Our Commenting Policy: No Tolerance for Threats
by Jodi Jacobson, Editor in Chief, RH Reality Check
November 19, 2010 - 6:53pm (Print)
To our readers:
In late September, as noted in a post by Brady, we changed our commenting policy and added features that enable our readers to rate comments, so that those from people who consistently disrupt or deflect conversations with comments not germane to the topic, persistently argue the same points over and over, or use abusive or threatening language can be easily identified. We have tried to develop a sensible plan of warning repeat offenders before banning them, as we prefer to allow wide latitude for the open expression of ideas and for communities engaged on the site to be true to who they are.
Recently, we received communications from a long-time reader that a regular commenter on our site, who has been consistently rated as a troll, threatened the reader with physical violence. The offending party implied knowledge of where the reader lived and "tracking" the reader down. The offending party also posted notes on other sites calling for other anti-choice and so-called men's rights advocates to visit--or more precisely, troll--RHRC and counter-rate the comments on the site so that offensive posts are not marked as trolls.
We do not and will not tolerate threats to any individual or person. We have taken the step not only of banning this person, but all the persons whose screen names were included as "supporters" in the offending person's posts on other sites asking people to troll RHRC.
We will now consistently ban anyone who receives a low rating from other readers over a period of time. We also will take appropriate action in cases where this might be needed to consult with authorities, should we find our readers encountering threats.
Threats, threatening, abusive, or demeaning language are not acceptable on our site. There is a line between vigorous, even passionate debate, and abuse, threats and intimidation. We will not tolerate any of these.
Jodi Jacobson
Follow Jodi Jacobson on Twitter, @jljacobson
Thanks Jodi and Brady.
One commenter asked, "Why don't you use your real name(s)?, implying we had something to hide or were ashamed of. (I think it was Kevin, who was later banned.) Threats from the MRAs, extreme anti-choicers, etc., is precisely why I (we) use screen names. I'm not hiding behind a screen name but I need to be safe. Knowing that RHRC has a commenting policy that has no tolerance for abuse or threats helps feel more safe and allows for discussion in the RHRC community.
I sound like a broken record with this statement, I really appreciate the community here. I've learned a lot from the regular commenters. In a world often dominated by sexist media and the FOX News types, RHRC is a welcome oasis of real journalism and a community of knowledgeable folks. Thanks. (Sorry for the sappiness.)
~ Thank you, it is the pro-rape people that is really vile.~
We will now consistently ban anyone who receives a low rating from other readers over a period of time . . . There is a line between vigorous, even passionate debate, and abuse, threats and intimidation. We will not tolerate any of these.
I agree that debate should not include threats. But I feel that most, if not nearly all, comments that advocate a pro-life (or even a non pro-choice viewpoint) routinely get low ratings regardless of how well thought out or articulate they are. It seems the comment rating system is just a short way to "agree" or "disagree" with the commenter. Which is fine (I'm sure even this comment wil get it's share of low rankings). After all, this is a pro-choice website so obviously most readers will disagree with me. But correct me if I am mistaken.
Won't banning users with consistent low rankings result in the banning of many pro-life advocates, regardless of whether they are abusive or not. And if pro-life advocates are banned, won't that stifle the passionate debate this site encourages? How can there be passionate debate unless both sides are present?
kudos, DerekP
Derek,
We have consistently allowed--and in fact have defended--rigorous debate at RHRC by those who oppose women's rights to bodily integrity and to choose whether and when to have a child, with whom, and under what circumstances.
We will continue to do so. We will, however, use the rating system as a more indicative guide --among other factors-- as to when and where to monitor comments and when they cross the line into abuse, intimidation, threats, OR those who, as we have stated earlier, persistently derail discussion on articles by taking them off their topic.
In short, we have blanket authority, but will continue to use it judiciously. We have always had that authority and have always erred on the side of allowing as great as possible latitude for speech and opinion, even when I or others vehemently disagree with the poster. We will not and can not tolerate the consistent use of the comments section by people who intimidate, threaten, abuse, or derail. You can argue points all you want: stay on point, speak to the issue, don't threaten, stigmatize, or stereotype people, and no matter how your comments are rated, you will retain your privileges here.
We always have and will continue to use discretion. We simply have a lower threshold at this point than we have used in the past.
thank you.
jodi
DerekP - Please be respectful of RHRC's commenting policy. It is their website and they have every right to establish and enforce a commenting policy. The change to the policy protects you as well. If I made a threatening comment towards you I would expect the site moderators to delete the comment and possibly ban me for abuse. I wish to engage in a dialog here and do not want myself or anyone to be violently threatened, which as recently happened here - hence the change in the policy.
I think if you follow Jodi's advice, "stay on point, speak to the issue, don't threaten, stigmatize, or stereotype people, and no matter how your comments are rated, you will retain your privileges here." you will be able to continue to continue to comment at RHRC. They have allowed for rigorous debate and have allowed dissenting comments to remain without censorship.
You may want to look at this thread for reference, http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/11/17/huffpos-divorce-section-room-reason-domestic-violence.
