We launched Progressive Charlestown with the premise that each post would express the writer's individual views, without any agreed-upon editorial policy, and that individual posts would be personally identified. Like most blogs that deal with polarized topics, we began attracting our share of commenters who prefer to lob shots from behind a curtain of anonymity. We are simply not impressed.
We have long been readers of political blogs, the vast majority of which are moderated, meaning that the blog owner screens reader comments. Progressive Charlestown is mostly of local interest, so we envisioned that people leaving comments would for the most part be neighbors and would feel comfortable identifying themselves. And some have. Beth Richardson gives well-written explanations of her views. We don't always agree, but we certainly respect her point of view. And rather than engage in extensive back-and-forth on an individual post, some comments have even sparked separate posts.
Others did not respond in kind, submitting comments that were gratuitously abusive to people mentioned in our articles, to liberals in general, or to the author of an article specifically. We do not view vacuous name-calling as a benefit to our readers, and we decline to publish such comments. The writer of each article owns that article and can decide when a comment crosses the line.
We do encourage comments that offer facts that challenge our propositions. In fact, we invite dissenting articles as long as they're submitted signed along with e-mail and snail-mail addresses and a phone number so we can confirm your identity, which is standard policy when submitting a letter to the editor.
Despite the claims made in some rants we have received, there is no First Amendment right that requires any comment to be published. The right to free speech does not come with a megaphone. You can stand on Charlestown Beach and proclaim your views to anyone who will listen, but if you want a platform for your opinions, you have to either write something compelling enough for a publisher to want to publish, or publish it yourself.*
Some of the reasons why we sometimes reject submitted comments:
- Anonymous. As a rule, we are much more likely to publish signed comments than unsigned ones. We believe that a person should have the courage of their convictions and put their name on what they write. If you want to submit anonymous comments, send them to the Charlestown Citizens Alliance—they ONLY run anonymous comments. If you have a reasonable cause to fear attaching your name to a comment, such as concern about retaliation, e-mail us at progressivecharlestown@gmail.com to explain why your identity should be cloaked. We may even suggest to you that we address the subject as a news report by one of the editors.
- "Asked and answered" or off-topic. We reject comments that ask questions that have already been answered or that are beyond the scope of the post being commented on. We're not a free research service. There are wonderful people working at Town Hall whose salaries our taxes pay to answer our questions. If you're capable of using the internet to find Progressive Charlestown, you're also capable of using the town's web site.
- False or unsupported by fact. We are not interested in innuendo or accusations unless you back them up. If you have tips or gossip—i.e., potential stories we should investigate—we welcome you to e-mail us at progressivecharlestown@gmail.com, including as much information as you have. We will follow up, but we're not going to publish something unless we can back it up.
- Offensive and slanderous. Same policy as #3. We like publishing strong material but only if it is backed up by fact.
So bring on the discussion and debate, but if you feel the need to tell the world that we are rude, ignorant, communist moonbats, do that somewhere else.
*In other words, get your own damn blog.
