Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 21, 2009, 10:03:33 PM
 Links to brainerddispatch.com
 Home | News | Sports | Opinion | FYI | Classifieds | MN News | U.S. News | World News | Political News | Strange News | UpNorthAutos.com | BrainerdLakesBound.com | Lakes Area Calendar
 Links to city, county and state government
  City of Brainerd | City of Baxter | Baxter Council and Commission Minutes | Crow Wing County | Crow Wing Co. Board Minutes | Cass County | Cass County Board Minutes | State of Minnesota | MN Legislature | MN Governor | MN Attorney General | City of Aitkin | City of Breezy Point | City of Crosby | City of Crosslake | City of Nisswa | City of Pequot Lakes | City of Pine River | City of Backus
 Crow Wing Sheriff: Most Wanted | Active Warrants | In Custody | Cass Sheriff: Most Wanted | Latest Warrants | Rewards | MN BCA: Spotlight on Crime Cold Cases | Missing Persons
 Court Calendars: (.pdf docs from www.mncourts.com) Aitkin County | Cass County | Crow Wing County | Beltrami County | Hubbard County
 rss Local | Sports | Outdoors | People | AP: US | World | Business | Entertaiment | Health | Politics | Technology | Baseball | Basketball | Boxing | NFL Football | Golf | Hockey | Other

Home Help Search Login Register
News: If you see anything that needs fixing or something missing let us know, forums@brainerddispatch.com

forums.brainerddispatch.com - Brainerd Dispatch MN Forums  |  General Category  |  Your Take  |  Topic: Wis. paper faces backlash for outing Web critic 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Wis. paper faces backlash for outing Web critic  (Read 942 times)
admin
Brainerd Dispatch
Administrator
Newbie
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


WWW
« on: September 17, 2009, 02:20:56 PM »

From brainerddispatch.com

http://ap.brainerddispatch.com/pstories/us/20090917/494198368.shtml

RYAN J. FOLEY
Associated Press Writer
MADISON, Wis. — Getting named the local paper's Person of the Year was supposed to be an honor for small-town politician Dean Zuleger. But the award only enraged many townspeople.

Readers anonymously flooded the Wausau Daily Herald's Web site with comments bashing Zuleger's salary, his management style, his weight. One person suggested his third chin should have been nominated.

"I have just two words for Dean Zuleger, and they are ... A) anger management. B) salad bar. C) Rod Blagojevich. D) all of the above. The correct answer is D.," one posting read.

Zuleger, administrator of the Wausau suburb of Weston, demanded to know who was saying all those nasty things about him, and the paper did something unusual: It handed over one critic's e-mail address. The politician then sent a letter on official stationery telling the commenter, businessman Paul Klocko, to stop the personal attacks and "come out from behind the cloak" and meet him.

The episode has added fuel to the debate over anonymity on the Internet and how far readers who aren't willing to use their names should be allowed to go.

The paper has since apologized for turning over the address, and its corporate parent, Gannett Co., has clarified its policies on anonymous speech. The paper will now release information only if ordered by a court or if a comment contains a threat of imminent harm.

Lawsuits have been popping up across the country involving anonymous online speech. Richard Ottinger, a former New York congressman, succeeded in unmasking a reader who accused him of corruption in having his home renovated. A judge ordered a newspaper to turn over identifying information. But another judge recently threw out Ottinger's $1.5 million defamation suit against the reader.

A couple sued a newspaper in Ottawa, Ill., to learn the identity of a commenter who accused them of bribing authorities to try to win approval to convert their home into a bed and breakfast. A judge tossed the case out.

"We're seeing a flood of cases involving anonymous comments," said David Ardia, director of the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard Law School.

Most of the cases fail because statements of opinion are protected under the First Amendment. Courts are requiring officials to show they have a legitimate defamation claim — that is, one involving a false assertion of fact that hurts someone's reputation.

What was rare and surprising in the Wausau case was that the 21,000-circulation paper turned over the information without a court order.

"If the community doesn't believe the paper has their back, then that's going to have a chilling effect on the kinds of speech people engage in on the paper's Web site," Ardia said. "It's easy to point out that often the conversation degenerates into shouting. Lost in that is that people often raise important issues."

Most sites reserve the right to remove inappropriate comments, such as those containing obscenity and threats, and warn users their identities could be released under some circumstances, such as a court order. Some newspapers do not allow anonymous comments at all.

The Wausau Daily Herald reader whose e-mail was released used the name "juanmoore" to criticize Zuleger for months. He had given the paper his e-mail address, which included his real name, to register.

Before and after the Person of the Year award, "juanmoore" called Zuleger a "little Hitler" and mocked his weight, accusing the paper of kissing Zuleger's "rather large hind end." He also ridiculed Zuleger as overpaid and bashed him for his support of a smoking ban and his management style.

Zuleger, an appointed official equivalent to city manager of Weston, population 14,000, asked the newspaper in January for the IP addresses of everyone who commented on the story naming him Person of the Year.

He wrote in a letter to the paper saying that his attorney and friends in law enforcement thought the comments "may present a credible threat to me or my family." The police department said it never investigated any threats, and Klocko said nothing he or others posted was threatening.

The newspaper said it released Klocko's e-mail address and perhaps one other person's but later concluded his comments were not threatening.

Klocko, a 50-year-old who sells popcorn to groups that use it for fundraising, acknowledged some of his comments were "ill-advised or emotionally charged mischaracterizations." But he said he was shocked when he received the warning letter from Zuleger in April.

"How did he know it was me who said these things?" Klocko recalled wondering. "Why on the village dime, using public resources, was he investigating private citizens?"

Zuleger did not respond to requests for comment. The village attorney, Richard Weber, said he approved the letter before it was sent to Klocko.

