In May, the Connecticut political blogosphere had a month that ranged from excellent to troubling. Excellent, in that many bloggers attended the Democratic and Republican state conventions, and delivered interesting, thoughtful and up-to-the-minute coverage of those events. We faced a test of our mettle as citizen journalists, and I believe we did quite well. New technologies have allowed the easy upload of picture and, most importantly, video to our sites, which greatly enhances the quality and interest level of blogs and Web-based news organizations. Many of Connecticut's political blogs found national attention for their coverage of the Lamont campaign and Lamont's strong showing at the convention.
More troubling, of course, was the series of pro-Lieberman postings made to this blog under the names of prominent Democrats Harry Reid and Barack Obama, which began on May 4th and continued through May 7th, which, at the behest of another poster, has apparently triggered an FBI investigation.
Although the postings themselves were ultimately harmless and easily forgotten, and I find it unlikely that anyone from the Lieberman campaign was involved or that any laws were violated, we need to consider how to deal with this sort of thing.
Firstly, I have received several requests from posters to contact Blogger and ask them to divulge the identities of posters, or to trace them through IP addresses. I will not do this, unless compelled by law. There is a certain level of privacy and anonymity expected by users of the Web, and, while that privacy is largely an illusion, I will do whatever I can to protect it here.
Secondly, if you suspect that a particular posting is out of line, offensive or possibly illegal, please report it to me and I will consider whether or not to delete it. You can "report" by emailing me or simply by posting. I try to read every comment posted, especially those addressed to me. If I decide that the posting is offensive or violates campaign laws, I will remove it. I have been a lax moderator in the past. I will be more mindful of possible ethical breaches in the future.
Thirdly, it shouldn't have to be said that posting as someone you are not is wrong, and Web communities have long frowned on this practice. A derivation of a popular figure's name is acceptable, but the name with no embellishments, additions or substantive and visible alterations is not (i.e., "Mmmm Jodi Rell" is fine, "Barak Obama," misspelled as it is, is not). We are usually very good at policing ourselves and at shunning or dismissing those who don't comply with the rules of the Web-based society we have created. Again, if this happens, please report it to me and I will delete the offending posts and re-issue this statement about identity stealing. The problem can also be reported to Blogger, who can take more concrete action such as revoking memberships.
I believe that these less extreme actions are more effective in discouraging this sort of behavior while still keeping this blog and others viable forums than what took place. I am deeply concerned about the ramifications of those actions, and by the possible precedents set. How long will it be before we start siccing the law on one another, and not just on potential violators of campaign laws?
Make no mistake: if I suspect for a moment that this sort of nightmare will happen, I will shut this site down and delete its archive.
What's done is done, and we are left to deal with the consequences. Somewhere, the FBI may be either knocking at the door of a frightened kid who posted something stupid, reading the words we type on this site, or, more likely, throwing this whole investigation into the trash. We can't stop what has been set in motion.
We can, however, decide not to let paranoia, political zeal and anger allow us to undermine and possibly destroy all the remarkable progress this medium has made over the past year.
As of now, I consider the matter closed. The investigation may bear fruit, at which point we will deal with it. However, it is my hope that we can move on from this. We have an exciting and historic campaign season ahead of us, and I believe that blogs will play a crucial role in shaping it. Let's take what we can from this incident, without recrimination, blame or anger, and then move forward together into our future.
21 comments:
BR...
This could kill us. It probably won't, but it could. The FBI? What a mess.
Next time, report to me or Blogger first.
TSC,
You said "When reading written words it is always difficult to tell the tone of the person's comments (are they being sarcastic, sincere, excited, annoyed, etc.). Perhaps in the future we will all police this site better."
I'm hoping that this is the case. Successful groups on the Web do a good job of this (Wikipedia, for example, despite having a few well-publicized problems, is largely just as accurate and more comprehensive than most print reference sources). I'll do my part, too. Thanks for your thoughts.
Let this be a lesson to all posters here.
If you come here, use your real name,Be as honest and forthright as possible and are abused by those who hide behind their user names and Others names(even Senators) GC will pick the side of the abuser over the Honest person.
If GC had an ounce of ethics we'd already know who perpertrated what might be a crime.Rowland would be proud of this site.
I think it's ironic that a former SDSer has sent the FBI bloodhounds on a wild goose chase involving comments on a political opinion site. If anyone should respect the fact that the FBI shouldn't be snooping around monitoring political debate in this country, it should be him.
I guess it's OK if they (liberals) are the ones pulling the levers of power, but no good when anyone else is.
If you're to stupid to use google thats your Problem.Unlike you two,I've never tried to hide my identity.
Of course my post was reffering to Bruce,who whether you like it or not,has had a much higher level of success in politics than any other poster here and brought more here than just the blather you 2 have.
GC should have asked the person to come foward voluntarily but let it be known that if they didn't he would do all he could to expose said person.
Bruce should have been treated by the host as a valued member but instead GC chose to protect someone we know now was an obvious liar.
The publicity involved in this incident now is going to force the FBI to get a warrant and find out if the person responsible and their intent.
GC may want this to be over but his actions,or lack there of,make that less likely not more.
