The Right to Say Whatever I Want

The bloggers using the on-line newspaper to vent their homophobic, hyper-political, racist spleens have been removed. Some of them walked a very thin edge between the right to free speech and libel, evidently a daily exercise the majority of them enjoyed. One person says that they shared "lively debate" that was academic, not personal, but as an outsider who read the postings, there was little academic and a whole lot personal.

If the description of a suspect in a local crime was given, the bloggers went on the "Mexican" rant, as if no one other than Mexicans ever commits a crime, and characterized all of them as illegal. If the description of a white suspect was given, the person was obviously a druggie and/or gang banger. Children involved in criminal activity came from broken homes and were raised by not just dysfunctional (probably single or perhaps gay) parents, but criminals and drug abusers. For every action, there is an opposite, but never an equal, reaction in the blogosphere.

I stopped reading the blogs, but the comments follow every article, are posted by the same blog corps, and are harder to avoid. The racist comments abound; the battle between gay and straight rages on; the disparaging portrayals of entire communities is commonplace. The bloggers have become the Gossip Girls of high school fame, wanting to be the first one out there with an opinion, a perspective, a written account of life that accepts no question, nor offers any truth.

Far too many of the blogs and the online comments to news articles are questionable, if not libelous, and cross the line between expressing one's opinion and damaging another person's reputation and/or livelihood. These personal attacks need to be restricted, not supported with a weak Constitutional argument about the freedom of the press. These people are NOT the press, no matter how often they represent themselves as adjunct reporters: they are individuals with a personal bias that is validated in the public's mindset because it appears on a media website. If the local newspaper allows the comments and the blogs by publishing them, the writer must be right.

Should the bloggers be shut down? Yes.
Should the comments be shut down? No.

In a personal blog, the blogger has the right to write whatever s/he chooses, but also has the responsibility to accept the consequences of those words. My blog represents me, not an official media outlet, so the consequences of my words is solely mine to bear; however, if the local online newspaper provides a link to my blog, I now represent by extension that media outlet. If the online newspaper continues to allow access to blogs that include inappropriate/unverified comments about their news articles, the business needs to be held accountable for the content of the posters, who do not have the protection of freedom of the press as they are not the press. However, writing a comment is a different venue as that is clearly the opinion of the person who writes it, the same way that journalists can write OpEd pieces that are clearly based on opinion and restricted to the Op/Ed page. However, the local editorial staff does a poor job of monitoring the electronic comments, often allowing both inappropriate and illegal comments to post.

In the past, readers who commented about the news mailed the communication to the media, creating a time lag between the thought and the publication. The test of time and distance from the event created a safe guard between personal ranting and raving and a legitimate letter to the editor. Someone read the written correspondence and made a value judgment before sending it to the typesetters. That is an important safe guard, a necessary safe guard, one that protects Presidents from making "stupid" off-the-cuff comments that become part of the media legacy and citizens from making racist remarks that do nothing to improve the quality of life for all Americans.

I stand behind freedom of the press for legitimate journalists who research the news before reporting it to verify that the news is based in fact, not personal opinion. If the media wants to continue to have some degree of legitmacy, it must take a step back and question whether allowing both on-the-spot impromptu "news reporting" and citizen commentators are a legitimate adjunct to their publication. Far too many people think that if it's on TV or the internet, it must be true, but when there is no test of time, the truth is often the last thing the public learns about the news.