The accountability of free speech

Father David Epps's picture

I 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

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Gump's picture
Submitted by Gump on Tue, 11/21/2006 - 7:24pm.

Father Epps really hits the nail on the head here. I wasn't going to add anything, but I notice a lot of agreement coming from people who don't seem to apply what Father Epps said to their own postings. Free speech, like other freedoms in this great country, comes with the responsibility for controlling what you say. It should be the truth, it should be necessary, and it should be said in a constructive way. Unfortunately, when you can post anonymously, it removes the consequences that would be the result of saying the same things face-to-face. Too many people take that as a blank check to be rude or slanderous, and just pop off with whatever comes to mind. You see the same thing happening on the highways. Most people are courteous most of the time, but some people take advantage of their anonymity behind the wheel to act out their uglier side.

What we all need to realize is that when we are anonymously rude to each other, and indulge in "us versus them" rants, we collectively are dissolving the fabric of our society--of our civilization. All you need to do is look at the quality of life in gang-dominated neighborhoods, where it is a "dog-eat-dog" mindset. That's where we are headed as a nation, unless we curb the tendency to choose sides and hurl insults.

I know it's a cliche, but "United we stand; divided we fall." Lately, we seem to be more and more divided as a society. If you want our nation to remain strong and our quality of life to remain healthy, it has to start with each of us doing the right thing when nobody is looking, and when we are posting anonymous messages online. Let's choose civility. (to quote Dr. Forni's book)


bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Tue, 11/21/2006 - 7:49pm.

"I wasn't going to add anything, but I notice a lot of agreement coming from people who don't seem to apply what Father Epps said to their own postings."

Almost nobody agreed with what Epps said. What were you reading?

"Free speech, like other freedoms in this great country, comes with the responsibility for controlling what you say."

According to who?

"You see the same thing happening on the highways. Most people are courteous most of the time, but some people take advantage of their anonymity behind the wheel to act out their uglier side."

I guess that's why the Govt. requires us all to have a license plate on the back of our cars, so we can all drive around anonymously, unable to be identified.

"we collectively are dissolving the fabric of our society--of our civilization."

If you haven't noticed, we don't have a fabric, we have a patch-work-quilt, with some pieces not attached.

Do you see illegal immigrants and radical religions trying to "blend" into our society?

You should try walking around without the rose colored glasses on and take a look at the real world for a change.


Gump's picture
Submitted by Gump on Tue, 11/21/2006 - 8:34pm.

Other than your reply, I thought most of the replies were generally in agreement with what Fr. Epps was saying. Muddle did point out that anonymous writings may still be of merit, and I certainly agree with that. Perhaps I overstated the level of agreement.

As for your other "points", I am asserting that freedom comes with responsibility. I'm not the first to assert that, but it's my assertion here. Your point about licence plates ignores the fact that many people are indeed more rude behind the wheel, and it is because of their anonymity. Sure, if they commit a serious crime, you can take down their licence number and report them, but the usual garden-variety rudeness gets by with no consequences in most cases. You surely must know this is true from your own observations, so why argue the point? Your doing so actually serves to support what I'm saying.

I don't know how much travelling you have done outside the US, but I got to see most of the world while in the military. Europe and Canada are not bad at all, but most of the world (the "third world") lives in a vastly inferior quality of life, compared to ours. We have no God-given right to a high standard of living, and if we are not careful, we will fall like the Roman empire. I'm not wearing rose-colored glasses at all; I'm saying that the writing is on the wall and we had better pull ourselves together before it's too late.

As I see it, we are going to hell in a handbasket, and throwing verbal spears at everybody and everything is just making it worse.


bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Tue, 11/21/2006 - 9:53pm.

"With freedom comes with responsibility", yes I agree.

But just because you post your name doesn't mean your above reproach.

As for rereading the postings I count two people that agreed with Epps. Everyone else didn't.

Epps's tirade against not responding to people that don't post their true names was a great example of why people in general are fed up with the current state of religion in general in this country.

He has no time for anyone that does not believe as he does.

My answer to that is there are many that have no time for him or his thoughts as well.

"It’s amazing how timid, cowardly people become emboldened when they can offer their opinions and observations anonymously."

