Subscribe to Print Edition | Sun., January 20, 2008 Shvat 13, 5768 | | Israel Time: 13:06 (EST+7) web haaretz.com   Back to Homepage Rosner's Domain Diplomacy Defense Jewish World Opinion National Print Edition Advertising Books Arts & Leisure Business Real Estate Easy Start Travel Week's End Anglo File

Last update - 10:15 17/01/2008 Cleaning up the Web's backyard By Na'ama Sheffi Tags: Israel Hasson, Israel  It was not long after passage of the new law on talkbacks that long lines of responses, some of them amused, others outraged, began appearing in the sidelines of Internet publications. The volume of responses and their content are a reflection of Israeli society: It responds intensively, expresses itself bluntly and at times rudely, and refuses to take responsibility for its actions. The responses earlier this week were relatively moderate compared to those received by MK Israel Hasson (Yisrael Beitenu), when he proposed the legislation last summer. His personal Web site was hacked, and he himself was described as one who violates the rights of citizens. However, the law he proposed does not prevent public dialogue; it requires that it be held in a reasonably civil manner, in which each participant is responsible for his statements. The legislation in and of itself is not surprising. Never has there been a means of communications that avoided adopting a counterweight to the liberty it granted its users. Censorship, even if it was not described as such, has existed since the invention of writing, and electronic defenses against hackers are invented every day. The placement of limitations on the use of talkbacks was just a matter of time. Advertisement The dominant presence of Internet talkbacks can be interpreted positively. Israelis' awareness leads them to conduct lively public discourse, as is appropriate in a multi-dimensional civil society. With the encouragement of the online press, an open society with broad horizons is being born. The immunity that has been allowed to respondents to date has allowed them to be completely honest and forthcoming. However, reading the content of the responses raises question marks regarding the ability of the Internet to serve as a platform for genuine pluralism and diversity of opinion. Most responses are repetitive, and in many cases the talkbacks arena serves for insults, scorn, contempt and the same kind of verbal violence one encounters in the streets. Participants in talkbacks are constantly demanding that our political leaders take responsibility for their actions and even pay for their mistakes with their positions. By tapping on their keyboards, they would like to overthrow a prime minister. But they themselves refuse to stand by their statements, for a simple reason: The minute they expose their identity they will be humiliated. Shame will not only be the result of the blunt words that are sent through the Internet thoughtlessly. Regular respondents pride themselves on being able to shape an orderly argument for nearly any subject - a notion that they reject when it comes to their fellow men, whether these are leaders, intellectuals, journalists or fellow authors. The humiliation will also extend to those who encourage this method. Internet sites, both commercial and private, consider the talkbacks a reflection of their success, and publish the number of responses they receive to every story they post. The higher the number, one might think, the more important and interesting the story. In fact, large portions of the responses are little more than a crossing of swords among talkback users, which is not interesting. The online edition of The New York Times does not offer the possibility of a talkback. The Guardian, in Britain, allows talkbacks, but only if the response is not offensive. Were Israelis to be given the opportunity to express their feelings on the matter, online publications' computer servers would crash under the volume of requests to remove talkbacks. There is another way. The Web site of journalist Yoav Karni, who is based in Washington, D.C., includes an announcement at the end of each article: Responses will be published only on condition that that be "to the point, substantiated and free of personal attacks; and they must include the full name of the author." Of course the number of visitors to a private Web site is not equivalent to as that of visitors to online newspapers. But even without 50,000 visitors per day - the minimum number to which the new law applied - a private individual is ready to ensure that his Web site stays clean. Larger institutions can certainly do their part to further a more fruitful dialogue among us all. The author is head of the School of Communications at the Sapir Academic College. Bookmark to del.icio.us   Flip-flop on torture Responding to pressure, Canada takes U.S., Israel off a torture watchlist. Impending crisis UN warns of humanitarian crisis as Israel seals Gaza Strip crossings.   1.   LOL Another left-wing tactic to bolster Haaretz` agenda 10:50  |  Denise Thompson 17/01/08   2.   Na`ama: a little too laid back 10:58  |  Star of David 17/01/08   3.   