There are rules. Or there used to be.
But news organizations seem to lose their way when it came to the Internet and the posting of anonymous comments by people using their websites.
Before the World Wide Web, letters to the editor at most newspapers would run as long as they were within the law and the bounds of good taste.
Good taste is in the eye of the beholder.
The law part is simpler. The person writing the letter is responsible for what it says. So is the news organization distributing it. Hurt someone’s reputation and you’re responsible it. There are legal defences that allow for the publication of libelous statements, but if you can’t use them, shut up, at least in public.
Since news organizations distributing your comments are just as responsible for them as you are, they were careful about what they let run. If someone’s going to sue alleging libel, after all, they’ll include the paper, because it has more money.
Somehow, the rules went by the boards the past few years. News organizations, caught up in the panic to stay current with a generation that gets most of its news online, decided it was OK to allow Imanangrygirl123 to use the comments section without proper adult supervision.
Nasty, all-capital-letter, 14-exclamation-mark comments began appearing on the website of respected news organizations.
Thankfully, the tide seems to be turning.
The Ottawa Citizen announced recently it’s no longer accepting anonymous comments. Want to comment on a story? Register. Your email will be protected, but some of the shield of anonymity is being removed.
And earlier this summer, a judge in New Brunswick told a paper in Moncton it had to reveal the identity of an anonymous commenter. At issue, an online post considered defamatory.
Daryl Doucette, a Moncton firefighter, wrote to the Moncton Times & Transcript in February saying a speed limit on ambulances in New Brunswick was a bad idea. Someone called ‘Anonymous Anonymous’ used the newspaper's online comment section to go after Doucette.
Angry, Doucette went to the paper, which said it needed a court order to release information about the writer. No problem.
“In my view, the interests of justice favour [Doucette] being able to proceed and to obtain a final ruling on this matter,” said Mr. Justice George Rideout on June 29. “Consequently I believe the interests of justice favour obtaining the disclosure rather than non-disclosure… [Doucette] is entitled to his day in court with all the attendant consequences of such proceedings.”
Ah.
“All the attendant consequences of such proceedings.”
In other words, ‘Anonymous Anonymous’ must stand up in court and explain what legal defence he – or she – is using to justify the words published on the website.
Are the words true? That can be tough to prove. Are they privileged – said in a setting like a courtroom? Unlikely. Did the writer get Doucette’s consent? Apparently not. Responsible communication, the latest libel defence? You need to be able to document your journalism. Fair comment? Probably the best bet, but it’s not a licence to say anything you want.
Those are the questions a newsroom must ask before printing libelous material. It’s becoming increasingly clear people like ‘Anonymous Anonymous’ must take responsibility for what they say as well.
About time.
The freedom to say what you believe about a subject of public interest is crucial to our democratic process. But saying what you think carries with it a responsibility.
Besides, you must stand up for what you believe in to ensure you and your ideas are respected. News organizations know that and are starting to return to it. So should people using the comments sections of news websites.
Rick MacLean is an instructor in the journalism program at Holland College in Charlottetown.