What a pious statement to make. Because he signed his name to the post makes his statement more acceptable?

Lets not forget, "If I find none I simply delete it or toss it in the trash. If the writer doesn't’t sign his name, I conclude he has nothing of value to say."

The old, "what would Jesus say?" comes to mind.

And you ask why people don't drive nicer around one another. With people like Epps preaching intolerance I just can't imagine.

"While some made reasonable arguments and a few called for considerate behavior, in the main the posters were vitriolic, biting, hateful, spiteful, and argumentative."

That truly sounds like someone who wants to help people. He's to pompous to even engage people to discuss the issue.

The reason that the current state of life in this country and around the world is going down the tubes is because of religious prosecution.

If everybody kept their religious beliefs to themselves, the world would be a much better place.


Gump's picture
Submitted by Gump on Tue, 11/21/2006 - 10:07pm.

My main point is that constantly throwing verbal spears at each other is counter-productive and tears down our civilization, bit by bit. In that belief, I'm obviously in the minority in this website. So be it. I'm still right about what I am saying.

I'm not saying that we should all be required to post our real names--that would be unrealistic and possibly dangerous. I'm saying that taking cheap shots behind the cloak of a pseudonym is cowardly, but there is a lot of that going on here.


bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Tue, 11/21/2006 - 10:14pm.

I agree with you and the way you phrased it this time.

It seems the blogs about HS football the past few weeks was truly a great example of what you just posted.

Although I'm not certain that people would have acted or written any nicer even if they had to use their real names.

That subject appears to have struck a nerve.


Submitted by swmbo on Mon, 11/20/2006 - 7:39pm.

Let me begin by admitting that I do not know anything about the particular blog of which you complain. If it was as biting, cruel, offensive and banal as you say, one wonders what manner of ungodly influence or hurtful experience could produce such behavior. Certainly, the responsible poster(s) need prayer for deliverance and healing -- and lots of it.

Having said that, I have to point out that "freedom of speech", as we Americans have come to know it, is freedom from governmental interference with speech. The government cannot inhibit free speech but individuals can. Consider that, within the last 100 years, citizens have been fired for consuming a product (while on their personal time) that competes with their employer's product. Citizens have been fired for having the "wrong" bumper sticker on their personal vehicle. People have been murdered (with some help from government officials) for daring to assert their right to vote. Clinics that provide a range of legitimate health services to poor women have been bombed (and innocent people killed) because other people were offended by one of those offered services.

Given the history (recent and distant) of free speech in America, there is a need for forums in which people can speak the truth, as they see it, cloaked in anonymity. While it is entirely appropriate to want people to be accountable for the accuracy of what they say, demanding that they be accountable for the underpinning sentiment of what they say is asking them to be at the mercy of any and everyone who disagrees.

Of course, there are two sides to every coin. With censorship comes corruption (spiritual and political). With free speech, one assumes the risk of being offended. If it means that someone in anonymity feels free to tell me that a corporation is polluting the environment or that a politician is engaging in immoral behavior or that a lobbyist is engaging in bribery or that an approved drug is dangerous, I will gladly suffer every offensive thing that someone might say about me. A thick skin is a price I am willing to pay for that freedom.

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

eodnnaenaj1's picture
Submitted by eodnnaenaj1 on Tue, 11/14/2006 - 4:05pm.

I agree with the others here and the comments about anonymity. I had really looked forward to the response from several church leaders during that discussion, however, there was little response. You state that in the 56 pages of comments, "in the main the posters were vitriolic, biting, hateful, spiteful, and argumentative".

Interesting, I seem to have read and heard that there are many folk who have questions and concerns about the church; folk are looking for the answers and a place to worship; however, many have been very hurt and have turned away from the organized church. If these folk could find a place that loved unconditionally, met them where they were, answered our questions and concerns, lived in the streets what they hear in the seats - oh, just dawned on me - perhaps too many were "trashed and deleted" . . . not worth the time.


Submitted by skyspy on Wed, 11/15/2006 - 5:48pm.

I think father Epps is refering to a different blog. I don't think he is refering to the one here about a week ago.

I don't think any minister can really address that blog. Not without admiting to the shortcomings and falacy of going to church every sunday.