It`s not Israeli society expressing itself here 11:00  |  Margie in Tel Aviv 17/01/08   4.   The devil is in the details 11:03  |  Natallie Durson 17/01/08   5.   No Talkback on New York Times? 11:38  |  ARTH 17/01/08   6.   The bottom line of this Israeli law 12:33  |  Clickfool 17/01/08   7.   words are not actions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 12:33  |  benji 17/01/08   8.   The implementation of this law would be impossible 12:37  |  Clickfool 17/01/08   9.   Honesty and Substance are Important, Truth can also be Insulting 12:39  |  Efox 17/01/08   10.   Closing down yet another bastion of freedom. Shame. 12:50  |  Michael 17/01/08   11.   Giving the Arabs an edge 13:40  |  Denise Thompson 17/01/08   12.   When will Haaretz abide by its own "Guidelines"? 13:52  |  Fortuna Benmayor 17/01/08   13.   Yes to registration. 13:54  |  Hubal 17/01/08   14.   What`s wrong about standing behind one`s words? 13:58  |  Fortuna Benmayor 17/01/08   15.   Micjhael complain to the BBC for its censorship 14:13  |  mamale 17/01/08   16.   CENSORSHIP OF HAARETZ IS ALREADY 14:15  |  Robert 17/01/08   17.   The fact remains 14:15  |  sh 17/01/08   18.   to Margie #3 14:31  |  Hilda 17/01/08   19.   Hubal aren`t there Arab right wingers? 14:31  |  A nonny Mouse 17/01/08   20.   This is Haaretz playing field. I am happy to abide by its rules. 14:41  |  Natallie Durson 17/01/08   21.   At least I always use my real name 14:56  |  Rowan Berkeley 17/01/08   22.   What `anti-semitic garbage` on BBC Mamale 15? 15:07  |  Michael 17/01/08   23.   A nonny Mouse #18 15:21  |  Hubal 17/01/08   24.   Websites responses without muzzle 15:38  |  H.H.M 17/01/08   25.   Get up to date, Michael 16:04  |  mamale 17/01/08   26.   Wow Denise 11 nobody could accuse you of being reasonable! 16:12  |  Michael 17/01/08   27.   25 Haven`t you got any more than that Mammel 25?! 16:19  |  Michael 17/01/08   28.   Come and get me BBC 16:34  |  Denise Thompson 17/01/08   29.   Na`ama Sheffi is incorrect, the NY Times does have a talkback 16:37  |  Jacob Blues 17/01/08   30.   Big charges against BBC Denise 28. Where`s the big evidence? 17:08  |  Michael 17/01/08   31.   #22 michael needs new spectacles 17:20  |  v hardman 17/01/08   32.   I`ve got more than that Michael 17:59  |  Margie in Tel Aviv 17/01/08   33.   Haredi propaganda will still suceed 18:11  |  Yechiel 17/01/08   34.   Pro-Israeli and Pro-Pal posters hurling insults 18:14  |  Aphemia 17/01/08   35.   To Michael No. 30 18:22  |  Jackie 17/01/08   36.   32 Does anyone take BBC Watch seriously Margie? 18:42  |  Michael 17/01/08   37.   35 Jackie show me a credible critic of the BBC 18:48  |  Michael 17/01/08   38.   The examples given 18:51  |  Ralph Levy 17/01/08   39.   humiliation 19:33  |  natan 17/01/08   40.   I will not release my full name, or location due to nut-jobs 19:35  |  Pablo B 17/01/08   41.   32 qnd 35 Show me independent criticism of BBC. 19:53  |  Michael 17/01/08   42.   Follow the proposed law to its source 19:58  |  dana 17/01/08   43.   Big brother prevents free speech 20:00  |  Ben 17/01/08   44.   I offer my full name in response to all NUTJOBS! 20:10  |  akiva_patysh@yahoo.c 17/01/08   45.   Denise Thompson in a time warp #28 20:10  |  Hubal 17/01/08   46.   sh #17 - Law is meant to silence Mark Lincoln/Tosefta? 20:12  |  dana 17/01/08   47.   Who`d like to monitor bbcwatch for bias? 20:14  |  sh 17/01/08   48.   Following Dana`s reasoning to its source 20:24  |  sh 17/01/08   49.   Michael about the BBC 20:31  |  Margie in Tel Aviv 17/01/08   50.   clean response 21:15  |  Noam 17/01/08   51.   sh #48 - fascism overides left/right distinctions 21:41  |  dana 17/01/08   52.   Dana`s erudite left wing - with examples inside!!! :) 22:15  |  WWACD 17/01/08   53.   Love the Hypocrisy 22:16  |  ODP1 17/01/08   54.   Denise Thompson of Ann Arbor 23:01  |  Teresa-Maria (Tess) 17/01/08   55.   Too bad this law was passed 23:02  |  DJStahl 17/01/08   56.   Well, that means good-bye.... 23:07  |  Teresa-Maria (Tess) 17/01/08   57.   to Michael apparently, `independent` means 23:09  |  Margie in Tel Aviv 17/01/08   58.   It will not get any better 23:11  |  mikeber 17/01/08   59.   Democracy is ugly, deal with it 23:18  |  Pssd Off American 17/01/08   60.   "This is not about Free Speech."! 23:23  |  Stephen. 17/01/08   61.   v.hardman de hardman paul harris 23:36  |  Labhras 17/01/08   62.   To Kill Talkbacks 23:39  |  Voltaire 17/01/08   63.   #37Michael aand more ignorance the bbc suppressed its own enquiry 23:41  |  v hardman 17/01/08   64.   #32 so called objective Margie offers "BBC Watch". 23:45  |  Labhras 17/01/08   65.   54 Margie. Eminent Jews in the BBC. 23:55  |  Michael 17/01/08   66.   BBC is undoubtedly Antisemitic and here is some evidence 01:28  |  Mark Hamil 18/01/08   67.   Teresa-Maria (Tess) is threating to issue a Fatwa against us? 01:38  |  Mark Hamil 18/01/08   68.   Dana from sunnyvale 01:41  |  WWACD 18/01/08   69.   Silencing dissent 02:04  |  Not in my Name 18/01/08   70.   Yes, hold hotheads and armchair warriors accountable 02:57  |  David Turner 18/01/08   71.   Anonymity is a citizens` right in voting and speaking.