"This was a frontal attack on his duties as the administrator of the village of Weston," Weber said. "These scurrilous blogs were attacks against him, his family and the way he was doing his job."

Klocko said newspaper executives met with him over the summer to apologize.

"We have put in place a policy that makes it impossible going forward for someone to wave the red flag of threat and get any kind of information from us," said Mark Baldwin, who was editor at the time but has since become general manager of a paper in Stevens Point, Wis. "If anybody asks again, they are going to have to get a subpoena."

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

What do you think?

When do comments cross the line?  Are valid questions left unanswered and buried in the quagmire of shouting and abusive insults that often develop? Should a newspaper (media company) be required to release posters names, IP addresses or email addresses? Should users be required to use their given names as their usernames?

We look forward to your thoughts and discussion.
Logged

BrainerdDispatch.com - Your 'Hometown' News Source
DK Miller
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2009, 06:47:20 PM »

I believe that forum participants who choose to use a pseudonym have a legitimate expectation of anonymity.
I also believe that some minimum level of civility should be required. If a post is clearly threatening or contains false assertions about a person that are defamatory in the legal sense, Those postings should be removed by the moderator or administrator.
 
Logged
eyolf
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2009, 10:25:14 PM »

There are a zillion ways this discussion could go, but here at the Dispatch board, I'd expect the discussion to fizzle. Without taking sides, I'd ask DKMiller why a poster might feel entitled to anonymity

People have been getting together to discuss issues since, well, there have been people. If there is an expectation of anonymity and safety, perhaps some will feel free to say what's on their minds, but others will obviously abuse the medium. If there is no expectation of anonymity and safety, fewer will respond, but those that do will most likely be circumspect in their comments.

In essence, the forum would be discriminatory towards those who keep their comments on-topic and respectful, against those who choose to be less so. But then the question becomes: what is the purpose of the forum? I've always believed that forums connected to media outlets are primarily to increase a particular outlet's presence, a sensible business move. Service to a particular community is a goal, but not in an altruistic sense.

So, does revealing the identity of abusive posters (or civil ones) serve the needs of the forum sponsors? Probably not...unless a particular community has a large number of would-be participants who choose not to participate because of a few miscreants: posters who would return. During the C-I strike, I believe the Dispatch had the highest ever participation on these pages. Only they know if increased ad revenues and subscriptions resulted. But long term, I suspect the slice of society that returns often to discussion boards AND usually tries to keep it clean is fairly thin. So, there's no point in making it a policy to reveal identities.
Logged
Ebenezer
Poobah Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 670



« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2009, 10:44:46 PM »

If a forum allows pseudonyms, people have a legitimate expectation that their true identities will not be revealed by the organization sponsoring the forum.  That's not to say a person can't out him or herself by revealing too much information, but that's not the organization's fault at that point.

What I wish they had was a button that let you ignore certain posters.  YouTube kind of has that based on plus and minus votes on a post.  Too many minuses and it hides the comment, but lets you look at it if you want.  Most of the time it seems that the consensus vote is correct about whether a post is not worth reading, but not always. so it's nice to be able to peek at the hidden comments to see if they were hidden for a legitimate reason.
Logged

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”
eyolf
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2009, 04:12:13 PM »

I really wish there had been an opposing viewpoint; someone out there taking the side of civility and good taste. While I still don't believe it's the media's responsibility (as for the most part the media is private enterprise) to police and educate us, I do recognize the fact that the media bears some part of the blame for the current lack of civility and good taste in public discourse.

The unfortunate truth seems to be that there aren't enough of the rest of us that want to change it, that would overwhelmingly support civil, tasteful, and unbiased reporting and opinions, while ignoring the Kieth Olbermans and Rush Limbaughs.
Logged
Ebenezer
Poobah Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 670



« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2009, 10:02:33 PM »

Sorry bud, but I don't think the way to fight incivility is to break an agreement that you will keep a person's identity secret.  People who manage boards have every right to censor comments they don't feel meet their community standards, but breaking an agreement to keep peoples' identities secret is just plain wrong.  If you don't want any bad comments, you should use moderation BEFORE people can post.  If someone always is attempting to post inappropriate things, ban their IP address and be done with them.  OTOH, I generally prefer sites that allow a wide berth, because I'm not easily offended. 
I really wish there had been an opposing viewpoint; someone out there taking the side of civility and good taste. While I still don't believe it's the media's responsibility (as for the most part the media is private enterprise) to police and educate us, I do recognize the fact that the media bears some part of the blame for the current lack of civility and good taste in public discourse.

The unfortunate truth seems to be that there aren't enough of the rest of us that want to change it, that would overwhelmingly support civil, tasteful, and unbiased reporting and opinions, while ignoring the Kieth Olbermans and Rush Limbaughs.
Logged

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”
eyolf
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #6 on: September 29, 2009, 10:29:33 PM »

The old Time-online forums used to ban IP address until the internet got popular enough that most dial-up servers would reserve a "range". The particular address banned didn't get too much done unless the miscreant was unlucky and happened to land on the same address as last time. So they started banning ranges...until management started noticing that, for example, 3 well-liked posters from Seattle were emailing the mods to get back in...

Back to just forcing miscreants to keep re-signing up. After a while they'd run out of email addresses, or learn to play nice.

But it seems like you and I more or less agree on the premise that privacy is a good thing, even if we don't agree on which "why" is most important.

Funny thing, though: I don't feel bad for Klocko: a cloak of anonymity is useful to avoid recrimination if, for example someone wanted to expose a corrupt official. It gets a little less useful if you just want to make jokes about someone's weight.
Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
forums.brainerddispatch.com - Brainerd Dispatch MN Forums  |  General Category  |  Your Take  |  Topic: Wis. paper faces backlash for outing Web critic « previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.9 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!