His column is rarely edifying or educational. Fact is the pompous holier-than-thow attitudes are what turn people off to church, and the kind of people you meet there.

You can worship God, and pray to him anywhere that is the beauty of our God. He is omnipresent(sp?) In fact it is easier to worship him outside of the modern day church than in it. People with pious attitudes are a distraction.

I'm not sure why he has a column here other than that he is the token churchy church person to make this feel like a true southern newpaper.

eodnnaenaj1's picture
Submitted by eodnnaenaj1 on Tue, 11/21/2006 - 7:35am.

I assumed Father Epps was referring to the blogs that started with a discussion on Southside. Perhaps I am wrong in assuming which blogs he is referring to. However, the fact remains, in my mind, that some preachers seem to pick and chose who they will listen to, as evidenced by his comment "before I read, I look for . . ." Which goes back to some of my original comments, in the past blogs; it seems to me too many churches, ministries, "help" organizations, seem to pick and chose who they will help. Sorry, this just ain't the way I read The Book, based on one example scripture Hebrews 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers; for thereby some have entertained angels unaware. . .of course there are many other scriptures, yet my point is, these churches, ministries, organizations, cannot always tell who they are affecting by rejecting and/or not helping someone, when I think of the hurt and lost souls because of the impression these folk give, it saddens me deeply.


Submitted by skyspy on Tue, 11/21/2006 - 8:21am.

He is just your typical church person. I say church person because they can only behave one hour a week. Thats why I call them churchy church people, they think going to church will save them.

Thanks for the reference to Hebrews 13:2. I remebered the passage, and have been thinking about it often lately, but couldn't find the reference.

The modern church is in fact a distraction, and a source of frustration for me. I choose not to hang out with churchy church people because they distract me from God.

Buddhists focus mainly on helping others and being an instrument of peace. I think I identify more with them, than the churchy church people, of modern churches.

One poster here I think it was muddle, said we need to just concentrate and look for the good people who are sincere and forget the rest. He also suggested a book whose character I think demonstrated what he was talking about. What was that title again muddle? We need a reprint.
Take care and "pay it forward"

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Tue, 11/21/2006 - 8:44am.

This is one of C.S. Lewis's best--and often overlooked--books. It is the "recounting of a dream" of heaven and hell. It begins with a bus ride from a place that turn out to be hell to a place that turns out to be heaven. There is apparently a regular run between the two, and people in hell always have an open invitation to go to heaven and stay there. Most people who visit prefer hell, as they have, by their choices, shaped their own characters in such a way that the presence of God makes them miserable.

At any rate, one character that we meet in heaven is Sarah Smith, who, on earth, was a plain, behind-the-scenes person who actually lived out Christ's example of love and servanthood. In heaven, she is found to be one of the most exalted and revered people there.


Submitted by skyspy on Tue, 11/21/2006 - 8:56am.

I need to buy it today before I forget again.

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Tue, 11/21/2006 - 9:13am.

Another interesting feature of the book--a true insight, I suspect--is the suggestion that our various vices MAY eventually consume or cannibalize us, so that the very *humanity* of those in hell has all but disappeared, leaving only a sort of personification of whatever was the person's chief vice.

Of course, Lewis intends none of this as literal theology about heaven and hell. But I think he *does* intend the moral of the story.

This helps me to see past all of the religiosity that obscures the real issues and drives me away. Here, quite literally, to be "conformed to the image of Christ" just is to cultivate our humanity--to become *more human*--as we flourish to the degree that we relate ourselves to our Creator. The human Good Life is achieved through godliness. And our choices otherwise actually diminish our humanity--a kind of retrogression into lesser beings than we might be. (The visitors from hell appear as mere phantoms, whereas heaven's denizens are portrayed as "bright and solid.")

I also like this quote in the book, attributed to George MacDonald, one of Lewis's favorite authors:

"The choice of every lost sould can be expressed in the words, 'Better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven.' ..... There is always something they prefer to joy --- that is, to reality."

.....

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell chose it."


Submitted by skyspy on Wed, 11/15/2006 - 6:45pm.

Sorry, apparently I can't type, spell or proofread. I'm still not going to out myself, and I'm not going to go away either. Sorry father Epps. (I know it's thou)

Submitted by myword_mark on Wed, 11/15/2006 - 6:09pm.

