(RSS)
Free speech goes to court
Among the child custody issues, domestic disputes, restraining orders and other typical family law cases, one very unusual, potentially precedent-setting free speech court hearing barely made a ripple today in the packed Shasta County Superior Court.
I was there to report the outcome of a temporary restraining order filed last month by Christy Lochrie, Record Searchlight reporter, against Beth Norby, an environmental consultant.
Norby created a satirical Web site, No Phat & Pink Chicks, about Lochrie’s very real Record Searchlight blog, Phat & Pink.
Lochrie’s order called for Norby to: “Cease harassing blog site and cease comments on Christy Lochrie’s Redding.com blog and any other comments that relate to Christy Lochrie in an online format.”
It’s a mad, mad, mad world when a journalist - a quasi public figure no less -orders such a broadly worded cease and desist upon a private citizen’s ability to express satire and opinions. And so broadly.
Talk about chilling. Talk about frightening ramifications.
“It seems that when you can’t voice dissent with the media, we have a big problem,” Norby said today before the hearing. “But when the media hunts you down for dissenting comments, there is a very serious problem.”
The judge didn’t rule on Lochrie’s restraining order - which, by the way, was previously denied pending today’s hearing - but moved it to trial for Feb. 13.
So many crucial issues are at stake in this unusual case: satire, blogs, self expression, opinion, the Internet, but mostly, the First Amendment and free speech.
For all.
Not just journalists.
Don’t expect coverage of this story in the Record Searchlight.
Do expect coverage of this story here. Stay tuned.
694 views
If she can’t stand the heat then she should get out of the kitchen. And maybe if she was a better cook and stopped poisoning her friends people wouldn’t complain so much…I don’t know how much farther I can take this metaphor.
Reply
Taking friends to court to air dirty laundry is so daytime TV. While I’m glad the restraining order has been denied for now, I hope for the sake of all parties involved that a resolution is reached in private before it goes to trial.
Reply
Is it worth giving more publicity to either of these people?
Reply
This is a very chilling story in terms of First Amendment Rights. And the potential precedent it could set is enormous. I think it’s important to shine a light on a sordid tale like this in terms of serving as a watchdog to preserve these rights.
Reply
Oh, so it was Beth Norby who started that blog? Hmmm, interesting.
I am all for free speech, trust me. But I agree with Jeff. Beth’s blog, for lack of better words, is just plain nasty and vindictive. Christy’s blog isn’t really worth reading anyway.
Too bad Beth couldn’t take the high road here. Or here’s another idea: don’t talk to Christy Lochrie and she won’t have anything to put in her blog.
Reply
Puuhhleese! The RS defending their ability to slander at will, but not equal rights for the slandered? Hahahahahahaha! But wait… maybe it’s not so funny… I think I’ve experienced this before….
I’m sure we all know that there is only one side that is right and no matter what, it is always the RS. Their interpretation, of course.
Reply
Deb, if it’s in print, it’s called libel. Slander is spoken, not written.
For the record, I worked with Doni at the R-S many years ago, and I NEVER libeled anybody (yes, I was a reporter, which I don’t like admitting now because people HATE reporters, even more than they hate lawyers or used car salesmen). Contrary to popular belief, not every reporter at the R-S is hellbent on ruining lives. I was just trying to make a living, writing stories that my editors TOLD me to and trying not to piss anyone off. That is easier said than done, believe me.
I wish those in the community who are so “anti-reporter” could spend one day in a reporter’s shoes. It is a hard job, and one that I did NOT find rewarding in any way. Reporters at the R-S are not paid well, have to deal with a ton of crap from their bosses and community members and work under stifling deadlines.
It is unfortunate that Christy felt she needed to write things in her blog that upset others. That is definitely a great way to alienate people and lose friends.
Reply
i have read christy lochrie’s blog and find her to be droll, among other things. she stands on the sidelines and whines about her childhood and her mother’s breakdown. this is the stuff of jerry springer. shouldn’t her mother’s problems have remained her mother’s? if you want to air dirty laundry, do it someplace else, not the newspaper. besides, how terrible could her life had been, when she had a national treasure for an uncle? christy is a sad, lonely, and somewhat mentally shortsided individual. she saw no love from her mother, just her faults - she liked the ocean, the sand, enjoli perfume, worked for a living…….maybe not the perfect life, but it was a life and she should have grown and learned from that experience. good for me i am not related to her. gooder for me is that i will never read her blog again, and today was the first day that i had read it. when they were cleaning house at the wretched flashlight, was she hiding in the closet? she should have been the first sweep out the door.
