Freedom of speech is a great action that is guaranteed to all United States citizens by our Constitution. It’s a basic right. Each citizen is free to state his or her opinion on a street corner, a soapbox in the park, a stage in front of thousands or one-on-one in debate. We strongly support that. Some in our nation view this premise as offensive, especially when it differs with their fixed agendas.
Bridling free speech is never the intent of this newspaper. However, there are thresholds of decency. For example, a recent comment made on the Dispatch’s Vox Pop site seemed inappropriate to our new media director.
The author of the message posted a suggestion that political candidates vying for their party’s endorsement for the Minnesota Senate settle the endorsement process by kicking one another in the groin area until one dropped. That was deemed out of the bounds by our new media director. The director pulled that message from the Vox Pop site. He also banned the author of the message from participating in further exchanges. The person that authored the Vox Pop message has a right to appeal for reinstatement.
While we advocate and support a person’s right to free speech as it is guaranteed to us by our Constitution, we do request that participants in Vox Pop and Open Forum state his or her ideas in a manner that is appropriate for the general public to view. Let’s face it, our kids are more apt to view online comments than we adults. Suggesting or advocating in any way a potentially harmful action is out of line.
We want all discourse at the Dispatch to be decent. We will publish letters and messages on Vox Pop that disagree with Dispatch staff (especially editorial writers), politicians or government employees as long as the messages are not slanderous, libelous or based on falsehoods or opinion that has no substance in fact. Bottom line, keep it clean and have fun exchanging ideas.
Whether one is liberal, conservative, a 99er, a Tea Party member or a Libertarian, this newspaper is the place to exchange points of view.
As the new guy in the editorial department of the Dispatch, I have been impressed with the volume of letters in Open Forum. Our readers are utilizing this venue to speak out. I encourage that. Everyone has a voice in the Dispatch or on the paper’s website via Vox Pop. If our readers and followers of Vox Pop continue to submit more letters and comments for publication or posting our Editorial Advisory Board is considering adding another page to the Commentary section of the Dispatch to handle the volume of submissions.
Thanks for your input.
Keith Hansen
Comments (21)
Add commentFinally!
Thank you!
Isn't this business as usual?
I don't recall the dispatch printing much in the way of off-color or inappropriate comments in the past.
In the past they usually DID print most respectfully offered letters and voxpop's though.
That does not seem to be the case anymore, from the experience--recent--of a few people I know.
I'd like to see Keith address that. Why aren't letters or VoxPop's critical of his stance through his editorials printed like they used to be?
comment so bad and that he prints it in his column?
Nice work Keith.
Oh, I'm sure they meant Gazelka and his Morrison County GOP opponent. Ah, maybe not.
I'm confused
If it was not ok why has it been repeated in a different location in the paper?????
good for the goose,
but not for the gander?
I've noticed that Mr. Hansen
could write "Hello" and you ignorant liberals would be all over him. And you wonder why congress is so bogged down with deviciveness? One person writes a conservative article, and you little people come out with your venom!
Hmmm...where did my comment
Hmmm...where did my comment go?
Re: Hmmm...where did my comment
Vida, I see no comment of yours (other than 'Hmmm...where did my comment') having been posted on this article and no record of any comment of yours being unpublished to-date. Perhaps you posted on another article?
private enterprise
The Dispatch is a private enterprise; they can censor our comments and make their own guidelines, I'm perfectly OK with that. They can editorialize with a left or right bias, its their paper/website. I would expect the same rights as an owner of my own business.
Thank you Keith!
I agree.
Yelling *fire in the movie theater* still applies and is still appropriate in the information age. Kudos for your article.
A dialogue of many is healthy...
Hey, snowda...
Check this out:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/limbaugh-sees-heat-over-co...
"Fire in the movie theater" is not "appropriate"
But I do agree that the article by the editor was needed, mostly for the personal insults that some posters were subject to.
Is civility more dangerous than incivility?
If you have time for a fun read, check this out: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/opinion/01civililty.html
Was this editorial really necessary, as opposed to just using your editorial "delete" button on Mr. Groin-kickman, and moving on with your day? You drew even more attention to the supposed "incivility" of this remark, elevating the bad-boyness of Vox-pop-groin to full-blown editorial. The ground rules for participation had already been made clear, both in Keith Hansen's 3/15 op/ed entitled "Discourse", and in online ground rules for participation. Methinks he wanted to repeat the "groin kick" for fun and to get a reaction! Woohoo, groin, groin, groin, and toss in some "balls" for good measure.
If another editorial regarding this subject is necessary, expand on these thoughts:
"Zizi Papachrissi is one of the few scholars to try to define online incivility for research purposes
and she cautions that incivility should be distinguished from heated conversation. Discourse can be civil
while also being highly critical and passionate. Any respectful, democracy-promoting discourse,
including that in which participants challenge each other’s opinions or assert their own opinions in harsh
or critical ways would be civil discourse. Thus, according to Papachrissi, exchanges or comments that
“threaten democracy, deny people their personal freedoms and stereotype social groups,” are uncivil, but
using sarcasm or writing in all capital letters or using strong language are impolite but not uncivil." (http://nicd.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/research_briefs/NICD_researc...)
Also, any chance we could hear 50% less from Keith Hansen, and 50% more from anyone else -- whether local, syndicated -- whatever the Editorial Board decides? Don't leave Keith out of the mix, by any means, but a wider variety of editorials would be welcome.
Vida/Denton
I had a similar situation -- my comment (just before this one) must have entered another dimension! Will try another day.
Bubba
No. You're previous comment was held for review by our spam filter because it contained more than one link to another website, a common practice of spammers. I reviewed it and OK'd it.
Thanks, Denton -- I'm a newbie here.
You have a difficult job!
Bubba Gumbo
"Also, any chance we could hear 50% less from Keith Hansen, and 50% more from anyone else"
No, I think a 90/10 split would be better...at least for a couple years. The BDD has a lot of making up to do.
tripwire3
Any chance you can run me through the "cliff notes" to bring me up to speed? I realize that's a tall order, but I am really interested. The little bit I read from the Brainerd paper before Jan. 2012, O'Rourke just didn't seem that "flaming" to me, (but, again, I didn't read it that much). Any examples (from Archives) to show? I'm willing to be persuaded that the split shouldn't be 50-50.
Audience participation is key..The Good..The Bad..and the Ugly
A Clint Eastwood phrase.
I Google to make sure of accuracy...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060196/
Fact check before sending is vital...Isn't the internet wonderful?
However, as Keith indicates, the Brainerd Daily Dispatch Online has a very active and healthy opinions section, which means, no matter what, all comments and honored and respected.
A true First Amendment to the United States Constitution right.
internet
Although the internet is beneficial and entertaining in many ways, it also is a way for individuals to spew out lies via e mails. I have gotten articles sent to me which are untrue. Sure enough, I go to Factcheck.org or snopes.org and there it is. False. People need to check things out before they send it on.
Many slanted news channels do the same. ( you know who I am talking about) I am very cautious of the internet e mails that perpetuate lies.
Share all the information and let us decide
I too have received emails where the info. is wrong however,
I also don't trust Factcheck or snopes. I like to google the so-called facts and read all sides if I can.
As for slanted new channels, I agree as yesterday I watched
ABC and questioned a video they had on so, I checked with
other sources which showed the full video not the ABC one that blocked out key info. on the video.
All the news channels are slanted . It is good to have a channel that shows more than one side.