Yes, I fully agree. I chose the name DialectiBlue, which is also my Blog site, for a reason. Robust and challenging debate is healthy for any society.

However that debate must address the issue, not the person.

I fully agree too. Before so many people had access to the internet people used to write in to newspapers. This ensured a screening process and letters which were just a tirade of abuse were simply not published.

It also played a valuable role in making opinions more easily understood: often on the net one has to painstakingly plough through spelling errors which render thoughts ambiguous, grammar and syntax that thoroughly confuses, and misused or unused punctuation that leaves one completely at sea as to what the person is actually saying.

Whereas reading print forums actually could serve a semi-educational purpose in these respects, the net simply perpetuates and solidifies the inadequacies of lack of knowledge in these areas. When other posters try to help or advise they, in turn, are often trolled for doing so as if clarity of expression were an elitist concept.

I am at a loss really to know what is understood by trolling or flaming as so much of the content of on-line forums seems to belong in these categories yet is allowed to stand, regardless of the damage it can cause to people's psyches. I have been thoroughly shocked by comments on OLO such as "You are a retard" which, overlooking the inanity and childishness of such comment, is unacceptable on more than one level.

I was thinking of Foxy while reading this article.

Foxy manages to show the rest of us how to write well reasoned, polite and erudite posts. And for simply doing so, she has been flamed by a certain collection of posters who fit exactly Daphne's description of the troll or defamer.

We can all learn to use our words more wisely and the resultant increase in communication and understanding would be immeasurable. Oh who am I kidding? only myself...

Well yes and no. One's persons robust debate has another screaming 'defamation'.

There have been some posts on OLO that have made me blanch but they tend to come from a small unrelated 'collective' of whackos who trott out the same old lines and who push vendettas.

They hide behind their posts and go for the man or woman rather than the central theme of an article.

Even so, I have not read a statement here (OLO) that was truly defamatory. You'd have to name the person or others reading the post would have to know the person by innuenedo. There would also have to be a 'sting' to that person's reputation - imputed in some form in the minds of right thinking people. A tough one.

There should be honest, vibrant and hard hitting debates but if a minority of individuals are motivated by malice against a specific person, it's best not to turn on the computer.

Cheryl,

That's because they get deleted. You can see, oh now you cant, Fractelle, CJ Morgan and my own posts on another thread. Not sure whos handy work it is, but I'm glad there isn't any more posts about my mother on OLO.

BTW: I think for transparency the system should display a note in place of the deleted posts (and who requested them to be deleted) after they are removed.

I was on my way out of OLO for good anyway, but with this further risk of me/my arguments being misrepresented or misconstrued by the missing content I am even happier with my decision. I wanted to advise others of this problem though.

1)

Some interesting responses here...

Daphne Haneman, I would love to know a little more about you and what you have had printed in what journal/magazine/newspaper?

I'm interested in what motivated your comments here, and would REALLY like to know who your 'legal expert' was?

I'm inclined to agree with Cheryl's comment. It really DOES depend on one's own political and personal allegiance's as to what constitutes 'flaming' and 'trolling'. Jargonese that I have never quite come to terms with for the same reasons;-it is in the eye of the beholder.

If the basis of 'Freedom of Speech' is the inalienable right to say whatever one feels, then I am against FoS. I'm against it because it simply cannot exist. Posts HAVE been removed on OLO;- NONE of us has the right to say to another I'm going to kill you; and then exercise a 'freedom of expression'!! It doesn't happen (excluding the criminal element),-because it cannot be allowed to happen! Thus the so-called FoS concept is false; we have, by sheer civilized human behaviour perimeters to our FoS and associated behaviour.

My point is this. Within reason (see above!), we ARE monitored. That is what laws are for!
I have seen nothing on this topic that convinces me that what is offensive to some is based on a personal rather than a general opinion.

It is in my view, petty and sniping to refer to "certain other posters". That in itself breeds a negative attitude in that it leaves posters wondering if they were the individuals referred to!

Tbc.,

2)

What constitutes offensive behaviour to one, may not be so to others.
I remain disgusted at what I saw as two totally racist posts.

Not so it seems..It didn't offend most of you did it?
I handed them to those who were being vilified;-if they seek no further action, then OK. Either they chose not to, OR they did not find such rubbish offensive.

It is a matter of PERSONAL opinion what constitutes 'bad' behaviour online.

Posts that are considered to be defamatory or GROSSLY offensive....., or quite frankly;-posts that the website owner finds offensive WILL be deleted. They have been.

This is a mature and strong debating site, not a kindergarten.
One man's meat may well be another man's poison. It is a personal decision as to which is which.

And it is a personal choice to cope with that, or go and find a kindergarten.

I have some problems with the concept of defamation. I think it can be a tool for suppressing radical thought.

Having said that I am in a bind as I would suppress fascist material precisely because it is intended to lead to genocidal action.

I suspect, but don't know without more research, that defamation around among the landed gentry where a name - Lord such and such - had a real monetary value and defamation undermined that value. Or maybe that is just me going off on a tangent.

I do remember when a mainstream media outlet defamed me (in my opinion). I took no action. Fair enough I thought. If they want to say that that's fine. I pointed out their error and because they were clearly wrong they published a correction. End of story. If they had been right? Truth seems good enough for me.

I think a lot of abuse on these sites is harmless. It is a substitute for thought and allows people to blow off steam without blowing other people away.

I must admit however it can be wearing when what you actually want is something approaching an intelligent discussion about important events. But among the dross there are some wonderful diamonds.

Thank you for writing this, Daphne, I’m so glad someone has. Early in my posting here, I was pursued by another poster within OLO. There were a few of us he went after, but it seems I was his “favourite”. I snapped back once and he went away. I haven’t seen him again, or posts that resemble his.

What I have seen, though, is a degree of stridency, aggression and “playing of the man” that is offensive and counterproductive. I’ve also seen that many seem to rejoice in the disagreement for its own sake. I’m afraid I don’t know what “flaming” and “trolling” are.

Sometimes I can’t tell if the stridency and aggression are intended to offend. Just because intentions are not transparent. Unfortunately, some people just speak like that. I understand robustness, and I appreciate passion. None of these means that courtesy needs to be jettisoned.

The other problem is that the behaviour is distracting, and takes everyone’s eyes off the topic. Posters can then get their antlers in a tangle, and the thread descends into a fight.

Some posters (not sure how many) are actually willing to seek common ground, or even change their mind, but very few. So few that I have noticed very little productivity from most discussions. A simple example: If A says three things and B disagrees with the last one, B is likely to launch into the last one. It’s a shame because an opportunity to recognise that agreement has been reached on points one and two is lost.

Many of us simply contradict and repeat, and then escalate with attitude rather than content. So, I think some are here for the joy of disagreement.

Pity, and a waste of a lot of smarts. The other thing I’ve been impressed by on OLO is the astonishing level of knowledge that exists here, as well as rigour in debate. We could do some good, if we wanted to.

Pax,