Reply
Some of my favorite friends are journalists and writers, so I don’t share the antipathy that I suppose some people might feel. The few times I’ve been interviewed for a story for the RS in the past, the journalists were professional and polite and seemed very interested in writing an accurate story that was a service to readers.
I’ve never read Lochrie’s blog, myself. Given how much material there is to read these days, a blog has to be something really special to catch my attention. But blogging and the comments that readers are now able to post in response to them (as well as news stories) have completely changed the landscape of journalism, as well as the balance of power, which journalists who want to continue to work in the field are going to have to figure out how to deal with gracefully. I don’t have any patience for vindictive, intentionally destructive comments and don’t feel they have a place anywhere, in print or spoken. I’m glad that there are systems in place to remove offensive comments online. However, whereas it used to be that reporters could publish their stories without readers being able to publicly respond (except in a letter to the editor, and only a fraction of those could practically be published), that’s no longer the case. If a reporter is getting lots of flack from readers, that should serve as information to that reporter, information that they should use to evaluate their work. And if a writer isn’t willing to receive feedback, they are in the wrong profession.
Again, I’m not that familiar with Lochrie’s work, nor the site that is satirizing her, but I find it very disturbing that any reporter would be tracking down those who post and trying to intimidate them, in addition to pursuing an even more disturbing course, which is an effort to set a legal precedent that would curtail free speech and freedom of the press. The irony is mind-boggling. I deeply value the rights that are guaranteed us by our constitution. Occasional abuse of these rights, or the occasional abnegation of the responsibility that goes with these rights, is no reason to undermine them. I agree with JoeD; if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Journalism will never be the same again, not with the advent of the Internet. And those who are unable to adapt should find work that suits them better. It’s NOT an easy job; Michelle is right about that.
Reply
Michelle,
sorry, I didn’t make the distinction. I’ve been the victim of both, so it makes little difference to me. They both have the same effect on peoples lives and generally go hand-in-hand.
I’m definitely not anti-reporter, I really like several that are still there and have been friends with several that are no longer there. Many I really respect for their lack of bias and knowledge of their subjects. Only a couple that I won’t talk to.
I had a 20 year, on and off relationship with employment at the RS and saw first hand how editorial policies varied with the management. Some editors were hell-bent on destroying as many peoples lives as they could, some just didn’t care and some carefully considered the ramifications of what they did. Same with reporters. Some cultivated their sources, made thorough investigations and carefully reported just the facts, some would use statements out of context just to make a headline.
Truthfully, I really can’t figure out what the goal of the current management is, unless it’s to destroy all credibility the RS has left.
Reply
I’m with Barbara…#3 Comment. Let’s take the high road!
Reply
Doni,
Jonthan Swift wrote satire, as did Aristophanes. Stephen Colbert’s writers are satirists. Beth Norby’s site is not satire, it is 5th grade potty humor and it is libelous. I noticed that you interviewed Beth Norby but not Christy Lochrie. This is hardly fair and balanced reporting even by the low standards of such exemplars as say Fox News.
Reply
I guess I go back to the principle, which is Freedom of Speech.
What if you had a blog and you wrote about you rough day with your boss, co-worker, spouse, children, etc?
What about the forums that are great consumer sites that offer consumer reviews, such as epinions and cruise critic? If I gave my opinion about my cruise on say, Princess and Princess didn’t like, could I then be sued?
This issue is far more important then the personalities involved.
Reply
I agree with Rick about the level of humor in Norby’s blog, but I don’t see anything libelous. The only untrue things I’ve seen are so outrageous that no reasonable person would consider them to be true (which the courts have used as a test for libel since Hustler Magazine v Jerry Falwell)
But until Norby is ordered to shut down her blog (something to which the judge has clearly shown aversion), I fail to see the story.
Reply
Nick and Barbara,
At first I was with you. I even thought this article bordered on the muckraking Doni wished to avoid at the Record Searchlight, especially since Christy Lochrie made those comments about Doni after her exit. But after some more thought, I came to a different conclusion. Not everyone will go through the legal hassles to fight something like this, so I think even attempts to suppress free speech are still newsworthy.
Reply
I do agree that this is an important issue and frightening in possible ramifications to free speech in the press/on the internet/for bloggers (of which I am one). Still, I believe the participants to be less interested in a fair outcome than in the attention the entire issue garners.
