To blog or not to blog…?
There is a short piece in today’s Sunday Life which quotes a Belfast City councillor accusing Slugger of “fanning the flames of sectarian hatred”. The thread that caught the councillor’s eye concerned the continuing attacks on Orange Halls across Northern Ireland.
Update: It seems I rather hastely ran to ‘print’ without checking whether or not the article was published. It was not. My apologies to all for the confusing arising
In that thread, an individual commenter left remarks which could have been construed as incitement to further attacks. They were brought to my attention by telephone, and removed before that conversation was ended.
We understand there is now a police investigation aimed at identifying precisely who made the remarks and to determine whether there was criminal intent behind them.
Before continuing, it is important to clarify something which the councillor’s remarks, if taken in isolation at least, might otherwise obscure. Broadly speaking, the blog is what is written above the line; comments are a ‘right of reply extended to the public as a courtesy.
It’s a crucial distinction, not least in law. We have guidelines for what is acceptable, and they bite a long way before we get near the legal line. But, partly as a result of this incident, we are working on toughening up the registration requirements for commenters in future.
There is generally a tendency of commenters to veer (sometimes at 180 degree) away from the original topic and into their own prefered territory. This is as true of some Slugger commenters as it is to those reading blogs on the Washington Post. Indeed, as Pete noted a couple of years back, Joel Achenbach considered his blog into have developed into two distinctive parts:
My contribution to the blog is what I call the “Kit.” The commenters’ part is called the “Kaboodle.” Some of the everyday Kaboodlers make references to “our blog,” as though they’re co-proprietors. It’s obvious at this point that the Kaboodle is trying to take over the blog. And it won’t stop with me: I can picture the Kaboodle rambling across the countryside, panting heavily, stomping through people’s gardens, tinkling on little kids’ tricycles, etc. The general trend in blogs seems to be the diminution of the blogger and the elevation of the commentariat.
On Slugger this tendency is particularly pronounced when it comes to discussing anything to do with Protestant culture, and in particular the Orange Order. Take this threaded commentary which came in response to blog on Mairtin O’Muilleoir’s determination to find good things to say about the Orange Order.
This, however, is not reflected in the blog output. It is true that not everything Slugger puts out on the Orange Order is supportive. It has been a critical player in some of the difficulties of Northern Ireland’s past, and there have been occasions when the behaviour of some of its members have not come up to, what are in theory, its own very high standards of civil tolerance.
But on this issue of attacks on Orange Halls Slugger has been rigorous in documenting the extent and the seriousness of each attack as they have occurred.
Last March we began a thread documenting all apparently sectarian attacks on churches, and communities. The prompt was a nasty attack on St Columcille’s Catholic Church in East Belfast, but it quickly became obvious the extent to which the Protestant, rather than the Catholic community was bearing the brunt of these often very low level attacks. S
Since then attacks have been reported in Maghera, Killygullib (2 in 10 days); urine attacks on a parade in Glengormley; three halls in South Derry; the 242nd attack since ’89 took place in Lurgan and brought condemnation from Sinn Fein, and the details of which were carried on Slugger. Fair Deal followed up with his own detailed analysis.
Attacks on a chapel in Bushmills and Orange Hall in West Belfast, were followed by attacks on two Protestant churches in South Derry. The Irish News reports all this has cost £4 Million in the previous five years. Then two more in South Armagh, another in Moy, and then a ABOD banner returned by Republicans.
Killygullib gets hit again. We report fifty attacks in three weeks. Sinn Fein councillor Dessie Ward condemns people intent on dragging us backwards. Still they keep happening, this time in Derry and Strabane. Which brings us the thread under discussion, simply noting a second attack on an Orange Hall in Portadown in 24 hours.
This is by no means all of the stories we’ve carried on this disturbing theme, but we’ve been very careful to make sure we’ve gathered as much of the detail as we could as things progressed.
That the issue has largely been ignored in public debate may be as much of a recognition that such sectarian attacks are extremely difficult to attack, not least since there is a widely held perception that for some bizarre reason, Catholics cannot be sectarian.
According to Malachi O’Doherty, it’s not a view that the late Cardinal O’Fiaich subscribed to. He “defined the mechanics of sectarianism in Northern Ireland for many when he said that Protestants were more sectarian in religion and Catholics were more sectarian in politics.”
