OK, 202ers. Go back and read the previous post on MySpace and the comments to it.
One of the commenters has posted personal numbers and harsh commentary on the Drews. The commenter is anonymous (s/he shows a first name but no profile ... s/he could be in our class but also could be a member of the public following our blog).
Does this change your thoughts about the case overall? What do I do as moderator ... take it down or let it live? We talked in lecture and discussion about journalism, blogs and the space in between. What is it we're doing here? We're commenting on journalism but are our comments journalism? And what responsibilities do we have?
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
MySpace Suicide -- And Us
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Yes, you should remove the comment with the phone numbers. That's just creepy. And how could that possibly help the situation?
How does it help to have a bunch of angry (likely poorly informed) strangers across the country call and harass you?
This is not journalism. It's not even constructive editorial. It's just raw anger by even more anonymous strangers...which, if I recall, is what started this.
Actually, I'd says it's questionable whether the original story the St. Charles newspaper ran was worthy of publication. It's relevant in the sense that parents should know what a terrible place MySpace is, but the story seemed heavy on the emotion and light on the facts. Even though they didn't name the other family, they must have known someone would find out. The newspaper was just inviting every idiot with an opinion to point a finger - most of them at the other family.
Unleashing a mob has never helped the pursuit of justice.
4take it down. there's no need for this sort of attacking, abusive sort of commenting on the message board, regardless of how terrible the case actually is.
Leave it up. The only harm in leaving it there is that people will harass the family. Considering they are protected under the law for their actions (creating a fake profile and verbally harassing a young girl) the least they deserve is a few years, or even a lifetime, of verbal attacks.
i think it is also interesting to point out that the supreme court has yet to distinguish blogging as a form a journalism. they actually have, in a broad sense, left the internet alone. so you are free, as the moderator, to leave what you want. but then do people see the blogger as journalist? should they receive the same protections, but in the same light, the same restrictions? there are pros and cons to both. and i feel that at this point, bloggers want the protections and rights, but not the restrictions.
wow, this is crazy. i'm assuming jay feels very strongly about this subject and maybe is searching blogs to post this information by searching for keywords? on another note, this story is astonishing. the internet has time and time again proven itself to be a very scary place. though i feel very angry at the "drew's," i agree that the article is very emotionally charged and a lot of facts seem to be missing. in general i feel really scared that this sort of thing could happen in our world. looking back, i'm happy the internet was not nearly to point it is now when i was 13.
whoa, sorry blogging from captain planet's collegiate coalition J202 environment webiste hah
An article from USA Today posted this morning:
Town may criminalize online harassment
"The tragedy of Megan Meier will take another twist Wednesday night when officials in her home town vote on whether to make online harassment a local crime..."
notice both AP and USA Today are declining to publish the name. Should the J202 blog?
Do you think if the names had been published in the first place, a lot of this sleuthing and bashing would have been avoided? I think it's possible.
Harassing the family about harassing Megan is the pot calling the kettle black and is just as wrong. I understand wanting to see justice done; this may be an important case that changes laws to reflect society's mores.
Post a Comment