that Aaron Regunberg is so convinced are evil or Pat Crowley sees as an existential threat out to screw adults and kids alike. But how exhausting would it be to have a conversation on RIFuture about the role of charter schools in Rhode Island when the immediate reaction would be 15 counter posts that refer to the same studies, the same thought-leaders, and the same vague critiques that have been thrown around for years? All the more so when these folks are anonymous and have no need to maintain a professional relationship with me?
It’s very easy to disagree with folks who you have to see every day and may need to work with in the future, because even if they don’t respect you they’re going to act as though they respect you. But when the gloves are off and no one cares, you have to be ready to take below the belt punches if you get in the ring. Disagreeing with the prevailing views on RIFuture would be like jumping in the ring without a ref and without consequences with tens of people ready to beat you to a pulp.
I spent a lot of time in college discussing evolution with fundamentalists. It was exhausting. Most folks just don’t have the time or strength to have this fight in an anonymous and quickly hostile environment.
Wow!!! Who’s next? I’ve been reading this blog for a few years and seen a lot worse. I’ve commented before that RI Future seems to put Pat Crowley into some special protected class and you just reinforced that opinion. I’ve been chastised by your predecessor for challenging some of Pats posts for which Pat feels no obligation to respond. I’m no libertarian but I thought RTW brought good debate. If his comment was that outrageous, why not just delete it. Is the mission of this blog to sit around patting each other on the back for progressive ideas? I don’t agree that censorship was the correct path and the broadcasting of it is a little over the top.
Besides, what will turbo do now for entertainment?
“Open debate is definitely a progressive value”
Oh really? Is that why conservative-based comments regularly get ranked down, sometimes to the point of being hidden? C’mon, progressives can claim to be a lot of things, but being willing to accept open debate isn’t necessarily one of them.
I would have banned him a long time ago. ;)
And good riddance. I’m only a very occasional commenter. Last time I posted a comment it was short, straight forward and presented a few facts to add to the discussion. It attacked no one. It was civil. It wasn’t even particularly political or partisan.
But immediately, RTW posted a reply that contained a personal attacked based on assumed but false assertions about me. RTW’s comment seemed designed to shut down debate rather than engage in it.
That seemed to be RTW’s purpose: to dominate the comment sections and make it too frustrating and vitriolic a place for others to engage in discussion. I decided not to bother commenting on articles. Why bother when the only discussion likely to arise would be one driven by vitriol? I believe RTW’s relentless bombast crowded out other voices.
So thank you, Bob. Good call.
RTW = Right To Work for ALEC. Not here you don’t punk!!!!
Right to Work can start a blog;if someone comments so much that the comment length often exceeds that of the original piece, then surely the time has come to carve out a wee forum of one’s own.
Personally I welcome a hearty disagreement now and again, as long as reason, ,good rhetoric and fact guide the debate. But poor Right to Work… It got so I used to skip over those entries, because all I expected was vitriol. A pity; I am sure he believes in the merit of cause.
“Personally I welcome a hearty disagreement now and again, as long as reason, ,good rhetoric and fact guide the debate. But poor Right to Work… It got so I used to skip over those entries, because all I expected was vitriol.”
So disagreement can only be on your terms. I would hardly compare RTW’s comments to vitriol. Maybe you should look up the definition. Apparently you also had no problem with his nemisis turbo whose long winded nonsensical responses to RTW’s comments were almost stalker like.
I think it is hard to argue that RTW wasn’t consistently using language and examples that were so extreme he was either trolling, insulting, or delusional and doing so to a degree that was pretty unique on this site.
I liked RTW. Can’t say I saw much I found ‘offensive’ but then again, I’m not offended by much. As one the original conservative poster on this blog, I have not frequented this blog much simply because it doesn’t have the same type of banter of its former days.
I felt RTW provided some balance to the typical left-wing commentary here, and from vantage point he will be missed.
Why can’t RTW come back under another alias? Having a bit more moderation, like the Guardian UK site (Comment is Free), might be a better alternative.
