THE COMMENT SECTION ON THE DIC BLOG!

One important aspect of my work as a blogger is to keep track of the comments and make sure that they are appropriate.  This involves not only the effect of comments on my work, but also the effect of comments on the readers who come to the blog looking for a place to air their thoughts and ideas. 

Interestingly enough, I see I wrote about this topic from another angle just last September.  So, clearly, this is an ongoing issue!

My concern is that the blog is a place where I as a blogger can express myself freely and safely, and also that it is a safe place for readers to express their thoughts without fear of retaliation and harm. 

This is a big responsibility because for so many people who have been harmed by family court, one additional harm they have experienced is that of being silenced.  So the last thing I want to do is shut people up. 

On the other hand, the fact that some people have been hurt doesn't excuse hurting others.  Also, I have many predatory attorneys who troll through my blogs and deliberately make disruptive comments in order to upset readers, many of whom have been hurt sufficiently already. 

Of course, my thinking on this subject has evolved over time. 

When I first started blogging I used to receive these comments which said something like "Great blog and a must read" and then finished up with a website address for an attorney firm in Podunk, U.S.A.  I used to leave those on because I really believed some attorney in Podunk had read my blog.  Once I realized that these kinds of comments come from automatic programs that crawl around the internet and look for websites to poop on, I just began to delete those messages because they have no value. 

In the last year, I've been getting very similar automatic comments from a computer program that leaves messages about how a spellcaster can solve all reader problems! If only that were true!  I delete those as well. 

I find that with political work, many activists are easily vulnerable to conspiracy theories.  One that is very popular nowadays is one about the "New World Order" and the "Bilderberg" organizations.  Unfortunately, having looked on some of those websites, I've found they have a decidedly anti-Semitic cast. 

I know that these ideas appeal to people who are extremely desperate--this idea that the world is run by all sorts of deep, dark cabals.  Perhaps this is true--I have no personal experience which would give me a reason to deny it.  However, when that leads people to start pointing the finger at particular religious or racial groups, this is where I draw the line in the sand and say, "no more". 

Thus, Divorce in Connecticut has a non-discrimination statement right at the top of the blog right out there for everyone to see.  I will not tolerate attacks on any particular groups based on religion, race, gender, disability, sexual orientation--that's just not where I am at, period. So I am pretty solid that if you make any discriminatory remarks on my blog, they will be deleted.

Part of the blogging experience, particularly when you are as forthright and outspoken as I am, is that readers send you angry emails all the time.  Readers feel very strongly about what I say and if they aren't happy, they certainly let me know. 

If they send me private emails, that's one thing.  If they threaten to shut me down as Budlong and Barrett, LLC did just recently, that is one thing.  It is directed towards me and I'm like, ok, just beat me up, go ahead. 

However, when that intense anger spills out onto the comment pages of the blog and affects my readers, this is when my responsibility kicks in to be considerate of the needs of my readers.  I have to ask myself seriously, if there are personal attacks against me, do my readers need to be pulled into that?  Is that helpful to their reading experience on the blog, does it maintain their sense of participating in a safe community? 

I don't think so, generally. 

So, comments directed towards me like, "you scum, get a real job!", I will eventually start to delete if they keep on coming.  I mean, generally, a blog without a few outrageous remarks is a very boring blog, so I don't jump to delete them, but eventually, enough gets to be enough. 

The bottom line is that any discussion that is intended to result in learning on my part and on the part of readers has to be conducted in a manner that is reasoned, intelligent, and committed.  If the sole motivation for writing on my blog is to hurt, wound, destroy and devastate not only me, but readers on the blog, and those who have contributed their stories, there is ultimately little point to that.  This is why I have specifically stated at the bottom of my non-discrimination policy that "comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process."

Of course, I understand that folks get emotional about issues related to custody and divorce, and so I don't rush to delete comments.  I am also very committed to the free exchange of ideas.  I believe strongly in intellectual freedom, and in the right to say what you think.  I have a horror of censorship and I will extend myself well beyond what I should in order to preserve the rights reader's have to say what they believe in. 

Ultimately, however, readers and contributors do have a right to safety. 

Most particularly, they have a right to safety because many are victims of our terribly abusive legal system here in Connecticut and many struggle with PTSD daily and most particularly when they are forced to enter a Courtroom. 

So I have a particular responsibility to protect the wellbeing of these folks. 

So eventually, I do delete unredeemably abusive posts.  I deleted one today. 

The bottom line is, anyone can say whatever they want on my blog if they can speak in a manner that is reasonable and respectful of the right other people have to be free of not only being the focus of abuse, but also being in the helpless position of watching it. 

Many of the people who read my blog have, indeed, been in the unenviable position of being forced to stand by helplessly as the opposing attorney in the case or the judge attacked a loved one.  No one should have to replay that experience simply by virtue of reading my blog. 

The bottom line is I struggle with these issues.  I respect everyone's right to speak, and am, in many ways more careful of that right when it comes to my enemies than I am with my friends. 

I would urge everyone simply to be courteous--say whatever you believe, but be courteous.  In fact, I think when you write in a way that is reasonable and logical and make your point, ultimately the impact is far more powerful than when you simply call folks names and speak rudely.  

And I am not saying don't crack a joke, or really highlight an inconsistency.  I'm just saying, respect the process of learning and understanding which is fundamental to the purpose of the Divorce in Connecticut blog. 

As the task force made clear, the problems of CT Family Court are complex and difficult.  There is definitely corruption and considerable wrongdoing among judges and attorneys.  But sometimes there are situations for which there are no easy answers.  This blog is intended to try and evaluate these situations, to expose wrong doing and corruption, but also to examine some of the complexities so that we can arrive at possible successful solutions. 

Badmouthing folks, labeling people, trashing them, being rude.  There is enough of that.  What we really need are intelligent people who are willing and able to assess what the problems are and come up with some good ideas on how to resolve them. 

As I've heard said, it is so easy to destroy, but very difficult to rebuild.  I think the focus should be more on building up, repairing, and recreating the structure of Connecticut Family Court so that it lives up to the vision of the very best of the people who created it.  And I would urge all my Readers of whatever background to live up to that standard.