Reply
Doni,
You’ll forgive me, I hope, for questioning your motives in this one-sided account. Had you chosen to talk with me or referenced – public record – court documents, you might have found that my request for a restraining order is not simply about a Web site, but is about six months of harassment and three threatening incidents at a Redding hamburger restaurant. It’s about an escalating trend that alarms me and that, at the urging of a Redding Police Department police officer, has me seeking court order protection.
If you’ll bear with me, I’d like to tell you a – brief – story that shapes some of my thinking. When I lived in Virginia with my ex-husband, I was called an an alternate juror on a Federal case. The U.S. was trying several family members and a small group of their friends after they allegedly burned down a black woman’s house.
The woman had recently moved into the all-white rural area. Shortly after building her dream home, a neighboring family took issue with her presence. They and their friends taunted her. They left her anonymous notes. They painted baby dolls black, beheaded them and left them at her front door. They broke out her windows. And, eventually, they burned down her house.
I remember the woman crying uncontrollably on the witness stand as she recounted months of anonymous harassment, although she suspected who was behind it.
I wonder, Doni, if things might have been different for this woman if she had the strength, courage and wherewithal to dig in, prove who was behind the after-dark, anonymous harassment and use her legal right to request court order protection from her would-be arsonists.
And you’ll forgive me, Doni, if I don’t want to find out what would have happened in my case. You’ll forgive me, I hope, for requesting court order protection in an attempt to avert further escalation. And you’ll forgive me, I hope, for questioning the motives in your one-sided reporting.
Best wishes,
Christy Lochrie
Reply
Ok, I’m going to express an opinion here. I am not a lawyer, nor especially well read on the law. Having said that, it seems to me that Ms. Lochrie’s approach was wrong-headed. She should NOT have attempted to restrain anyone from blogging about her. As a journalist, it has to be a VERY uncomfortable position to restrict anyone’s freedom of speech. If she has been defamed or slandered, bringing action on those grounds would seem more appropriate, wouldn’t it?
Reply
Christy,
If what you’ve claimed is true, then I do not find fault with getting a restraining order against Beth Norby (both in person and from making harassing comments on your blog). But what gives you the right to try and stop her from blogging?
Reply
Oh give me a break, Christy. There are flat out lies in your public record restraining order request. It’s always pleasant when a reporter actually lies on the public record. However, that’s what attorney’s a paid to do. To set the record straight. I was hoping we were going to end this, and both return peacefully to our corners of the mud wrestling rink. However, it apparently is not over until the Phat and Pink lady sings, and gets her day to cry in court. Good for you. More crocodile tears. Oh, and by the way, I will be glad to stay completely and far, far away from you. Please do the same when you see me and do not talk to me, or yell at me, the next time you see me in In & Out Burger. Please do not invite me to talk to you at your table ever, ever again!
Christy, I do believe the reason that Doni did not interview you is that you completely stabbed her in the back after she left the Record Searchlight. Emotions would have run a little high had the two of you attempted to engage in a civil discourse. Since you and I sure couldn’t engage in a civil discourse at In & Out Burger, I can only guess what would have happened if Doni had talked to you. Would you have yelled at her to “LEAVE, LEAVE, LEAVE!” like you yelled at me??? Oh yes, that’s very civil and mature of a reporter to yell at someone in a public restaurant.
Apologies, Doni. I just needed a little more mud wrestling on-line. I’ll keep my comments on my own blog from here on out. And for anyone who is tired of this mud wrestling affair, I apologize that it may continue for a while. See you all on the blogosphere: http://www.nophatpinkchicks.blogspot.com
Reply
A reminder here.
Free speech is one of the cornerstones of an open society and the discussion here is important, but please remember to maintain a civil discussion with no personal attacks.
Thank you ,
Bruce
Reply
Christie Lochrie asks for forgiveness 4 times in her email, although in my opinion it’s for all the wrong reasons.
If I might suggest a better reason for Lochrie to beg forgiveness:
For the acts of intentional, malicious defamation committed on her Record Searchlight blog during several blatant attempts to punish people (most of them former friends) who didn’t share her opinion or criticized her judgment and lack of writing skill.
Here is a reporter who feels it is her right to publish a blog with negative opinions and criticisms of other people for the world to read, but believes no one else should be allowed to publish a negative opinion or criticism of her. That if she writes it, it is the truth. That if someone else writes it, it is malicious defamation. That if she writes it, she’s just doing her job. That if someone else writes it, it is harassment.