Bravo! No one should hide behind an alias, except for unusual reasons.
Tom Graves
Is that really the problem here? Anonymity? I figured that was a part of it just by Bob’s title to his post about the “Anonymous Commenter”. I don’t know why that would be any problem at all to Bob, as it’s his site and he allows for somewhat anonymous comments. Then again, virtually everyone here is anonymous. Sure, people sign their names to things but if I were to sign my with “William Booth” or “Nancy Jackson”, does that make me any less anonymous than using a handle like “foobar”? Just because someone picks a common sounding first and last name, that doesn’t mean that is who they are.
“Apparently you also had no problem with his nemisis turbo ”
So far as I am aware, Professor Foster has never responded to any of my comments. She has ignored me as much as she ignored RTW.
Even so, what possible difference could it make how she thinks of me? You conservatives are so weird. It’s always about ‘so-and-so jumped off a bridge too’.
“almost stalker like”
First, this is bunk. You could say RTW stalked me, because he would never let an argument with me drop and brought up my name several times in conversations in which I had not been a participant.
Actually, you just did the latter. Why are you stalking me, DD?
Second, RTW did not get banned for the things you are accusing me of. RTW got banned because he repeatedly accused specific people of specific crimes–crimes in the legal sense.
For my part, I’ll miss RTW, in a way, because he was a fairly articulate guy who was frothing with resentment at Rhode Island. I don’t know where the resentment came from, but he took that froth and distilled it into the caustic, acidic ichor that he spat with alarming regularity onto this blog. He really must have quite a reservoir of this cruel and bitter juice. He could be clear sometimes, but there was always something sulphuric in his slaverings.
Sorry to be so long-winded here–”caustic, acidic ichor”; “cruel and bitter juice”; “sulphuric…slaverings”. If only there were a single word that could capture these ideas…oh well!
“Sorry to be so long-winded here–”caustic, acidic ichor”; “cruel and bitter juice”; “sulphuric…slaverings”. If only there were a single word that could capture these ideas…oh well!”
that word would be “vitriol”… just saying…
Turbo! You say, So far as I am aware, Professor Foster has never responded to any of my comments. She has ignored me as much as she ignored RTW. Absence of comment is not comment on absence! Not ignoring.
Right. Never deny the antecedent around a philosophy professor. I’ll keep that in mind!
Libel is a serious accusation. Unless the offending comment was removed, I do not see how RTW’s comments constitute even “potentially libelous” material. Insulting and in poor taste, certainly. But not libel. If the supposedly libelous remark is referring to union leaders as famous mobsters, then it looks much more like name-calling than libel. I admit I am not a lawyer, but I believe that libel requires that someone be accused of something specific rather than merely being insulted. For instance, in the Spokesman-Review case, Jacobson was falsely accused of embezzlement.
Personal attacks can be a valid reasons for banning a commenter, but it is not acceptable to accuse someone of libel without sufficient justification.
“I believe that libel requires that someone be accused of something specific rather than merely being insulted.”
RTW warned Maura what’s-her-name that Walsh and Crowley might carry out a campaign of harassment against her, by sending hate letters, putting signs on her lawn, that sort of thing.
That’s pretty specific.
Now, you can say that this accusation refers to a potential crime, rather than one already committed, but, once you start doing that, you’re already trying to figure out whether the site can be sued for the words of anonymous commenter.
What’s the point of providing a forum for a person who repeatedly puts the site in this position?
From another angle, you could say that it’s highly unlikely Walsh or Crowley would sue Bob or that, if they did, Bob wouldn’t take a bullet for RTW. But then what? What’s Bob supposed to do? Provide a platform for a person to insult and possibly slander Walsh and Crowley under the expectation that he’ll suffer no consequences because Bob, Walsh, and Crowley are all progressives, because they all have similar ideologies?