One way of dealing with this all of this is to just to ignore it and pretend it’s not happening. We certainly would avoid the risk of putting Slugger into legal jeopardy. Another is to close debate on such controversial matters. Several thoughts previously noted on Slugger come to mind. One from the Polish artist Krystof Wodiczko:
“I left Poland in search of democracy and found it was more like a phantom always shifting and constantly lingering on the horizon. Once it is given to someone, it changes. In fact, it needs to be remade every day. It requires the consistent disruption of silences and the [utterance] of things that people do not want to hear.”
And Czeslaw Milosz from Pete’s post yesterday:
“What is articulated, strengthens. What is not articulated tends towards the non-being.”
Topic: Politics, Society and Culture
Region: Global, Northern Ireland
Sean, you are not the one in the dock. There are specifics around this case I cannot believe you would be familiar with.
In the interests of freedom of speech, I made the comment in question.
(I hope for a few ‘I’m Spartacus’ comments at this stage or I’m doing a stretch)
Are you serious frank. Are you the one at fault?
It’s the old debate again though, isn’t it? The cloak of anonymity certainly provides an area for people to divulge information that they would otherwise not entertain.
In my case, I didnt think that cloak of invisibility was strong enough, and I take serious care not to comment or blog on anything pertaining to either my line of work or my voluntary public sector roles. I dont think its appropriate to ‘spill the beans’ in such a manner, or to use confidential information to titillate the SoT minnions.
But that cloak can be used for darker purposes entirely, and that is the reason I feel that registration of some sort should be required. God knows I got enough s*** when I was blogging here, and half the stuff that was said to me would never have been uttered if a name had to be given at some point.
I dont think there should be public access to the contributor details, but committing your name should make you stop, think and act responsibly
No I didnt think I was Mick I am just saying if ever it occurs i dont cut and run
When you failed to link the appropriate article in the SL Mick, it soon become possible that this was a SOT ‘up the garden path’ moment.
But if it is as grave as you suggest surely, as what is being stated, you would be best not to interfer in something that is about to become a legal matter, despite the fact of the comment being withdrawn of the site.
All the same it has been a truly good thread despite some quips made, which was in response to the thought of being led up said path.
Yes, it was me.
(what did I say again?)
Whatever I said, I meant it and more.
I await the wrath of some Cllr, the Sunday Life and the PSNI.
So you can all give over about some stupid blog comment now?
DC,
For the sake of clarity (and I am genuinely sorry for misinforming people on the publication of the article), there was nothing in the prospective article that implied legal jeopardy. So far as I know our prompt action kept us from that.
It’s so easy to accuse Mick of intellectual cowardness, more or less, when you can sit back anonymously and will not have to face any bad music.
And back we come to:
a Belfast City councillor accusing Slugger of “fanning the flames of sectarian hatred”
There was a very clear allegation and you ignored it to prove how very certainly you aren’t negative about the OO.
You, Mick, you, as site owner fan those flames and you didn’t/haven’t challenged that crap once.
That’s the fear of the man for you and a demonstration of compliance.
Result: lock the site down. Some dopey unnamed Cllr proves by default Slugger is sectarian.
So freed from such constraints would you be at liberty to disclose who the Councillor is thought to be in relation to this piece that was never published? Despite the verb ‘is’ denoting that the actual has happened.
So if it’s not a case of a legal ‘uh-oh’ then this post is beginning to seem a bit la-la.
FS
“Any chance of letting us know which Cllr”
I don’t know which councillor
It does all seem a little strange that you would take pro-active action before the paper came out.
In honesty mick were you seeking the ‘protection’ that publicity can give you over a commentator?
Its all a little strange.
How would such a registration system work? It would surely be quite easy for me to set up a free email account under a bogus name and pop down to the nearest net cafe. Of course you could force people to provide a non-free i.e. work email account but many wouldn’t have that or would be prohibited in their jobs from using it to go online. Ultimately it’s a sure fire way for slugger to decline.
Wikipedia is a good parallel, there’s long been pressure there to ban non-registered users which thankfully hasn’t taken off as many of them contribute usefully and many people who do register vandalise the place. I’ve just reverted vandalism on there from a registered editor for example. The only real solution is to have an adequate number of moderators who can deal with any threats to the sites integrity at short notice.
Ha ha very funny, crikey it was just a thought!
me,
This is a demonstration of the value of comment zones on blogs.
