LEWISTON — Former Maine Gov. Angus King endorsed a new online commenting policy of the Sun Journal Friday.
King, an independent who served as governor from 1995 to 2003, lauded the decision by the Sun Journal editorial staff that will require all those who comment on stories on the newspaper's website to do so under their own names.
"The anonymity provided online peels away civilized discourse," King said Friday praising the newspaper for leading the way despite criticism from some who have said the move is an attempt to stifle free speech.
In late 2010 King expressed reservations about sharing a column he penned with the newspaper saying he didn't feel it was fair to subject himself to anonymous attacks online when he was willing to put his name to his words.
The former governor's observations were part of many considerations the newspaper's staff considered before changing its policy to require online comments to be posted under real names.
The new policy will be in effect starting Feb. 1, 2011. To learn more about getting a verified account on SunJournal.com, visit sunjournal.com/verified.
Report a correction
Sun Journal verification policy
I agree with the verification policy. If you feel that you cannot use your really name and you need to hide behind a pseudonym, then maybe you should go to a chat room.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.honest, accountable posts
Rock on sthistle !! Nicely written and based on fact, good for you.
When I joined in this forum several months ago, I scrolled through many ridiculous post until I found some decent dialog that pertained to the original letter and when I joined in with a comment always signed my real name trusting that my comments did not offend, insult or embarrass anybody, something called common courtesy . Now perhaps I won't have to waste time and what little energy I have left trying to avoid junk.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.For the sake of clarity
I find it entertaining that those making comments below news stories can make the astonishing leap that they are just like the founding fathers of the U.S. or the like the anonymous authors of the Federalist Papers.
My guess is few making this point could even site a single sentence from any of those documents or would even know that the authors of those documents were, in fact, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay.
The debate over the formation of the Constitution of the United States and what form of government we would adopt in those early stages was the substance an important and defining debate. I seldom find the comments of the anonymous comments here rising to that level of sophistication.
Instead, the anonymous commentary we often see on the internet has no resemblance at all, either in style or substance, to the content of the Federalist Papers.
Those who have argued the most vigorously on this point are usually not using their anonymity to elevate the conversation to a higher standard but as a means to avoid embarrassment for posting absurd statements not based in fact or as a means to utter - online - often foul and demeaning insults against their fellow posters.
Anonymity here is used largely to be snarky and snippy and to seek a degree of retaliation against those who have provided fact-based commentary that you find disagreeable.
These behaviors are further compounded by the well-known practice of establishing multiple accounts and a plethora of online identities all belonging to a single individual.
This practice is especially prevalent among political operatives, who cannot establish grassroots support for their causes or their candidates - instead they turn to the fabricated support of their alter egos in a practice known as astro-turfing.
In some instances we have found a single person to have as many as 5 different accounts, appearing to respond to each other, all posted from the same computer and same distinct ISP address.
To all those who argue American democracy is based largely in anonymity, you are forgetting one our most cherished and important historical correspondences with the British Government, signed by its authors at Philadelphia on July 4, 1776.
The last line reading: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
Below the signatures of 56 men appear including Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, John Penn and Benjamin Harrison among other American luminaries of the day. Many equate this document to America's birth certificate.
Taking just the parts of American history -- out of context -- that support your case or snippets of the Constitution, also out of context, to bolster your ability to continue the practice of lying online or make false accusations against each other while assigning false motives to those who gather and create the content, provided to you free, on this site is far more troubling, more problematic, more of a slippery slope towards supporting a discourse that is increasingly uncivil and inflammatory than any result of having your real name beside what you write is.
To that end for decades writers of letters to the editor of this publication and others have signed their names to their opinions, including their criticism of this publication and those too are openly published.
We are not afraid of criticism nor are we quashing anybody's ability to have free speech, you are free to even have anonymous speech, we are just not going to use our resources to support it in our space online.
Nobody is stopping you from starting your own blog or web site written under your varying, multiple and assumed identities. Have at it. You are free to do that -- we, however, believe credibility depends on accountability.
Some here are angry because they are being denied the ability to make false statements or statements they cannot substantiate with evidence and fact.
So now they assign false motives to the Sun Journal's decision to clean up its commenting sections and our attempts to ensure a more civil and meaningful discussion that is more accessible, respectful and welcoming to others in our community.
They say we are quashing their rights to free speech - on the contrary we are enabling others to speak freely knowing those who join the conversation here will have the honor of their names and personal reputations on the line. We believe that creates a higher standard and will lead to a more enriching discussion.
Those so outraged by our attempts to do this are welcome to move on, start your own blogs, spend the time, money and resources it takes to collect, process, verify and present accurately the information we call news.