Look, RTW was far and away the most prolific commenter on RIFuture. His daily word count here sometimes exceeded that of the site’s writers. That doesn’t happen by accident. The guy wanted attention, and his posts became increasingly unhinged the more the site’s writers ignored him. When an anonymous commenter starts demanding responses, there is trouble brewing. And so you get the legally questionable comments about Walsh and Crowley.
How is this valuable? How does this help the site? How does it help progressivism? Even in pedestrian terms, there’s no reason Bob should have to spend any part of his day wondering whether this one obsessive, anonymous commenter on his site is causing actual, professional, even legal trouble for him–again.
Irony is turbo complaining about RTW’s word count. You practically instigated that number. For every long winded RTW comment, you can find a long winded turbo response,
“How is this valuable? How does this help the site? How does it help progressivism?”
Aren’t all opinions valuable or just what you an Bob find valuable?
“You practically instigated that number. ”
No, the mere fact that RIFuture exists instigated that number. RTW posted incessantly here. There is simply no argument that I am at fault for the massive volume of RTW’s posts, especially considering the vast majority of his posts had nothing to do with me.
I got into some very long arguments with RTW–that is true. But I’m pretty sure he’s an adult and can decide for himself whether to continue a conversation.
I don’t know why it is that, every time conservatives find themselves at the losing end of an argument, they suddenly decide that they got tricked into the argument in the first place.
It’s like you’re all taking your cue from Mitt Romney’s retroactive retirement from Bain: when you discover you’ve lost an argument, you retroactively retire from it.
“ Aren’t all opinions valuable”
No. Opinons are not special snowflakes, nor are they all kindergarteners. The opinion that Walsh and Crowley are going to carry out a hate campaign against Maura Whomever does not strike me as particularly valuable. And I don’t see anyone arguing that it is.
You’re making my point. Thank you.
“RTW warned Maura what’s-her-name that Walsh and Crowley might carry out a campaign of harassment against her, by sending hate letters, putting signs on her lawn, that sort of thing.”
Yes, if there is anything that might constitute libel, it would be this, but I do not think it would fit the bill on legal grounds. Here is the offending quote in full:
“Don’t think Bob ‘Rothstein’ Walsh and Pat ‘Bugsy’ Crowley are done with you. Be on the lookout for e-mails from ‘Walter Flatus,’ and if you start getting anonymous hate letters or signs left in your lawn, you’ll have a pretty good idea of the source.”
I read this passage over and over before posting last night, and although it is certainly ugly and malicious, I do not believe it is libel. First of all, RTW is saying a harassment campaign might happen, not that it has. This is a critical difference. But most importantly, it is not clear that he is saying Bob and Pat will carry it out per se. ”Walter Flatus” was actually Leidecker, who did engage in inappropriate harassment of legislators. This quote could be read to suggest that Leidecker might be doing the harassment. Now, I do not think that Leidecker actually would do any of this, but since he has been convicted of harassment, it is certainly not libelous to suggest that he might commit a similar misdemeanor in the future.
It is true that RTW was insinuating that Bob, Pat, and the rest of NEARI may have been involved in the Leidecker’s actions and might be part of future harassment. Personally, I find this a silly suggestion, but I am a pretty big supporter of NEARI. If I hated NEARI, as RTW presumably does, I would probably be inclined to think otherwise.
In fact, I made a very similar insinuation about George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the rest of Bush Administration during the Valerie Plame Affair. I believe I suggested on multiple occasions that the Plame Affair was evidence that the Bush Administration might remove non-partisan employees for political reasons. I also insinuated that Bush and Cheney knew about the Plame affair and would be similarly involved in the future. By the way, I do stand by those statements. I think the US Attorney firings scandal, for instance, vindicates me.
What I suggested about Bush and Cheney was quite similar to what RTW wrote about Walsh and Crowley. And I definitely do not think I committed libel.
Let me be clear here. I do not thing that RTW is right. I would be very surprised if Pat, Bob, or anyone at NEARI sent Maura Kelly hate mail, and I think comparing them to mobsters was in very poor taste.