This is a pretty blatant double standard. I can’t imagine a judge that would grant Lochrie’s request, because a double standard violates the basic maxim of jurisprudence, which is that all parties should stand equal before the law.
I suggest Lochrie look up the definition of antisocial personality disorder and understand what her behavior looks like to others. Not many sociopaths seek treatment, so chances are slim that someone with this disorder will start taking responsibility for their foibles, learn from their mistakes, or will be able to build personal relationships that aren’t violated. It alarms me that someone like this is a member of the media and using the press to engage in this kind of behavior, or even worse, that the newspaper may be encouraging it.
Reply
Well said Toni.
Reply
Wow, Toni! Whoever you are, thank you! Well written, well stated and right on! And as they say in court, “No further comments, Your Honor!”
Reply
I was in court that very day myself regarding an exceedingly important Child Custody issue.
I have to - in Christie’s defense - state that she does not have the corner on the market of Sociopathy, Narcissistic Personality Disorders and bridge burning… Family & Court Mediation and most of our Judges beat her to it a LONG time ago. Institutionalized laziness, fraternal collusion, ego investment and Agrarian default (gender-based partisanship) seem largely the norms for legal matters in Shasta County. The only people who really benefit are most of the equally fat, WAY overpaid & lazy (but arguably necessary at times) lawyers.
I do pray that a clear-headed jurist will be hearing the case. If so, I think Toni’s logic is dead on target! From what I can tell, it is ‘Free Speech’ that is on trial here and not the understandable bitterness between the parties. It inherently deserves discussion. ALWAYS! It is one of the few truly valuable things that our children will inherit after we’re dust.
It is so sad for me to say here, that (similar to my hero, Ed Hefflefinger), my daughter did not benefit from the family courts’ nor “mediation’s” empty mantra of “Best Interest of the Child” AGAIN. My attorney did however… and my daughter’s ‘best interests’ have been delayed until April.
WELL DONE Toni!! Well done…
Reply
I think that this entire situation has bee mischaracterized as an issue of freedom of speech. The legal action taken by Ms. Lochrie has more to do with months of anonymous harrassment and intimidation. Some of this harrassment has been of a sexual nature. Beth Norbie appears to have a very pathological obsession with Ms. Lochrie. What else would explain the tremendous effort that she has gone to ind designing and a website to mock her and then continuing to produce such prolific content. This vendetta all started becasue Beth Norbie did not like being mentioned in Ms. Lochrie’s blog which referenced an aborted, inane, and misdirected stunt that she contemplated perpetrating on the owners of Billy Bombay Nightclub
Reply
Hi Oxolatl, or whatever your name is. My name is Large Marge, and I’m the one who took offense to the “No Fat Chicks” statement that was in deed stated on the radio by an owner of Bombay’s during their Cinco De Mayo opening broadcast. Multiple people in this lovely town of ours heard the statement on the radio. In fact, multiple people have walked up to me, out of the blue, to tell me they heard the statement on the radio.
If Christy Lochrie had done her job as a reporter, and properly reported and interviewed all those parties involved, she would have found the TRUTH of the matter. Therefore, since she didn’t get the story right, I’ll begin the process of telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on my blog(s) in the next few days.
Also, just to set the public record straight, I am also the one who received a personal, sincere apology from the owner of Bombay’s who admitted to me that he had made a mistake when I visited his bar last June dressed as Large Marge (ah, and about 5 friends witnessed his personal apology as well).
I am also the one who benefited from his kindness, and a free beverage that evening. The young man was sincerely apologetic, and I immediately forgave him for doing something that he admittedly regretted doing. It was not his finest moment, but he learned from it and won’t be doing again (hopefully). At least he had the guts to look my in the eye, swallow his pride, and apologize. And for that, I am deeply grateful.
P.S. Oxolatl, you might want to think about using spell checker if you want to be taken seriously….
Reply
I found this commentary interesting from firstamendmentcenter.org
Blog-mob mentality punishes freedom of speech
Inside the First Amendment
By Paul K. McMasters
First Amendment Center
02.27.05
Take a stroll down Main Street USA and you’ll find people of all ages and persuasions putting on a veritable fashion parade of freedom. We don’t just practice free speech, we wear it.
T-shirts, caps, shoes, jackets, designer labels and the occasional tattoo boldly announce in word, design and color our choice, our message, our cause, our team – our Statement.
