[ back ]
Flame throwers lose anonymity
(by Dave Lange - April 21, 2010)
COUNTY LINE, BY DAVE LANGE
Flame throwers lose anonymity
It was bound to hit the fan eventually. And what better fanners of anonymous flame throwing than Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold and the Cleveland newspaper that cavorts with incendiary online ranters.
It's hard to imagine crudity sinking any lower than the criminal case against Anthony Sowell, the accused murderer of 11 women whose remains were found strewn about his Cleveland property. But Judge Saffold and the enablers of conscienceless Internet interplay are taking a good stab at it.
It goes without saying that a judge whose e-mail account was used to disseminate disparaging comments about an attorney who represents a defendant facing trial in her courtroom should be removed from the case. Even though the judge's adult daughter took credit for making the postings on the gossip site associated by common ownership with the Cleveland newspaper, the judge's ability to conduct a fair and unbiased trial is highly questionable. If the judge herself had made the postings, her ability to conduct any trial whatsoever in a fair and unbiased fashion would be suspect.
Judge Saffold's judgment is subject to further examination. Instead of showing contrition over the juvenile comments made via her e-mail account, she filed a $50 million lawsuit against the newspaper and its complicitous disseminator of vituperative online commentary for violating her privacy. She charged that the newspaper had no right to expose to the world her identity, along with the content of slurs emanating from her account.
When did the citizens of a country once known for courage and forthrightness get the idea that they are entitled to spew venom and slander from sea to shining sea while slinking behind a veil of anonymity? Apparently, since the advent of the Internet and its proliferating chat sites. And when did news organizations that once prided themselves on credibility get the idea that they could associate with such incredible activities but escape the unmitigated stench that clings to them?
The comments from Judge Saffold's e-mail account crossed the line, as far as the Cleveland newspaper was concerned, when one of them referred to the mental state of one of its reporter's relatives. One thing led to another, including a breach of custom in researching the identification of the comment's originator, the examination of other postings from the judge's account, which included disparagement of the defense attorney, and ultimately the editorial decision to expose the entire affair in print.
Subsequent convoluted editorial explanation that it shouldn't have investigated the judge's identity in the first place, but, since it did, it had no choice to reveal it, along with action by its parent corporation to block any such future access to the newspaper, could be construed as an admission of guilt. But the online site's specific policy on reserving the right to expose its users' identities "for any lawful business purpose" surely puts a damper on their expectation of privacy.
According to a New York Times report on the subject, paraphrasing William Grueskin, of Columbia University's journalism school, "No one doubts that there is a legitimate value in letting people express opinions that may get them in trouble at work, or may even offend their neighbors, without having to give their names." Isn't that what the collaborators thought in the maniacal totalitarian states of the 20th century?
[ back ]
