Content Based Regulation

By David

It’s becoming really difficult to write for Swimwatch. Our comments pages are full of editorial instructions limiting what we can write. While America’s founding fathers probably didn’t have the internet in mind when they came up with the First Amendment, their efforts are a welcome protection from the excesses of some.

In a series of decisions America’s Supreme Court has provided added protection. In the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Association, Inc. v. Bresler, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell and Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., the Court has defined “actual malice”, we have none and hyperbole, we have plenty.

Let me give you some examples; although even this carries risk. Invariable the use of an example prompts some to scream, “Why are you bringing that up again.” The answer is because it illustrates some point. I would not have thought you needed that explained.

A few years ago Swimwatch published a report on the Auckland Regional Swimming Championships. You may still find it our archives. In it we suggested that Dean Kent, one of New Zealand’s best swimmers, would improve his medley with more work on his freestyle. The next morning we received an irate email from Kent saying we did not have permission to use his name and we were never to do so again. The current American President has shown he is capable of trampling over quite a few of our civil rights. This week I see he even said the names of people visiting the Vice President are a White House secret. But even George W. Bush has not been able to stop the most humble of websites from mentioning his name.

Others that surprise are those who claim ownership. We have written a couple of stories to illustrate certain points. Careful attention was paid to not mention anyone’s name. Names seldom add anything. It’s the events that are of interest. And yet, within hours of publication the people whose names we carefully omitted are posting comments along the lines of, “Hey, it’s me he’s talking about and he shouldn’t!” In some instances, the stories have not been flattering. However, no one on God’s earth knew it was them until they claimed the title. If I read something about myself that did not paint me in a good light, yet left out my name, the last thing I'd do is belly-up to the comments section.

I am amused by respondents who begin their comments with an explanation of their busy lives; much too busy to waste time writing on the internet. Invariably these industrious souls then spend a week writing pages of comments, far longer than the piece that began the process.

The real classics, however, are those who claim Swimwatch is full of lies. Some do it politely; others demand a meeting and some are as insulting as all hell. One young lady referred to one article as “bull crap, all of it, bloody bull crap.” Another reader is forever accusing the site of “telling lies.” The problem is they never identify the lies or in the young lady’s case, the bloody bull crap. What are they saying? Do they think the episode with the old German ladies in France didn’t happen? Do they think I had a glass of wine with two Bavarian ghosts? Are they saying I made up the graph of 500 yard times? I do not mind owning up to mistakes and sincerely apologizing. But if you are going to call me for lying please tell me which bit is the lie. You may recall Rhi Jeffrey asking one “you're-telling-lies” reader to explain her/himself. Unsurprisingly, s/he never replied.

The Mayor of Napier in New Zealand, Barbara Arnott, hated Swimwatch; probably with good cause. We called her out on some pretty shady deals. We took her staff to court and lost only because the court said it did not have jurisdiction. Part way through the clash she called me into her office for a meeting to discuss our differences. She began by telling me she had never read Swimwatch. As the meeting went on her descriptions and knowledge of things that had appeared on became truly miraculous. She remembered things I’d long since forgotten. She was right, she had never read Swimwatch; she’d studied the bloody thing one word at a time. I was tempted to ask if she wanted us to post her each week’s article in a plain brown envelope.

There are also many really good responses. For those we thank you. People like Jay Thomas have added value by expressing a legitimate view without malice. It’s a skill, being able to debate without malevolence. It's something we should all work on, but it becomes difficult when faced with a computer screen and a "publish comment" button.

Finally, I'd like to direct you to a post we wrote about this a few years ago. It covers similar ground as this one does today, but it amuses me that four years have passed and people's online behaviour has not changed much at all.