Keeping It Robust But Civil Online

Mayor Eddie A. Perez and some other Hartford leaders have raised a concern about offensive comments by online readers at www.courant.com . We have listened to their concern and that has led us to focus even ...

[Jim]

As long as you are unwilling to set out examples of what Perez and others deem racist or offensive in today's overly sensitive world you could just be caving into political correctness instead of defending free speech.

[Obviously]

Misleading headline for this article. Should have read "Courant Caves To Pressure From Mayor To Censor The Truth".

[CPC]

If he put as much effort into trying to reduce crime in Hartford he wouldn't have to worry about these forums. Is he going after text messaging next?

[The Man]

How a punk thug mayor can influence americas oldest continuously published rag is beyond belief! Does he carry such clout because of the great job he's done with what was once americas greatest city?

[joan T]

Now King Eddie is in chare of what the Courant can or can't print. Sounds like a hit on free speech to me! No wonder Americas oldest paper is dying when a former gang member edits their words and ours.

[Don Mei]

Lets have some examples of what will and will not be edited.

Will thoughtful but provocative commentary be censored? For example, during the noose uproar last fall, I made the comment that hanging a noose was protected speech. Its deeply offensive when applied in a way that has racial overtones, but it is still protected speech.

Would that have been deleted as "racist". It certainly isnt. Some of us believe that our first amendment rights are the foundation on which our freedoms are based. As such, we may find ourselves ssupporting a left wing flag burner one minute,, and a right wing noose hangar another.

Don

A much better way to manage a discussion board is to ban anonymous posting. The user must register and generally uses the same name all the time.

[Winston Churchill]

Well at least Carver did not Cave to King Eddie. If people have to register to use these boards, the boards will be empty. I for one would never put a fake name on a post.

[KevinM]

Deleting comments that use profanity and/or rude ethnic or gender characterizations is relatively straightforward, and it seems to me that is what this effort should focus on.

The parts that get time-consuming -- as Carver seems to say -- are comments that are candid expressions of a poster's opinion but are considered by other posters to be "inappropriate," which is an imprecise term, to say the least.

I think "inappropriate" has become a manipulative, catch-all, subjective label for any unfashionable line of argument.

For example, referring to a politico as, say, a "power hungry weasel and serial screw up" may be considered inappropriate and abusive by that worthy's staff and supporters. But I'd counter that it's an expression of someone's opinion with which others are free to agree or disagree.

The Daily Censoring can turn into an energy sink (you're already staffing up, I see). The key, I'd say, is to make it a straightforward, unnuanced administrative task and try to keep it away from busy editors and managers as much as possible.

As they say in performance driving schools, "Don't let the other guy drive your car." I'm sure there are a bunch of helpful folks who'd love to help you steer.

Good luck.

[Censored]

<comments deleted for inappropriateness>

[downeaster]

and so fails and falls another gutless biased newspaper

[Don Mei]

Great points Kevin M.

Some comments are so counterproductive, they can be deleted without much thought.

The profanity filter on this site is actually very effective. It catches most efforts to hide the profanity by using numbers, letters or symbols.

However, we've all seen comments that added nothing but merely insulted or threatened another without any actual profanity. Those can go.

Its when we get into deleting objectionable or offensive content that we get onto the "slippery slope".

Don

p.s. one other thing. Please, all, realize that this has nothing to do with the first amendment. The first amandment says that the government shal make no law abridging your freedom of expression.

However comercial entities like the Courant and Topix can do whatever they want. Its their forum. They provide it, they pay for it, its theirs.

This is perfectly correct. If you dont like it, dont participate

[duh]

true, these forums are not subject to the 1st amendment

but according to the Courant..

inappropriate content....ANY critcizing of minorities and females??????????

[Rosco]

duh wrote:

true, these forums are not subject to the 1st amendment
but according to the Courant..
inappropriate content....ANY critcizing of minorities and females??????????

Are you on the Supreme Court or just work for the Mayor

[joan T]

Iron Sheik: king Eddie will select who the courant hires to monitor the message boards. He seems to call all the shots, even when it comes to the first amendment. His censors will make sure that we don't speak poorly of his highness or his shooting star city. oops is it rising star-- cant really tell because there is shooting every night.

[Vassar Clements]

Rosco wrote:

<quoted text>Are you on the Supreme Court or just work for the Mayor

Why do you think these comments are protected by the first amendment?

[Don Mei]

Right, but a commercial entity like the Courant or topix has a right, since they are paying for the forum, to censor the content.

If the government tried to pressure Topix or the Courant to do something, it would have First Amendment ramifications.

Hmm. now that I'm writing this, I may have to change my mind. Because king eddie, as mayor did try to bring pressure. So I guess Eddie was acting in an anti-first amendment way. Hmm.

But lets be clear, the offendeer is King Eddie, not the Courant or Topix.

[TRUTH]

It doesn't surprise me at all that the Courant layed down on it's back for Perez. I'm just surprised they managed to hold out for a couple of days. I was just about to have a little respect for them and then they took a dive.

They can "package" this show of weakness any way they want, but it changes nothing. Arrogant Eddie said "play dead" and they hit the floor.

Now Big Brother Courant is watching.

[lynnette]

please notice that it is now July 10 and comments ##'s 19 and #20 are still up, as well as others that are hostile to this policy. I am not willing to judge yet, but the problem is, one has to be quick to catch an "objectional" post before l or more people cite it for abuse and it is taken off. Otherwise, one does not know what has been censored. I suspect the censors had better err on the side of free speech, when in doubt. I personally think that the citing for abuse should be just another category, like spam and nuts, that we can use to express our disapproval. I think topix itself should be asked to add it and show the number of hits on the abuse category. There would be no way to keep people from hitting abuse merely because they disagree, however, and it would become a bit like Nuts. I think it is very healthy to discuss all this. I post comments urging people I agree with not to use dirty language or crass insults (I permit terribly witty ones, sorry, that's elitist!) because I don't want to see "my side" look bad. I know people who would not look past the insults or dirty words to the rest of the content. I even felt that way about Carlin myself. Colbert is more to my taste. Just keep on commenting here and don't let the discussion die down. I am a near absolutist about political free speech - unless it would cause immediate danger or violence (and even that risks censoring someone who would be provacative in leading someone else to violence against him). My protective, feminist side (don't hurt the innocents) is the cause of most of my waffling on free speech in the political arena. My age and literacy make me cringe at myriads of dirty words and insults.( I am ready to "throw" Jesse JSr. "under the bus" as the right-wingers say whenever Obama distances himself from a nut-case supporter. Looks like McCain threw Phil Gramm "under the bus", too -- all the way to Belarus. I would not wish that on Belarus.) I guess I need to admit to some intellectual snobbery in that the more brilliantly wicked the insult the more I am charmed, while the gross one disgust me -- that is probably class-warfare! A sense of humor helps. My first instinct is always to read the comments marked funny with the Grocho glasses and nose, because that of course is funny and elitist too!

[x0x0x]

If we were required to use our REAL NAMES, the amount of discourse and profanity on these forums would be drastically reduced.

People are ballsy when they hide behind an avatar of anonymity.

[Simsbury_Grrl]

Now we see what the PC censors are deleting.
I made a comment that the Black and Latino Film Festival in Hartford was basically a racist event because Whites were excluded. I was not rude or inflammatory, I just stated my viewpoint. I went back to see what comments had been added to the topic and the topic is gone - POOF!.

Not only has the title of the article been changed to mask the name of the event, the topics link has been removed from the article and the topic can NOT be found in topix.net . The Courant has caved - how pathetic!