Well said - it's difficult to get them to address the issues that turn so many 'off' from going to a church.

Submitted by myword_mark on Wed, 11/15/2006 - 6:01pm.

Good blog.

eodnnaenaj1's picture
Submitted by eodnnaenaj1 on Tue, 11/21/2006 - 7:40am.

Thanks. I'm just very confused, I guess there are some things I just don't understand . . .and I truly wish someone would step up and give us all an answer. Several times on these blogs have been discussions about "church". I find that many of us have real questions, desires, needs, etc. However, I've not yet seen anyone step up and make a real effort to answer or educate us; rather the issue is turned into a free speech sort of thing and the real issues were skirted.


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Tue, 11/21/2006 - 8:30am.

Philip Yancey's book, WHAT'S SO AMAZING ABOUT GRACE? is itself amazing. Yancey grew up on the southside of Atlanta (East Point, I believe) and was a member of a local Baptist church. He became disenchanted by the bigotry, legalism, judgmentalism and hypocrisy of church goers, and spent a period of time wandering in the wilderness like myself. A series of books (THE JESUS I NEVER KNEW, WHAT'S SO AMAZING ABOUT GRACE?, CHURCH? WHY BOTHER?, SOUL SURVIVOR: HOW MY FAITH SURVIVED THE CHURCH) documents his "pilgrimage" in this regard.

Here's a quote from WHAT'S So AMAZING? that I think explains the reaction of many bloggers here, including myself.

"Mark Twain used to talk about people who were 'good in the worst sense of the word,' a phrase that, for many, captures the reputation of Christians today. Recently, I have been asking a qustion of strangers when I strike up a conversation. 'When I say the words 'evangelical Christian' what comes to mind?' In reply, mostly I hear political descriptions: of strident pro-life activists, or gay-rights opponents, or proposals for censoring the Internet. Not once - not once - have I heard a description redolent of grace. Apparently this is not the aroma Christians give off in the world."

Yancey is a great writer with much of importance to say.

As for ministers interacting with bloggers here, don't forget that a "music pastor" from a local church interacted with us in what I thought was a thoughtful and humble manner. In fact, he took me down a peg or two with his not unkind suggestion that I should be thinking more of how I could contribute.

Backsliders with my particular set of issues need to ponder this passage from C.S. Lewis:

"When I first became a Christian, about fourteen years ago, I thought that I could do it on my own, by retiring to my rooms and reading theology, and I wouldn't go to the churches and Gospel Halls; [...] I disliked very much their hymns, which I considered to be fifth-rate poems set to sixth-rate music. But as I went on I saw the great merit of it. I came up against different people of quite different outlooks and different education, and then gradually my conceit just began peeling off. I realized that the hymns (which were just sixth-rate music) were, nevertheless, being sung with devotion and benefit by an old saint in elastic-side boots in the opposite pew, and then you realize that you aren't fit to clean those boots. It gets you out of your solitary conceit."

Still, historian Mark Noll has written a book titled THE SCANDAL OF THE EVANGELICAL MIND, which begins: "The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind." In his preface, he describes himself as a "wounded lover." He loves the church and raises his criticisms of its contemporary American instantiation out of that love. I am VERY sympathetic to Noll's assessment.


eodnnaenaj1's picture
Submitted by eodnnaenaj1 on Tue, 11/21/2006 - 8:57am.

church blog again! Don't you think this is probably because so many are searching?

You are correct, and I apologize, yes there was a music minister who did participate, and bless him for that. I just was very surprised that there were not more preacher's with a response. However, that goes back to some of our initial comments as to why tending the flock doesn't seem to be #1 priority.

I always enjoy your input, quotations, thoughts, ideas; in this post, I really like the "wounded lover" reference, how very very appropriate, there are obviously many of us out here.


Submitted by myword_mark on Tue, 11/14/2006 - 3:55pm.

Ain't Mark Twain - 'Nuff said.

جندي السِم

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Tue, 11/14/2006 - 4:18pm.

You are talking about my all-time favorite author.

Only Mark Twain is Mark Twain.

