-->
Search the ArchivesNavigationContact InformationThe Citizen Newspapers For Advertising Information Email us your news! For technical difficulties |
The accountability of free speechI believe in free speech. I practice it, encourage it, and attempt to enable others in enjoying it. I greatly desire the members of my council to be honest and to be frank — especially if they believe I am missing the mark. I hope that the members of my congregation always feel free to share any insight or criticism they may need to offer. However, I also believe that one of the responsibilities of free speech is accountability. If one is going to say or write something, one should sign his or her name. It’s amazing how timid, cowardly people become emboldened when they can offer their opinions and observations anonymously. Across the country, newspapers have begun to allow writers to share their thoughts without the need to sign their names. I have watched these comments go from pithy and humorous to biting, cruel, offensive, and banal. It seems that when one may be heard without being accountable, civility goes out the window. Sometimes, I receive e-mails or letters, especially after a column that some find controversial. I first search for a name or signature. If I find none I simply delete it or toss it in the trash. If the writer doesn’t sign his name, I conclude he has nothing of value to say. If the name is there, I read and often respond. And now, in addition to these tactless rantings, the Internet offers the opportunity to any petty, small-minded person in the country to establish or post on a “blog.” If someone has something to say, fine. Just have the common decency and guts to sign your name. A friend told me about a church-related blog that discussed several issues facing a particular denomination. Against my better judgment, I read it. In fact I read all 56 pages of posted comments. When I finished, I felt dirty, as though I needed a bath. Presumably, the posters were all Christians with a number being pastors and other types of ministers. While some made reasonable arguments and a few called for considerate behavior, in the main the posters were vitriolic, biting, hateful, spiteful, and argumentative. And because the posts were anonymous, some just told outright half-truths and I even recognized a few lies. And the bad thing? These unnamed posters who were throwing slime were naming names on the World Wide Web. Dr. P. M. Forni in his excellent book, “Choosing Civility,” says, “Internet anonymity is all too often an irresistible temptation for the sulky and the gossipy. Many seem to look at cyberspace as an ethically vacant space, one in which the rules of traditional everyday decency don’t apply. But an anonymous letter is an anonymous letter regardless of the medium used to send it.” He goes onto state, “It is cowardly to attack those who are not present. They cannot defend themselves and the attacker can get away with misrepresentations, exaggerations, and outright lies.” These cyber-terrorists, these modern-day “Ku Klux Klanners” of the unsigned letters to the editor and to blogs deserve no consideration, no response, and no respect. Even if they have valid points, they lose any moral authority they might have by hiding under the white sheet of anonymity. It takes courage to take a stand and be willing to stand behind one’s opinion, to endure the examination that comes when one puts an idea into the public arena. An evangelist of the last century came to the pulpit prepared to preach to a large crowd and found, on the pulpit, a piece of paper with the word “fool” written on it. After a moment, he said something like this to the assembled congregation, “I have received many letters in which one wrote his opinion and neglected to sign his name. This, however, is the first letter I have received wherein someone signed his name and forgot to offer an opinion.” The world would be far better off if those who refuse to sign their names would also choose to just keep quiet. login to post comments | Father David Epps's blog |