very well then, I contradict myself

Hugh Hewitt, summarizing some remarks made at the second annual Personal Democracy Forum:

We did have an exchange on comments/no comments, and I got to air my view that comments sections are defamation/copyright time bombs waiting to go off, and that hostiles will figure out soon enough how to post defamatory/copyrighted material on blogs they don’t like with the hope of provoking crippling lawsuits.

As a non-lawyer, I defer to interested legal experts as to the plausibility of this scenario. My initial take, though, is that nearly every move on the internet is fully traceable, so the blog owner isn't the one to go after. We don't prosecute building owners who get tagged with swastikas, do we?

Hewitt continues:

I also got to argue that comments section hold down the growth of new blogs by giving easy access to text to folks who should be out earning their audience and thus planting new trees in the opinion journalism forest rather than just new branches to already tall trees.

This is an odd claim that begs for evidence. It is like complaining that letters to the editor stunt the growth of newspapers--every person a reporter! Furthermore, it runs counter to my own blogging experience.

Over a year ago, I first discovered blogs. I dipped my toes in and read, waded out further and made my first comments, and, after a few weeks, decided to plunge in with a blog of my own. I had already spent (wasted?) years chatting before ever seeing the word "blog," so I wasn't exactly a neophyte on the net, but comments provided a transition period.

Hugh is gung-ho for the accountability that blogs supposedly bring to the mainstream media. Comments are a great form of accountability for blogs. (Trackbacks help, but their use is sketchy and not yet widespread enough.) Let's suppose Hugh reads this. Is he obligated to link to a critic? Hardly. Will he? Perhaps. But it is much, much easier to ignore an emailed link or distant critic than it is to delete a comment (though the latter is much more weasely).

Compare Hewitt's thoughts about comments with his own words right above them:

...we did have the very interesting --in fact compelling—use of the projection of the forum chat room on the wall behind us. This made the audience a real participant in the conversation, especially the snarkiest of commentators. This is an evolution in conferences, and I urge its immediate adoption. If you don’t like being mocked by a live audience in real time, then don’t be a talking head [emphasis added]

If Hewitt-the-blogger wants a "live audience in real time," comments are the way to go.



Update Hewitt has further thoughts and links.

I want to assure Steven that defamation is his problem if the individual defamed is defamed in a comments section run by Steven. The same holds true for copyright. If Iago the commentator gores off on a personal enemy in a comments section --especially if that enemy is not a public figure and is a non-participant in the comments section-- but posts defamatory material, that is the site operator's tortious conduct as much as it is Iago the poster, who has probably tried to cover his tracks. Recall when Drudge hit Sidney Blumenthal with a charge the later thought defamatory --the litigation was long and expensive [all errors in original].

Again, I'll defer to the lawyers on this one.

Also, I note that Technorati doesn't list my contribution to the discussion--which is why comments are much more useful.