And when we take to the road, we do so in rolling billboards, vehicles festooned with bumper stickers, vanity plates and ribbons of every hue embracing every cause. We drive what we say.
Then there’s the Internet, where we really speak our minds. We have e-mail, instant messaging, chat rooms, personal Web pages and, now, our own newspaper/radio-TV station, the Web log or “blog.”
Full-throated expression is our style. We are America. Hear us roar!
Funny thing. For all of that celebration of free and fulsome speech for ourselves, many of us waste a lot of that precious commodity denying it to others. “America,” we say, “shut up!”
There was a time before America when the mob spoke for the village. Anyone who thought differently was quickly driven out – or worse. America and the First Amendment were supposed to be a rebuke to that sort of churlishness.
Nevertheless, civil discourse today is in short supply, regularly savaged by talk radio and cable punditry. On the Internet, flame wars have given way to the blog-mob mentality, where a small but vocal number of vigilantes, armed with virtual pitchforks, rakes and cudgels, prowl the ether world in search of offense and offenders. Without much discrimination, they march on both rant and reason and flay both the unworthy and the brave.
The rather clear message for anyone who attracts the attention of the blog-mob: Never, ever get into a shouting match with someone who buys bytes by the giga.
The vast majority of bloggers, of course, prove the value of democratic freedoms. They produce a prodigious flow of vital information and ideas and serve as a check on traditional media.
But there are a few who are not content to disagree with or to criticize the speech. They must punish the speaker. Lynch a reputation. Lop off a job. The major media flock to the spectacle, their massive wing beats fanning the furor.
Blogging, it must be pointed out, is only the latest technique applied to an old tradition. We’ve seen the distrust and destruction fostered in our society by the McCarthyites, the white supremacists, the religious zealots and others who have exploited fear and ignorance for power and punishment – or a cheap thrill.
But no matter the technique or target, when controversial speakers are shouted down or denied a forum, a democratic compact is disturbed. An opportunity for the speakers to clarify, refine, put in context or even disavow their remarks is lost. So is the opportunity for the opponents to engage and rebut the disfavored speech.
A recent example is Hamilton College’s bitter experience with a controversial speaker. The private New York college offered a speaking engagement to Ward Churchill, a University of Colorado professor. Critics soon latched onto the fact that Churchill had said some outrageous and hurtful things about 9/11 and its victims three years earlier. Besieged with calls to rescind the invitation or else — the “or else” including death threats — college officials backed down and canceled the event.
Further demonstrating that sometimes on campus freedom is academic, University of Colorado officials and political leaders launched a campaign to fire Churchill. And at Harvard University, President Lawrence Summers faces intensifying demands for his resignation after he made a remark interpreted as being sexist.
Off campus, a blog-mob targeted CNN’s chief news executive, Eason Jordan. Questions about Eason’s questionable remarks about journalists’ deaths in Iraq were raised in the “blogosphere” and refused to go away until Jordan did. He resigned from CNN on Feb. 11.
Whether any of the principals in these examples deserve what they got, we must take care not to supplant the high value of free speech in America with a high cost.
Everyone has a right – indeed, a duty – to disagree, to dissent, to rise up against an affront, an injustice or an injury. But for the fragile freedom of speech to survive, we must carry out that task with a firm attachment to fairness, principle and tolerance. When we give in to hostility, self-righteousness and vengefulness, we eventually find ourselves snapping and snarling at a shrinking number of inhabitants of the public square.
Giving in to the speech mob means that discourse is diverted from the real issues to a sideshow on who is punished for uttering the “wrong” ideas or words. Dissent is dead if it can be hounded out of the marketplace so effortlessly. Democracy is no match for demagoguery if good people won’t stand up to mob rule.
We must get past the idea that expression has no value unless it mirrors our own. We must learn to recognize ourselves not just in the faces but in the voices of others. We must find a way to see our own rights reflected in other people’s freedom.
Reply
Why don’t you just spit out what happened already, Large Marge? What part of Christy’s story ticked you off? What was inaccurate? Just get it off your chest here and then let it go. Being so angry about something so trivial (read: ridiculous) in the grand scheme of life can’t be good for your health.
Reply
Large Marge,
I don’t know Marge, it would seem to me that you have taken my commentary seriously , in spite of several typos, as evidenced by your lengthy and detailed response. And, just how does it feel to you to receive anonymous criticism.? I’m sure that Ms. Lochrie did not like anonymous attacks and criticism either. Why don’t you just let the whole thing go as suggested by Michelle? Your mission is both trivial and ridiculous in spite of the cloakings of such grand notions as freedom of speech with which you justify your viciousness.