I have never threatened anyone on this site and do not condone anyone else engaging in such behavior. My only concern was in Jodi's previous post that she mentioned people with consistently low ratings will be banned. If people are banned because they are threatening, or off topic, or just trolling, then I am perfectly fine with that. If people are banned however, simply because their comments are always voted down and everyone disagrees with them, then that will stifle debate. From the clarification I see here in the comment section I take Jodi at face-value that civil commenters with dissenting views will not be banned just because people disgaree with them, and I appreciate that. I hope all commenters, pro-life and pro-choice, will, in her words, "stay on point, speak to the issue, [and not] threaten, stigmatize, or stereotype people,"
I have never threatened anyone on this site and do not condone anyone else engaging in such behavior.
Direct threats are not common although, as usual, I see no 'pro-life' posters trying to correct their brethern when threats do occur . The other behaviors she mentions are intimidation and abuse. You have ignored those entirely in your response so I bolded them.
Direct intimidation is not very common, although more than a few times I've watched 'pro-life' posters trying to pry personal information out of someone here. Abuse, however, is very, very common and because it is not only common to see verbal abuse here it's also common to see 'pro-life' men and women ignore the abusive behaviors of their brethern or even tag team and encourage it, I can only assume that such behaviors are a common and acceptable form of entertainment within the 'pro-life' subculture.
I can only assume that such behaviors are a common and acceptable form of entertainment within the 'pro-life' subculture.
That sounds a little like the stereotyping that Jodi urged me and other pro-life advocates to not take part in. I'm all in favor for people not being abused in the comments section, but I'm not sure what you mean by the term. If it means to "harshly or unduly criticize, including making ad hominems" then I think pro-life advocates need to stop that. But so do the pro-choice posters on this site. Pro-lifers shouldn't equate the pro-choice position with being pro-abortion. Conversely, I don't think it's fair to describe the position of being opposed to legal abortion with the inflammatory label "pro-rape," which does come up in the comments now and then.
We should all just treat each other in comments the way we ourselves would want to be treated. Thoughtful correction is fine, abusive name-calling is not, for both sides.
DerekP, you seem to have ignored everything else she said, and narrowly focussed on the one part you knew you could take issue with. None of us have ever seen a ProLifer condemn the actions of the ProLifers who did use such language, including yourself. That is JUST as abusive as actually coming out and saying it, as several other posters have already pointed out.
I'll give you a clue in the following why we consider ProLifer's language abusive when they even mention trying to deny a woman the choice to abort or continue a pregnancy and maybe (just maybe) why we equate forced/unwanted gestation with rape (forced/unwanted sex)
Forced usage of one's reproductive organs = forced usage of one's reproductive organs. Now, did I just say rape = forced gestation or forced gestation = rape? Can't tell the difference, can you? Ever wonder why that is...? Probably because one is no different from the other. Denying a woman the right to determine who uses her body and when and how it is used by denying her the ability to have an abortion, is the same as denying a woman the right to determine who uses her body and when and how it is used by denying her the ability to consent to sex. Except that one affects her physical health and her life far more and is of much longer duration than the other. I'll give you two guesses to tell me which one is the former, the first one doesn't count.
As LPA once said, there is a reason why one of the commenters' names on this board is Forced birth is RAPE.
“Conversely, I don't think it's fair to describe the position of being opposed to legal abortion with the inflammatory label "pro-rape,"”
~ I have had to anticipate unwanted vaginal pain, have you DerekP? You are not even a woman, you do not get to say what is and is not fair when discussing forced pregnancy and forced birth. Any object in my vagina at any time or place I do not want it there is rape! I have lived this DerekP.
You think it is a pregnant females job to have extreme unwanted vagina pain to (in your opinion) save a life. I know from my own experience there is no ever good reason to force something or someone to be in a females body against her will, using a females body against her will, terrorizing her with anticipation of future unwanted vagina pain against her will, and then causing her unwanted vagina pain against her will.
I know from the women I know, and have known, saying (have known) because one died at eighteen from an ectopic pregnancy, that pregnancy and birth is unpredictable, and birth is “VAGINALLY VIOLENT!” But that is nothing you have to worry about phyiscally is it DerekP. It is very easy for “you” and men like you to say yeah, sure, women should stay pregnant against her will and then have vagina pain against her will. That pleases me a man.
If a woman has custody of her own body she can say “no”, I will not have sex against my will. If a woman has custody of her own body she can say “no” I will not be pregnant and give birth against my will. Being able to say no in regards to her own vagina is the number one blessing a female can have.
You don’t understand female “rape” because you are “not” a female.
I do not like pro-lifers any more then I like the rapist I knew when I was little.
Not only do you want to tell women their business in regards to pregnancy, birth, and abortion, now you want to tell females their business in regards to rape, typical pro-life arrogant man. I do not say things I do not believe, forced birth is sadomasochistic RAPE. ~
This may not mean much coming from me, but I am sorry you were raped. Our society does not take rape seriously and I think rapists need to be punished much more than they currently are (if they are even punished at all). I'm also sorry for the stigma you and other survivors of rape go through. That should have never happened to you and on behalf of men who often don't treat women they way they should be treated, I am sorry.
Thank you Derek, This is the first time I've seen a 'pro-life' man say something here that sounded sincere and respectful to women about rape.
Most 'pro-life' discussions about rape are AT BEST 99.9 % lectures about how women and pregnant children really should gestate any pregnancies that are the result of rape. Occasionally we see someone like Kevin Raine suggesting that the way to stop rape in the military is to prevent women from joining the military and at least one poster here (faulteroy) has admitted to being a rapist.
Thank you, Jodi!