You can seek advertisers in the free market economy to support your online products, as we do, including your own online commenting swamp and you are welcome and invited to compete against us for eyes on your pages.
We believe in the competition of the marketplace but based on the quality of the comments we see from those hiding behind anonymity here, I sense we have little to worry about.
For all the others who are taking the time and making the effort to verify their status we thank you for supporting us in our goals.
We thank you for being readers and for understanding our intent on our commenting changes has nothing to do with quashing free speech or advancing any specific political agenda.
We thank you for not prejudging our motives and for not jumping to unfounded conclusions or making unsubstantiated allegations so distant from the truth they would be laughable if not so fantastic in their fabrication.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (4) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.pazzypunk
Were you verified by a telephone call on twitter? Nope.
Exactly what is asked by your one on one personal telephone interview?
Name?
Telephone?
Address?
Do I need to subscribe to the S&J?
Will I be spammed by release of my email address?
Will my telephone number be released to a third party?
Will S&J try to telemarket me?
Do I need to live in Lewiston/Auburn?
Do I need to live in Maine? in USA?
Be a legal US Citizen?
Do I need to be over a certain age?
Do I need to be a registered voter?
Can I be a "Person Of Interest"?
Can I be a "Reliable Source"
Can I be a "Name Withheld"?
Can I be a "Silent Witness"?
Can I be a "Caller ID Blocked"?
Can I be a "Ballot In A Box"?
... a very slippery slope to join this selective social club. But the internet in China is selective.
and one more thing. You work hard Patti and I applaud such a young professional in L/A -- need more of you.
-- Brain
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Well, Brain -- I wasn't
Well, Brain --
I wasn't verified on Twitter, or on Facebook, true. But (and I don't know are on twitter, but if you have an account, please feel free to add me) would you agree that spam is an issue on Twitter?
I was excited to see that we got 51 tweets on Leslie's story about local food production this morning -- but if you look at them, all of them are spam. :(
http://topsy.com/www.sunjournal.com/oxford-hills/story/967328?utm_source...
Anyway, addressing your question --
I ask:
- Did you make this application for verified status?
- Can you confirm your first and last name?
- Can you confirm the town you live in?
- Can you confirm your username?
- Can you confirm your email address?
We don't release this information to any one, and we only use your information to contact you about your account.
Maybe in the future we will have a tiered system where you can be a confidential source. It's all an experiment. We're just trying to elevate the conversation.
And thanks for your kind words. :)
Pattie
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Free Speech
The first amendment may give us the right to say anything we want. But one must remember that there is a price(good or bad) for what we say. For every action there is a reaction.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Let's look at American History, shall we?
Though often maligned (typically by those frustrated by an inability to engage in ad hominem attacks), anonymous speech has a long and storied history in the United States. Used by the likes of Mark Twain (aka Samuel Langhorne Clemens) to criticize common ignorance, and perhaps most famously by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay (aka publius) to write the Federalist Papers, we think ourselves in good company in using one or another nom de plume.
Particularly in light of an emerging trend against vocalizing public dissent in the United States, we believe in the critical importance of anonymity and its role in dissident speech.
Us so called "TROLLS" also believe that keeping authorship anonymous moves the focus of discussion to the content of speech and away from the speaker - as it should be. We believe not only that you should be comfortable with anonymous speech in such an environment, but that you should be suspicious of any speech that isn't. KEEP FREEDOM AND HISTORY ALIVE!!!!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (7)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I am in favor of
this new policy and of the editorial board summarily replaced by the actual writer of the editorial. Let's make this a fair playing field.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.In reading thru the comments,
In reading thru the comments, I must say, I have Never ever ever heard the LSJ accused of being REPUBLICAN. Or, an appendage of the HUGO Chaves regime. wow. That rates a 6 on the old chuckle meter.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Mrs McG that was an
Mrs McG that was an extraordinary post. Well thought, and expressly articulate. And quite true. The problem is with these forums, like all of them, the comments have become base, off topic, and in the words of Mr Rhoades "withering" which really encompasses the decision.
If there is any question of my motives, I disagree with the editorial board probably BEFORE they apply their fingers to keyboards, but the comments and arguments here are mostly off topic, banal and absurd. So, I applaud the decision to verify identities. If you don't want to be identified with what you write......don't post here. Simple.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I guess Ill just go else
I guess Ill just go else where for my news ! Gov King should mind his own business! You the SJ lets see how many people actually do post after Feb 1 I guess that will be the REAL TEST ! and I have a feeling yopu will only see and hear what YOU want to hear not the REAL STORY inda sad day for Lewiston !