Everyone else pales in comparison.


bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Tue, 11/14/2006 - 2:03pm.

Is your bible signed by GOD?

Have you any real evidence that somebody actually wrote all those letters refereed to in the bible?

Have you seen them, or just been told that it's true?

Thought so.


Submitted by myword_mark on Tue, 11/14/2006 - 1:36pm.

Does that apply to confession too father? That after all is the ultimate free speech isn't it? Confession is good for the soul and all that.

جندي السِم

valleygirl's picture
Submitted by valleygirl on Tue, 11/14/2006 - 5:09pm.

myword_mark, esm jenny aka Ghost name aka spirit name. like that!
I like your name! Cool Eye-wink Cool.
ﺱﺩﻘﻠﺍ ﺡﻭﺭ ﺭﻴﺨ ﻥﺎﻋﺫﺍ Absolutly it's absolution.

ﻩﺭﺩ ﺭﺘﺨﺩ


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Tue, 11/14/2006 - 12:02pm.

I disagree with what I take to be your central claim: that anything worth our attention will be accompanied by a signature. Why think a thing like that? Consider the pseudonymous writings of Ben Franklin and Kierkegaard, just to name a couple without resorting to Google.

I do, of course, agree on the point about the necessity of civility. And I agree that anonymity only encourages the uncivil to be even less so.

But there are any number of reasons why one may wish to remain anonymous. I have my own.

And whether someone is "worth listening to" depends upon what they have to say.

Pseudonymous literature does not lose its intrinsic merit--assuming that it has such--just in virtue of being pseudonymous. If I argue "If P then Q; P; Therefore Q" and sign my name to it, the argument is no more valid than if I urge it anonymously. And an article or a blog whose author is identified is not, for that, rendered valid. I may recognize the name and also recognize the opinions to betray ignorance and insipidity.

Indeed, in my field, research papers are typically subjected to "blind review." This means, of course, that the people assessing the merits of the paper are not told the identity of the author. And the reason, of course, is that some pipsqueak from a less-than-presigious college might write a stunning piece, and a well-known individual from Oxford might fall on his face. Blind review helps to eliminate biases that accrue as a result of knowing the identity of the author.

The other thing is that, oddly enough, over time some of us develop a concern for the reputation of our screen names themselves--almost as though they have become a second identity. It bothers me a great deal if someone thinks that "muddle" has displayed ignorance or stupidity, immorality or a lack of civility. And this is so despite that fact that I can quite easily walk away from "muddle" and this site.


Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Tue, 11/14/2006 - 1:27pm.

Just kidding buddy. Just wanted to say hey and invite you to FAYETTE SPEAKS for some good fun and conversation. And we won't judge you as to whether you sign your name but rather on the content of your pithy postings. And as usual if one of says something really stupid the rest of us will have fun with it. Smiling

And whether someone is "worth listening to" depends upon what they have to say.

Hey man.... you are worth listening to so stop by once in a while and throw your two cents in. It's a great addition to the Citizen.

Signed Proudly By,

Git Real


Submitted by loveptc on Tue, 11/14/2006 - 1:50pm.

I've been wondering where you have been! You havent posted in a while.

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Tue, 11/14/2006 - 2:16pm.

The hacker scared me. And I know he still lurks. Can't you see the fur on my neck sticking up? He's still around stirrin the pot. I've been here and haven't missed a post.


Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Tue, 11/14/2006 - 1:29pm.

Have you been working out?


Submitted by seraph on Tue, 11/14/2006 - 11:44am.

In a society where people would not have to be concerned for reprisal for their free speech, I would completely agree with your comments. As it is, there are in our society all sorts of mechanisms of intimidation, to curtail, to limit free expression, be it peer pressure or more formal ways to discourage dissent. As our society also becomes more polarized, signatures and other forms of personal identification place people at greater risk. It happens in places of employment,social clubs, politics and yes...churches! It is very human, we hate to be disagreed with! I liked your story about the preacher, I know one too, where the note said "abuser", only it was true, and fear of reprisal kept the abused from being "accountable" for their free expression. Maybe we should pay more, not less attention to those who under the cover of relative anonimity dare to tell us truths others may not. No defense of the referenced blog implied.

blessings

seraph

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.