If you follow the goings on in the blogosphere, you've probably heard about the despicable behavior Kathy Sierra was subjected to by commenters on her hip, intelligent, informative blog, Creating Passionate Users. Someone called Sierra, "a boring slut" and said, "I hope someone slits your throat and cums down your gob."
The resultant firestorm reached the front page of the New York Times today in an article entitled, "A Call For Manners in the World of Nasty Blogs." The article addresses the supposed conflict between free speech and civility. The notion is that supporting free speech means allowing everyone the right to say anything, anytime.
Coincidentally, the strong reaction to Don Imus's comments on his radio/television show last Thursday is also featured in David Carr's column in today's Times. Imus called the members of the Rutgers women's basketball team, runners-up in this year's NCAA Women's Basketball Championship, "a bunch of nappy-headed ho's." Al Sharpton, among others, is calling for Imus to be fired.
So, what's the question here? Is Sierra "within her rights" to decide what kind of comments she permits on her blog? Should Imus be fired for his childish slur?
My answers are, "yes" and "no," respectively.
My notion of free speech does not include the right to make anonymous threats to someone, nor the right to engage in hateful conduct without consequences. If you want to call me a name or threaten me, leave your real name and identifying information and stand behind your words. Free speech demands accountability. My words are mine and whatever they bring upon me I deserve. In the absence of that transparency, people behave irresponsibly. (Go take a look at Phil Zimbardo's book, The Lucifer Effect if you have any doubts.)
And that's why I don't think Imus should be fired. While his idiotic attempts to have it both ways have irritated me greatly over my many years as a regular listener/viewer, I've always felt that, on balance, this is a person working for more good in the world than evil. That doesn't mean his words don't cause pain; they do. The contrition we heard from him this morning seems more than the wriggling of a perp caught in the act trying to save his neck. And I say that because of the actions he's taken over the years. But most of all I say it because he's not running for the cover of anonymity nor brushing off the criticism as the reaction of thin-skinned wussies. He's accepting the consequences of those actions while trying to put them into the context of his true identity; his whole life.
Anonymous haters do not do the same. Until they do, I think we all have the right to reject their words as the "unfree speech" they really are. Free speech comes with responsibilities. We shouldn't give unfree speech a free ride.
The comments were not on her blog.
Posted by: Amyloo | April 09, 2007 at 10:33 PM
I think after this speech will be one of the visitors to this wonderful site Bstmrar Thank you to my friends
Posted by: يوتيوب | November 13, 2009 at 02:26 PM