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (5) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Oh, Please, Mr. King
Angus King is such a phony manipulator. Whenever things don't go his way, he whines. I am so tired of his presense in this state. I wish the carpetbagger would finally pack up and leave. This hypocrite never missed an opportunity to get a photo op or sound bite when he was Governor extolling the wonders of our beautiful state and its natural resources. Now he is a wind developer, intent on destroying miles of ridgelines in the Roxbury and Highlands regions with sprawling industrial wind sites that do nothing but line his pockets with Enron-inspired RECs and taxpayer subsidies for an electricity source that doesn't work. Have you ever heard this guy's stump speech about Maine becoming uninhabitable? It is such BS it is laughable, yet his accolytes continue to believe. What I say to Angus King is "Bunk!" Get a thicker skin if you are going to be out there scamming the people of Maine. Some of us are on to you, Mr. King!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The Facts
Some Federal Subsidies of Electrical Energy Sources per KWH
US Energy Information Administration Subsidy Report April 2008
..................Dollars
Coal ........... . 0.44
Nuclear........ 1.59
Nat Gas........ 0.25
Hydro........... 0.67
Wind.......... 23.37 ???!
http://www.slideshare.net/JohnDroz/energy-presentationkey-presentation
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Subtle Intimidation - Exactly
The reality of the situation is that putting one's name behind what one says in our modern world, even if it's true and/or not meant to be hateful, can get people blackballed/ discriminated against/ alienated from friends and family. Amongst those with whom we must have social interaction, we choose to reveal as much of our views as is prudent to the situation. Demanding that one identify one's self when leaving commentary removes one's ability to do this successfully in one's private life. What of an employee who expresses political views in this forum? What if his views are completely divergent from that of his employer or a *potential* employer? Mentioning anything regarding same-sex marriages could be damaging to anyone on either side of the issue for a variety of reasons. There are a number of similar issues which can bring unintended division and strife one's personal life is mentioned publicly with one's name attached. So many will remain silent -- even in the face of injustice -- to protect one's livelihood, one's reputation, one's family. Politically correct/culturally popular ideas are more likely to go unchallenged and unexamined. Fortunately, there are other outlets online for freedom of expression, but I'm duly noting the Sun Journal forum will not be one of them. And, to the person accusing SJ of right-wing tactics -- please remember Communism is not an expression of right-wing ideology, but the very opposite. Censorship -- subtle or overt -- is a highly prized tool of social control in this regimes.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (4) Agree (6)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.There is no censorship being
There is no censorship being instituted here, merely accountability, which I know can be rather harsh for people to accept.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Sun Journal Pursues Dangerous, Anti-Democratic Agenda
The Sun Journal has proven itself to be nothing but a right wing propaganda outfit, and as such, pursuing this type of move evokes images of fascist regimes. Imagine, people being able to express ideas and opinions without being intimidated either overtly or in a variety of other ways. I once had my job threatened because a Republican told my boss that if I didn't stop writing letters to the editor that were critical of Republicans then he'd pull his business.
If you think that's right then you're probably a Republicans.
Oddly, Hugo Chavez would approve of this type of move on the part of the Sun Journal. It's really making a statement about people being too fragile to decide for themselves whether to read the comments. As for the supposed "personal attacks" that result from comments left anonymously, that's less of a concern than losing the right to free speech. Too many people can't comment for precisely the reasons that I now can't write letters to the editor. You can say that's not America and that we all need to stand up for our rights, but as I'd be on the unemployment line, would anyone really care that I'd lost my job because I exercises my right to free speech? Again, this smacks of state run communist media. In practice Republicans have a lot more in common with communists like Hugo Chavez than Democrats do, they've proven time and again not to care about individual rights or fair play whenever they are in "power."
The Citizens United decision allowing corporations to give money as anonymous donors was a move that allows them to avoid the repercussions of giving, and yet, the Sun Journal is defending the decision to not allow comments by anonymous readers as right? This just proves how out of whack this country is now. We're at the point where there is the largest gap between the wealthy and everyone else since the Gilded Age, corporations can game the system with impunity including foreign countries like China donating to Republican candidates to ensure that America doesn't do things like put its own interests first, and yet citizens are being stripped of their right to express themselves without fear of retribution. Haven't these same types of steps been taken when dictators rise to power? Yes, only this time it is the Sun Journal surrendering not to some sense of propriety, but to the forces that don't want open dialogue or criticism. Let people post in safety. The Sun Journal is proving that ideas really are the enemy here and that kind of attitude poses a greater danger than any potty mouth statement ever could. It is also the Sun Journal essentially saying it will decide what it will allow its feeble minded readers to read or post if they so choose. The real agenda here is to protect business interests and particularly the Republican party from the kind of truth and chatter that led its stooges in the Supreme Court to give corporations the right to use money to buy our Democracy away with us while remaining faceless. This is a VERY ANTI-DEMOCRATIC, DANGEROUS DECISION BY THE SUN JOURNAL.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (7) Agree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Substitute "Democrat" for
Substitute "Democrat" for every occurrence of "Republican" and I'll agree.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You have it backwards.
unforgivenjimi at 4:17 pm on Jan 07, 2011: Public figure or not, millionaire or not, everyone is entitled to the same rights and treatments. Just because we as a society chose to treat them differently does not make it correct.