A false media report, a series of links, a drive to change ethos – those in the comment zone tease out how little reality there is in a lengthy blog driven by fear of the MSM and hopefully end the drive to limit free speech in one tiny arena.
This story stops being an excuse.
must have been something to do with something that was said about yer man in the band.
Although i could be wrong.
You are right frank.
A few questions for Mick-
1) By 5.43pm today, had you really not checked the SL to see if the article in question had run?
2) As long as you responsibly maintain the site, removing offensive or potentially libellous comments within a reasonable time-frame and making it known that the policy of SOT is to do that, where is the legal liability? What are the precedents?
I’m sure you’ve had legal advice on this already. I’m pretty confident that you personally wouldn’t be legally responsible as long as you behaved as responsibly as possible and offensive comments are removed in a reasonable time.
3) Is this lengthy and obscure post simply designed to mollify a “City Councillor” who has made generalised assertions about the tone of your site? I’d find that hard to believe, and if it is true, I’d be very unimpressed.
Sorry for the interrogation but this is all very strange…..
Under both the influence and the impression that indeed something bizarre has happened in that this has been done to provoke thought on certain comments made in certain areas.
It is the commenter ‘me’ who should receive a personal email from Slugger offering perhaps a free trip to see Mick at some point as it is that person who went to great lengths to get the Sunday Life.
This thread should not have had to come about because of a potential police inquest. It should have came about to try and stamp out the anti Orange Order bigotry that has corrupted this site for too long. As I have said before Mick has attempted to address this issue in the past but I felt at the time he needed to put down stricter guidelines as to what is acceptable and what is not, it is clear muchh of what is said about the Orange Order on this site is both unfair and unacceptable.
However I must admit that at least Mick has attempted in the past to present the order in a more honest light. When viewing the anti OO rubbish on sites like Ourweecountry.co.uk (a terrible messageboard) it does illustrate that at least on this site moderators recognise there is a problem.
me whipped himself up into a frenzy despite my warnings that his head was going to explode.
I could be wrong but I would suspect that Mick would have been more wary of the police investigation rather than the overblown bombast by some councillor. I know I would.
Even though you have no case to answer, the investigation can be a hassle and Mick seems busy enough as it is.
Mick – what happened to the Anna Lo / Band parade thread? is there a connection with the other thing?
me,
Here’s what I know.
Someone made a comment on Slugger which I was contacted about, and I agreed tot take down. I did so willingly for no other reason than it contravened the Slugger commenting rules.
Then the PSNI were informed separately to that and took it seriously enough to initiate an investigation. That much is ‘true bill’. .
The next I hear is that a complaint has been lodged by a councillor to the effect that Slugger of “fanning the flames of sectarian hatredâ€.
Understandably, I was not happy about that. Particularly because we have been documenting, in a fairly objective and robust manner (unlike my ‘hot tip’ this evening), the reality of this anti-Protestant campaign, that not a campaign.
The truth is that all on-line discussion is ultimately circumscribed by law. That goes for me, and anyone who writes on Slugger. If it is a point of principle, I will happily go into defence. But I am not happy to stand over incitement.
And I am not best pleased by what looks like a crude and abortive attempt to characterise Slugger as something it clearly is not.
As long as you responsibly maintain the site, removing offensive or potentially libellous comments within a reasonable time-frame and making it known that the policy of SOT is to do that, where is the legal liability? What are the precedents?
Snakebrain
I can’t speak for Mick but I will address this point, the accusations were more in regard to perception than legal reprimands. Mick cannot allow this site to be exposed as an anti Protestant site i whcih narrow minded Naionalist bigots come on the vent their venom about all things Protestant, and to a point that is what has happened on this site.
Mick has rightly pointed out that he has started blogs in the past that have illustrated the bigotry that the Orange order has had to face. It also helps his case that one of his bloggers is an Orangeman.
Therefore what Mick has done is illustrate that topics have been impartial therefore he has fullfilled his obligations.
snakebrain,
I was informed that the article was to appear, but I did not check it before publishing the post above.
However, the detail in the post above was not intended to mollify anyone. It was to put allegations (that admittedly did not emerge directly into the public domain) into context.
Thanks Mick, I’m a nosy git, and in fairness I didn’t have to walk far. I’d like to state tho here and now, I wouldn’t like to see slugger shut down over such claims, and I’m sure you could do with out the hassle. We all have families and no one wants any nonsense like this hanging over us, I’m sure.