Let me stress that none of this is to suggest that I oppose banning RTW for malicious personal attacks. I just do not think he actually committed libel.
“Yes, if there is anything that might constitute libel, it would be this, but I do not think it would fit the bill on legal grounds.”
Okay. So what?
Bob doesn’t have to prove libel. He doesn’t have to consult a lawyer or convene a jury.
He finds that RTW has come close enough to the line, on multiple occasions, to cause headaches and consternation. Bob wants that to stop, so he bans RTW. Bob also wants other people not to cause similar headaches and consternation in the future, so he explains his decision to ban RTW in a post.
Figuring out whether RTW’s posts are actually libel is irrelevant. Can they be considered to be cause for concern? Sure.
I am also not thrilled with comparing RTW to a “four-year-old.” Especially not when he is being banned at least partially for personal attacks.
You make excellent points, Sam. Thanks for commenting. In hindsight, I should have included a graph about how I don’t think we’d lose that lawsuit, but that certainly shouldn’t be the only standard applied when weighing potentially libelous statements. Also, I’d like to publicly apologize for likening RTW to a four-year-old … that was not only unnecessary, but also highly hypocritical of me.
Truth is, I already kinda miss RTW. Debating our differences is the only way to come together as a diverse community … but I think it’s critical we all do what we can to ensure that happens in a respectful and intellectually honest way.
thanks for holding my feet to the fire,
Bob
Thanks, Bob! Never easy to handle situations like these.
Along those same lines, Bill Monroe is on strike one?
Let me add that “troll” is often in the eye of the beholder. I’m labeled that all the time on that other blog for the annoying habit of doggedly defending a position that is in conflict with the views of the majority over there.
I usually enjoy the banter with the righties and always thought the ranking system worked pretty well to police those comments. Patrick, fwiw I often vote up a hidden comment I disagree with if it’s simply contrarian.
Russ,
While most on the other site disagree with you, I don’t think you qualify as a troll. Now Sammy in Arizona is another story. ;o)
You certainily had enough cause to ban him for the personal attacks in his comments, which almost always crossed the line (notwithsanding the fact that his was often aided and abbetted) but using his tastless and unnecessary comments about Walsh and Crowley as potential libel is disingenuos, at best.
Unfortunatley, too much of political discourse is simply red team vs. blue team (as if one political theiry will lead to a utopia) - which is why some feel the need to constantly make it personal.
That being said…. Personal attacks in a blog banning somone for personal attacks… classsic RI Future!
“Like you’d expect of a four-year-old, he would counter that others were guilty as well.”
“RTW = Right To Work for ALEC. Not here you don’t punk!!!!”
“[H]e took that froth and distilled it into the caustic, acidic ichor that he spat with alarming regularity onto this blog. He really must have quite a reservoir of this cruel and bitter juice. He could be clear sometimes, but there was always something sulphuric in his slaverings.”
“you’re already trying to figure out whether the site can be sued for the words of anonymous commenter.”
The site cannot be sued for anonymous comments, courts have already ruled, so let’s not go down that road of hysteria. If they could, why not just run to Fox news and write all over the place, “Obama is a murderer! Obama is a child molester!” and then let Fox News site get sued.
“The site cannot be sued for anonymous comments, courts have already ruled”
Court rulings do not prevent lawsuits. Court rulings determine whether a suit is valid.
FWIW, I just got an email from a frequent critic who wrote this: “Now that you have rid your site of RTW, maybe I’ll jump in more!”
“Court rulings do not prevent lawsuits. Court rulings determine whether a suit is valid. ”
You’re right, so let me amend.
Courts have already ruled that people cannot win a lawsuit against a web site for comments by the public. What lawyer is going to take a case that he knows is impossible to win? Plus, the only thing that would be gained in such a suit is more publicity for the web site, which may be the exact opposite thing that the plaintiff would want to do. That being said, a countersuit for defamation could be in place as well, which would make it even that much more unlikely that someone would be willing to take it on.
