You, not we, decide between crude, courteous

We asked for more civility. Unfortunately, you'll have to determine what qualifies.

I say “unfortunately” only in the sense that I wish it were easy to set out some clear, concise definition of “civil” that served for all people in all situations. It's not. That observation struck me as I considered reactions to our editorial of last Sunday urging all of us to be more respectful of each other in our debates over social and political issues.

The editorial sparked a lively — and mostly civil, in my view — discussion among commenters online. It also attracted some letters and phone calls from readers citing what they perceive as incivility in the Daily Herald and urging us to heed our own appeal by excising the offenders.

Unfortunately (there's that word again) that response presents at least two problems. For one, it turns our appeal for respectful conversation into an order. For another, it gives us the authority to wade into that wide gray gulf between clearly insulting, demeaning language and clearly benign, respectful talk and toss out whatever strikes us as offensive. Were we to do that, judging by what appears to be offensive to many of those reacting to our editorial, the determining factor would pretty much be whether we agree with the writer or not.

Readers did not seem to find fault with harsh writing by Daily Herald columnists, writers or news sources whose ideas they like. They found plenty of fault with those whose ideas they don't like. That hardly seems a valid standard for monitoring the remarks of people expressing themselves passionately in an objective newspaper.

If, for example, we were to eliminate liberal columnist Eugene Robinson, as one writer suggested, for deriding a U.S. Senate candidate for “perkiness, folksiness, religiosity and occasional bared fangs,” wouldn't we also have to eliminate Cal Thomas for declaring “the gay movement seeks to undermine” the underpinnings of American society?

Is one writer civil, the other not? Are both rude? If so, and we eliminate them or their most strident statements, where does that leave the discourse we present? To be sure, it wouldn't eliminate our ability to present divergent opinions, but it surely would dilute much of the passion, energy and personality that people put into expressing their opinions.

I think our Sunday editorial (which I did not write, by the way) was one of the most important of the resolutions we described in our year-end series of commentaries last week. Public discourse today — Thomas' and Robinson's remarks occasionally included — often dissolves into shrieks and insults, and one of the most productive things we could all do in achieving social and political goals is to dial down the volume and show each other a little respect.

We can all do more to make our speech less offensive. But unfortunately (aah, there it is again!), we also can do more not to be offended by the excesses and mistakes of others. This doesn't mean you must just accept every insult or that the Daily Herald won't monitor our columnists, letter writers and online commenters for objectionable remarks. We will. But this is not a free society if the newspaper, the government or anyone else takes that option too far.

If we are to present a diverse and lively array of opinions on the issues of the day, we need to focus our attention only on the most obvious violations. For the rest of what may appear in the murky gray waters between courteous and crude, the goal of a broad, democratic forum requires us to rely on you as both speaker and arbiter.

Fortunately.

• Jim Slusher, jslusher@dailyherald.com, is an assisstant managing editor at the Daily Herald.