I believe that Genghis has responded wisely to the ongoing issues of anonymity and pseudonymity in online communities, particularly as it relates to inappropriate behavior. I can understand Bruce’s feeling that he has been wronged. The attacks on him were inappropriate and damaging to the community. He may well be right about “leading the league in CLP for most attacks”. I am grateful for him in talking that role. It was a position I felt that I had a lock on previously when I was posting more frequently.
It may well be that in this case contacting the FBI was appropriate. I don’t know enough of the details, and personally, really don’t want to. Nonetheless, with my civil libertarian leanings, I am always uncomfortable when legal actions are used to moderate speech, even when the speech is inappropriate.
<snark>
As I read through the discussion, I couldn’t help but wonder if Genghis has already received a national security letter requesting information and forbidding him to speak about the request.
Finally, blueper commented, “Insulting another participant is fun”. However, being insulted isn’t particularly fun. I guess it’s all just fun and games until somebody gets their eye poked out.
</snark>
Well, it's not Monty Python...
“All I did was request an investigation which is my right to do as a citizen when I feel the law may have been broken and there is no other way to get "redress" of the situation. When I complained… all false postings from the “Senators" have stopped. It’s clear that the intent of the poster was to interrupt and influence people to not support anyone who challenges Senator Lieberman.”
Hey Rubenstein. In this very posting, Genghis Conn suggested two ways that in the future you might “redress the situation”: 1) contact him before contacting the FBI, 2) contact Blogger if you are seeking to apply sanctions against obnoxious bloggers -- preferably before contacting the FBI. You acceded to those suggestions today. As a competent lawyer, you are familiar with these various paths of redress. Why did you not take a path less destructive in the first instance? Even if it were the intent of the poster you ratted out to the FBI to influence people to support Lieberman rather than your preferred candidate for governor, Ned Lamont, that intent is no more criminal than your intent to convince people not to support Lieberman. The whole point of blog sites such as Mylelfnutmeg, among others, is to sway political opinion. So what?
DeanFan. At this point, I don't think Rubenstein would want to admit that he ratted out a fellow blogger to the FBI because the blogger "smeared him." That position is simply not high-minded enough to elict pity as the most dumped uopn blogger in these parts. Better stick to the agreed upon script. Now, Rubenstein seems to be a reasonable fellow. The Abe Lincoln solution to this problem would entail snowballs at a hundred feet, rather than the solution Rubensten has chosen. It's still not too late to do the right thing. Why don't you do your pal a favor and tell him to call the dogs off? God!!! You know, you can always ANSWER your critics without balling to mama.
DeanFan. This is exactly what you said to "Harry Reid":
"Harry Reid--
I hope you know that what you are doing is wrong. I presume everyone will recognize you as one of Joe's lame-ass staffers, but assuming identities is still taboo."
So, even then -- when you called "Harry Reid" out -- you knew he was not the real Harry Reid; why else would you have presumed that everyone "will recognize you as one of Joe's lame-ass staffers?"
Are supposed to believe that Rubenstein -- an accomplished lawyer and anti-Lieberman agitator -- unlike you, lacked the wit to recognize that the writer of the letters that "smeared" him WAS NOT the real Harry Reid.
Sorry, everyone here has to much respect for Rubenstein's intelligence to swallow the imposture. In some ways this imposture is far more artful that "Harry Reid's" attempt at satire.
You do know, of course, that writing under pseudonyms is the oldest form of satire -- and the most effective. It is only remotely related to lying and slander. Bullying, thought, is always in fashion.
It's not too late.
ADA (NR!) It is posts like yours that are (the sort of attacks we ought to be having) so harmful.
We need to focus on (lightening up and having some fun) serious political debate.
Unfortunately, too many people don't have anything intelligent to say and resort to poorly written senseless attacks. (Thanks for providing an illustration of a well written attack)
I wish I had more time to spend on this and other blogs (but they don't have WiFi at Burger King, and I probably couldn't blog while making fries anyway. At least BK pays better than most political gigs).
Don,
If he contacted Blogger or GC, he wouldn't have gotten all this attention. That's what this is all about.
Hey Look,
Don Pesci got more responses here than he has in a month on his own Blog.
I guess maybe you should rename the Pesci Blog " playing with Myself" with all the attention your not Getting there.
Hey Rubenstein, just curious: How did you find out Don Pesci was not my real name? Of course, if you KNOW its not my real name, you must know what my real name is. What is it?
You started out you messages "with all due respect." That didn't last too long, did it? This intemperate language will not improve your law practice. Why don't you and your minions get some manners?
ctkeith
I could paper your living room wall with thr responses I've gotten in thirty years of column writing -- to be sure, none as spicy as your. And when did you say you wanted to grow up?
ctkeith said...
Hey Look,
Don Pesci got more responses here than he has in a month on his own Blog.
So I took a look; and indeed Pesci has oodles more response on his blog than you do Keith on yours!
Hey Rubenstein. You don't like answering questions, do you? You haven't answered a single one I've put to. Good thing you're not on a witness stand.You left a note on my bog: It says I OWN YOU. What's that mean? ou don't own diddlysquat. I LOVE BULLIES.
Hey Rubenstein. My questions were an invitation to you to share your perceptions with the entire blogging community. If you don't want to answer them, fine. It's your choice. Glad, in cay case, to have your admission on the record that some cat had got hold of your usually unrestrained tounge. First you rat out someone to the FBI. Then you take the fifth. Nice.,
Post a Comment