If the site is safe from whatever, and you personally is safe from whatever, and someone commented and did incite passions, then that person whould be held resposible and appropriately punished. But slugger is not sectarian, it does its best to cover both sides equally.
So I hope its sorted out for you.
All smoke no flames then…
I am non religious and not a member of any political party and I can’t see how anyone could say that Slugger is biased towards one side or other.
The fact that complaints are raised about bias from commenters on both sides says a lot.
Mick is standing up and defending his blog from false allegations.
Can’t we all accept that, at least.
“Mick is standing up and defending his blog from false allegations” from whom?
Time for the Magic 8-Ball. Give it a roll…it syas ‘cannot predict now’. Ok over to you Mick.
Outsider,
Indeed. And there are several other issues too.
One, I take a fair amount of heat in order to maintain a decent amount of free speech on Slugger.
Two, I rarely complain about same.
Three, if I have been overly sensitive about this particular matter it may be because Slugger (as opposed to me personally) has been diligent in highlighting what looks like a nasty, albeit low level, sectarian campaign against minority Protestant populations in Northern Ireland.
Four, with one exception, I have always blogged or commented in my own name. Whilst I don’t expect the same of all others, there is something about anonymity that goes to *some* people’s heads.
Night guys. I’ll continue this in the morning.
Joe
i agree this site probably comes s humanly possible to be unbiased, though complete unbias is impoosible, but to here some one come on here and claim its a nationalist site is looking through some orange coloured glasses
Outsider I hope the days of croppie lie down are over so get used to hearing people argue with you and your point of view, its the way of the future get used to it
Mike – I suspect you may be late for work in the morning – the Slugger clock seems to be on British Summer Time.
Sean
There is a difference between arguing and being sectarian and with very few Prods on this site most anti Protestant/Orange comments are allowed to go unchallenged.
very few Prods on this site
I find that hard to believe.
Joe
There are very few posters a handful at most
Yadda yadda ya, enough with this oul’ bollox, tell us the real “Sunday Papers” story, who’s the Royal with the liking for Colombian Harpic?
*I have never been arrested or even questioned formally*
Sean, you must have lived an extremely dull life.
Nonsense Outsider
Off the top of my head, regular posters include Turgon, Shore Road, Sam Hanna, PeaceandJustice, Willowfield, yourself……There are more.
And that’s just the one’s who declare themselves as Protestant.
Indeedy Harry, any ideas on where we can get the lowdown on that salacious bit of gossip?
Protestant upbringing would include myself. But like many I am an Irish Protestant – I have no religion.
Snakebrain
So few you can specifically name them and post of the members you mentioned are absent from many of the blogs.
Lack of Prods on this board is not a Catholic problem its just something for you all to be aware when making posts.
Rather ironically while discussing this issue on Sluggers homepage I noticed an advert for a site called http://www.catholicdating.com, it slogan is ‘Because faith matters’. I found that amusing I thought it was only us old prods who sought partners of the same religion.
*I thought it was only us old prods who sought partners of the same religion.*
Ever date a Muslim? Jesus, my bird had me down to the clinic to get me circumcised within a fortnight of going out with her (and no bacon sarnies either).
The Sunday Life report on the “tourist” Mr Kakopa is the real story.
Harry
No problems if you marry a Buddhist.
Doth matter a whit to misspell a word?
A word, like tit, three letters to wit.
Harry
Yeah kind of boring…never so much as tried any illegal drugs
Like a good brew though
But mostly i fly below the radar
I am not a criminal but neither do i particularily attempt to maintain and uphold the laws of the Dominion of Canada, I figure what they do not know wont hurt them lol
Outsider
atleast 75% of the Bloggers on here are from a unionist tradition how do you think this is a republican blog?
As for the oo thing the reason the comments are allowed to stand is because they are the truth and the truth shall set you free
*Harry
No problems if you marry a Buddhist.*
Aye, but you never have any decent rows with a Buddhist wife do you?
Arguing with a Muslim lass adds the frisson of excitement that she might actually cut your head off (or other bits!) if things don’t go her way.
Paid
Nue speling!
Join the Simplified Spelling Society.
Harry
Rows- “talokgarn” as its called here.Who needs rows.I get my cups of tea!