Reply
Hi Oxolatl,
Nice job on the spell checker. I actually have no problem with criticism and commentary because I think it will actually make me a better blogger. I just have a problem with reporters making (stuff) up on their Howard Scripps blogs, and on the public record. Yes, let’s all move on, shall we? Please!
Reply
Hey Alan…What a complete surprise to see your post! Drop me an email will you? I’d love to know how you’re doing. I haven’t seen you in…what has it been??? Over ten years. My email address is austinpickers@yahoo.com.
Surprise isn’t really the right word. I was using Doni’s article and all these comments in my classroom. I teach American Culture at a Chinese university in Zhengzhou, China. I was talking to my class about all the hate and anger we seem to have for our fellow man now in America. As a learning tool, exhibit A if you will (Can’t seem to get that legal jargon out of my system) , I log online to Redding.com and show my students the awful comments folks post to the articles. Today I was using Doni’s article and these comments about a personal fight between two women that has somehow become a very public cat fight. I’m scrolling down the comments in front of 50 students and here’s their teacher mentioned in one of the comments. Talk about a jaw dropper!
Yeah Alan…My son, Chris and I are living in China! We’ve been here for four years now. I came over here in 2002 to make a film for PBS. I traveled here twice that year making films and fell in love with the place. I was offered the opportunity to live and work here permanently in 2003 and jumped at the chance. I love Redding and America. Don’t get me wrong. Redding was my home since 1959. But my home has changed. Gangs and drugs moved into our neighborhood and one day Chris came running home chased by a bunch of young thugs who were angry because he turned down their offer of drugs. He had been egged and was crying because he couldn’t play outside anymore in our once nice neighborhood without this sort of thing happening. I decided right then and there to take my Chinese friend’s offer and move to a new home.
It’s been and continues to be an incredible adventure. I’m still making films and videos but I’m now a full time university professor. Who’d a thunk huh??? As a matter of fact, I’m moving this weekend to a new university here in Zhengzhou to head their Foreign Culture department starting March 1st.
Chris is doing just great! He just turned 18 and entered a Christian university here (yes, they DO have those in China!) last term studying Chinese and computer science. He’s loving it!
I’m loving it too! My students are amazing. They want to know everything about our culture…they are sponges for knowledge. They are totally flabbergasted by the stuff like what is being described in this article and comments. Redding.com’s comment section totally blows them away. You see, hate and anger as described in this very article is not a part of the Chinese Culture. It is totally foreign to them. Folks here don’t argue, don’t fight and most certainly don’t air their private matters in public, let alone a public forum like the newspaper. I teach them it wasn’t always this way in Redding and in America. That I remember a time long ago when we DID get along with each other. When it was OK to have different opinions but that something changed and now in the 21st century we do our best to destroy each other over the most trivial things. That’s probably what I love most about this place…It reminds me of home when I was a kid and folks were kind and considerate to each other. Helped each other instead of tearing each other apart.
Now in a week or so…I’ll come back to these comments and the emails I’ll receive calling ME an asshole or a Bible thumper or a “pinko” or a Communist for posting MY comments or I misspelled a word or left out a comma and because I chose to leave the hate and come here. I just had my fill of all of Redding’s hate and poison and chose to live my life in a place of peace.
Anyhow Alan…drop me a line would you? Love to hear from you.
All the best,
Ed
Happened once before at Redding.com. I just laugh and use them in class to prove my point
Reply
@ Ed Heffelfinger
It’s very cool to have someone from China contributing to our discourse here, and your observations about the contrasts between cultures is educational and interesting. I hope, however, that you will also share with your students the comments posted, for example, to Dugan Barr’s piece (among others) on why he is a liberal so that you can see some civil discussion in action in this country as well. I don’t think it’s accurate to lump everyone on this site in with those who behave poorly on other sites. And personally, although I love to travel and live outside the country - and I have - I find Redding to be full of lots and lots of considerate, kind, and thoughtful people, which is why I’ve chosen to live here (that and the wild beauty). I am often surprised and puzzled by the hate and anger that I encounter in comments on the Internet in this country, but I would be very surprised to see anyone on this site call you any of the things you mentioned. We’re trying to build the kind of community you’re talking about here. But that does involve discussions (often spirited ones) related to free speech.
Reply
Oops–make that “observations ARE . . . educational,” etc.
Reply