Writers show how debate can be lively, civil at same time

It is more art than science to apply subjective rules about sensitivity in monitoring readers' passions.

My column last week about the rudeness of many who comment about online stories led to a lively and, I'm happy to say, responsible electronic dialogue of its own. So, today I want to share some key points from the posts following the column online. First, though, a quick story:

A reader complained after last week's column that comments of his about immigrants had been unfairly removed by our online staff. I investigated, noted that other readers had flagged the comments as abuse and cautioned him against sweeping generalities and offensive tone. Then on Saturday, at the top of Page 3, in a series of comments intended to show a range of opinions expressed about the controversy over language about gays on T-shirts at Neuqua Valley High School, we included this: "I'm sure if someone wore a 'Be Smart, Not Christian' T-shirt, the Bible-thumping hypocrites would be up in arms."

I could devote an entire column to the particulars of whether "Bible-thumping hypocrites" should be allowed to refer to Christians in an online discussion, but to be brief, I'll just say I agreed that the phrase in this context made sweeping generalities in a tone many Christians could find offensive. No one flagged that comment as abuse online, but nonetheless I was disappointed that we had prominently included it to promote online commenting. It did lead to a productive discussion with editors and our online staff, but it also demonstrates how much an art and not a science it is to apply subjective rules about sensitivity in monitoring readers' passions.

Here are some excerpts from last week's column at www.dailyherald.com:

LEERO: A level headed discussion is almost impossible through the comment section. … I rarely participate anymore just because of the rudeness and lack of civility.

Amendment1: When I get to the Herald online, it's Nellie bar the door. Personal attacks, name calling and disparaging remarks by a few posters, fill the web site every day. … It's time for the Herald to enforce its commentary policy (and) … get tough with the few that are spoiling the online experience for the rest of us.

Fatmat: Just like "real life," you learn to respond to some and ignore others -- their rudeness is their problem. … I enjoy this. I believe the most important rule should be "don't take yourself so seriously!"

IThinknow: I have to disagree with the call for censorship. Give people credit for having the ability to decide if comments are worthwhile or not. I've had enough of "Big Brother" and thought police.

Heyatoya: (I)f you don't like to see something then ignore it. It's easy, just don't read it. I applaud your comment section. If you shut this down it will show how shallow and hypocritical you are as well.

Allison: Freedom of speech is violated when it turns into hate speech. … This is not to be confused with "Politically correct" speech. One needs to use common sense. That, to me seems in short supply these days. So policing that would otherwise seem unnecessary becomes unfortunately necessary.

Respectful: Censorship is when the government uses legal force to hinder expression. The Daily Herald is not Big Brother. Editors are not police. Removing irresponsible comments from the boards is responsible.

I couldn't agree more, but I leave the last word for the e-mailer whose comments we pulled. If nothing else, it emphasizes the value of the forum.

"I consider the Internet to be a place where I can say what I really think and feel," wrote Sherman Reinhardt, "…(I)t is what men like me are starved for in the 21st century. "