The only one liable in a a libel suit is the one who made the comment and even then, certain thresholds need to be met. It’s very hard to libel public figures. Otherwise, the President of the US (and many others) would constantly be making millions off of libel suits.
“You’re right, so let me amend.”
Your emendations make the argument that Bob shouldn’t worry about getting sued when a commenter says something libelous.
For one thing, that’s easy to say when you’re not the one who has to worry. For another, it’s up to Bob how much of a worry-wart he wants to be.
Even further, if Walsh or Crowley should choose to sue RTW directly, Bob will be drawn into the suit, which is something of a bother in itself, to say the least.
But more important is the question of the value of providing a platform for a person who repeatedly makes potentially libelous comments about people.
What is so great about giving RTW a platform from which to call Walsh and Crowley criminals, to warn people that Walsh and Crowley may carry out a campaign of criminal harassment against another commenter on the site, and to argue that NEARI is a criminal organization?
What’s so great about that? What is Bob supposed to do as RTW continues to post in this way? Shrug? Say ‘It’s not my problem! No one can sue me!’?
Conversely, I think it’s pretty great that Bob banned RTW spectacularly. RTW demonstrated an unhealthy sense of entitlement and ownership over RIFuture. He behaved as if RIFuture had been his personal playground to be a bully on. RTW thought it legitimate to advance his causes by vilifying the people he disagreed with, even to the point of coloring his opponents as criminals. Such rhetoric is corrosive to healthy debate, not to mention potentially legally actionable, and Bob is right to send a strong message that he won’t support such tactics here.
“What is Bob supposed to do”
How about delete the post. You’re point is mute. If the comment was so libelous, why is it still up on the blog? I’ll answer for you, because it’s not. Your welcome and thank you for continuing to make my point.
“You’re point is mute.”
I am point cannot speak?
“If the comment was so libelous, why is it still up on the blog?”
Because you can’t take pee out of a pool? Plus, the problem isn’t just one post, but a pattern of behavior. Bob warned RTW repeatedly to stop accusing people of crimes, to stop calling people criminals. RTW didn’t stop.
There’s really no cross for you to nail him to.
“Your welcome and thank you for continuing to make my point”
My welcome?
What is your point?
turbo mentions, There’s really no cross for you to nail him to. (apols, turbo, am not commenting on you on purpose now!) – segue – a few weeks back I submitted an even handed comment about the pros and cons of banning crosses in public. It was not a Red vs. Blue thing – rather a genuine attempt to solicit what others thought about this tricky issue, because I don’t come down Red or Blue on this, and I thought maybe others might weigh in. Didn’t really get anywhere. Even handed, but perhaps my attempt was…well…a tad dull!
Trolls who personally attack definitely inhibit the free flow of ideas by people with less than perfect credentials. Imagine the vitriol abolitionist Tom Paine would have unleashed on slave-owner Tom Jefferson’s blog about “Freedom?”
Let’s also keep in mind that Bob did not accuse RTW of libel. This is getting like the telephone game where over time, the message morphs into something very different from the original message. Bob’s words:
“they became potentially libelous”
“A statement not nearly as libelous as it is ridiculous”
“an equally ridiculous and potentially-libelous comment”
That’s it.
Wow turbo. It really frosts your B’s that RTW gets a little sympathy here. Taking it a little personal are you?
At least we’ll always have his archived posts to remind us what 17th century people would think of progressive issues in Rhode Island.
“At least we’ll always have his archived posts to remind us what 17th century people would think of progressive issues in Rhode Island.”
Yes, that’s what one says when they’ve been bested, can’t comprehend the issue, and/or can’t come up with any other worthy argument. I’m surprised you stopped at 17th century. Why not take it down to caveman.
Well let’s not get carried away with insults. I merely wanted to be in sync with the last historical time period that libertarianism would have ever been relevant.
“I merely wanted to be in sync with the last historical time period that libertarianism would have ever been relevant.”
Sorry but I have to ask, you don’t see any arrogance in that last statement? I’m no libertarian but it’s obviously relevant.