I don't care about Mr. King's rights or how he gets treated. As I said above, he chose to be here and can afford to protect himself.
I care about my rights and yours - the rights of private individuals, to express opinions on-line without fear of off-line retaliation by bozos with too much time on their hands. This new policy will not enhance that right; it will suppress it.
Society has nothing to do with it. It's a very small group that wants to spoil a good thing.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Or maybe
Angus King has a vested interest in comments made here about his Independence Wind projects in western Maine. That's OK, but let's not pretend that the guy has a deep concern for what the Sun Journal does for any other reason.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.great move staff
Wow! I can't wait to read all the posts in the morning. If they are nasty I hope they identify themselves and "preaves" get ready to push the "banned" button.
Al Pelletier
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.My thoughts
I don't mind the verification. I did mind the process how it occurred though. I know I had to jump through hoops over and above what the stated policy is to get my account verified. I had to do this because I do not have access to a phone during the day. I wound up having to borrow a cell phone from a local homeless man that I know and work with to call I believe Pattie while standing outside of a local library.
Having said that, I note that a telephone number is listed on my account. I don't recognize the phone number and hope that it's not visible to anyone else. It's one thing to list a full and legit name on a comment. It's another to publish a phone number though.
I do hope though that someone at the SJ will get around and fix the issues with the Captcha though that I;ve pointed out a couple of times now. Lower case and CAPITAL letters should not mix on a Captcha. It's too hard to tell a c from a C. Or at the very least remove their usage from those accounts who are registered.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (6)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I'll take the Captcha off on
I'll take the Captcha off on Feb. 1. You shouldn't see it after you comment once, yes?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (3) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Spam???
Patti,
Won't that open up the forum to more robo-spam???
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.If you remove Captcha
won't you open the forum to more robo-spamming?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Not really. - Captchas are
Not really.
- Captchas are readable. Just looking at this site and the spam that it gets will show you that.
- Considering that only verified folks are going to be able to post comments, the spammers are going to have to deal with a phone call from the SJ before they spam. Do you think they're going to go through that?
Another letter with an issue: Y. Or is it a y? edit: Yup, didn;t get it right. Try #2
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I don't see it on this
I don't see it on this comment so I guess you're right. But some days it takes 3-4 tries to get it right because of the lower/upper case issue or because my eyes are tired as noted up above.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Could not agree more!
Could not agree more! Captcha is the worst thing to ever come to the Internet!!! My poor eyes get so tired LOL
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It's a great idea
Honestly, what could possibly exemplify free speech better than to back up your own thoughts and words? Ask Gov. King mentioned, only on the internet can you "hide" and make comments, positive or negative. The last couple of decades have shown a lot of entitlement by people and a severe lack of accountability. It is by far time for people to take responsibility for their actions and words and become the adults they want society to see them as.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.There are a couple significant differences ..
.. between Angus King and your average commenter here or at any other similar "forum". First, the former governor is a public figure, by his choice. It's a little late for him to be whining about receiving criticism from us civilians, anonymous or not, to his voluntary comments.
Second, Mr. King is a multi-millionaire, more than capable of providing all the protection that he, or his family, may need from the few low-lifes, verified or not, who try to make off-line life miserable for those with whom they disagree.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (7)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Public figure or not,
Public figure or not, millionaire or not, everyone is entitled to the same rights and treatments. Just because we as a society chose to treat them differently does not make it correct.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.HMMMM
although I have nothing but admiration and respect for Mr. King and fully believe he is the best leader this state has had in many many years, something smells fishy about this endorsement. It seems to me the SJ is working VERY hard to sell this idea which leads me to believe that the majority is upset. Plus as I see the more vicious and hateful remarks are coming from those that do identify themselves....oh well my life will still continue
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.That wasn't really the
That wasn't really the intent, to come across like we're selling the endorsement so hard ...
We had Gov. King in here for an editorial board meeting on another topic and we wanted him to weigh in on our new policy, since his concerns about sharing his editorial with us was part of what sparked the movement here to verify our online users.
For what it's worth I've really not heard many negative things, other than what people have written here in the comments (which yes, I do try to read most of them!). And I've heard so many positive things. It's been really, really cool to call all of our users and talk to them and put a voice to their names, so to speak. :)
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.