I suppose it could be painted as yet another salutary tale of the dangers of expressing your opinion online. That no communication is private, and if it can be abused, it shouldn`t be written. But that`s a simplistic conclusion.
Undoubtedly, I`m biased, but let me sketch the events.
Having gone to some trouble to discover the extent of the inconvenience the upcoming Pick `n Pay 94.7 Cycle Challenge would cause to me (which is significant but ultimately not relevant), I penned what can only be described as a "rant" in an online forum of which I have been a vocal member for seven years.
It wasn`t particularly nice about cyclists. But then, my sense of humour, especially when angry, can be rather biting. The people on that list know this, and took the closing line, "Next cyclist I see dies," in the spirit in which it was intended.
They would grasp that the fuming, however rude, was mere posturing, and that the real point of my rant was quite clear: I object, on several grounds, to the idea that a major sporting event of any sort should, in the words of an official event press release, "bring Africa`s giant to a stand-still".
The generalisations and sarcasm in closing were no deterrent to discussion of the merits (and demerits) of the argument in the forum in which it was posted. Many agreed. Some thought I was whining. Most found my rant amusing.
All understood that it is not at all uncommon for people to use turns of phrase that out of context might seem extreme or threatening, when they`re merely expressing frustration rather than a credible threat.
All except one. This person thought it prudent to send my comments, complete with name, address, e-mail and telephone number, to every cycling board and list he could find.
However offensive my comment might seem to some (and however offensive I find comments about groups I belong to), do we really want our private lives to be governed by fear of death threats and corporate rules?
Ivo Vegter, freelance writer
That those members would disagree with me goes without saying. However, the reasonable responses were overshadowed by a slew of death threats. My e-mail address and phone number were submitted to pornography and spam sites. My clients were harassed, in an effort to get me fired for expressing my private opinions.
Someone described what happened as follows: "It`s the online version of the real world scenario where you get the crap beaten out of you in a bar - when you`ve said something to a group of friends, one of them gets up on the pretence of going to the loo and then walks to a group of bikers saying to them: `That guy over there said something about your mother.`"
The race organisers, of course, were soon aware of the kerfuffle, and sensibly notified their legal advisors and the police. For all they know, I might indeed be a homicidal maniac about to take bloody revenge on innocent cyclists (or vice versa), and forewarned is forearmed.
The organising committee chairperson, Tanya Harford, who most certainly disagreed with my substantive opinions about the race, was gracious about it. "I think the whole matter was blown out of proportion," she said, "and that`s why we didn`t take it seriously or take [further] action on it."
To illustrate that the context was understood in one place, and lost elsewhere, consider this statement by someone who has been on the list even longer than my own seven years: "I am slightly astonished that there is someone on the list who `didn`t get it` sufficiently to forward Ivo`s mail."
Unintentionally funny, in light of my own "threat", is this: "I really think whoever passed the mails on should be shot, or worse."
Now c`est la vie. If my comment offended someone, so be it. If someone disagrees, fine. I`m entirely willing to discuss the merits of the argument, or be offended in return.
It is noteworthy, however, that of all the people, groups and views I`ve (sarcastically and seriously) called names in 12 years online, this is the first ever that discovered a comment and took it literally enough to cause actual harm and death threats in return.
The attitude of (and crimes committed by) a few cyclists in response to the perceived threat should trouble anyone who cares about the implications this might have for the image of the cycling community as a whole. I`ll be nice and put it down to pre-race stress or sensitivity to the very real issue of cycling casualties on the roads.
But there`s a big-picture issue here that worries me far more.
It concerns the distinction between professional (or public) and private speech. Many complaints pointed out that as a journalist who writes publicly and professionally, I should not have the right to express private opinions that are not fit for publication. Some tried to get me fired by my clients for offending them.
There are clear dividing lines between professional, public statements, and private commentary to acquaintances. In a journalist`s professional writing there is a similar line between objective news reporting and subjective opinion writing. Just as an opinion column cannot be interpreted as a news report, a private comment cannot be read out of its context as a considered public opinion.
There is a danger to the free exchange of ideas. Viz: "I think this will hamper the way Ivo - or anyone else - posts to this [list], knowing some anonymous idiot could forward our mails to wherever with the intent to harm and harm badly. And I think the fact that Ivo felt he could rant to us in the way he did is the thing I like about the [list]. I`m enriched personally by the fact that I`m exposed to opposing views to my own on this list and would certainly hate to see this compromised."
Worse, the danger that private comments unrelated to the organisations people work for could be used against those organisations, will result in a chilling effect. Companies will simply ban their employees from expressing any private opinions in blogs, forums or anywhere else they might be overheard. The rules will, by necessity, be broad.
However offensive my comment might seem to some (and however offensive I find comments about groups I belong to), do we really want our private lives to be governed by fear of death threats and corporate rules? Do we want free speech endangered like that?
I`d like to ask that of the attorney who encouraged people to commit crimes against me, for example. Or of the sales director at an IT company (the one with the hilariously apt surname) who told me he would kill me the next time he sees me. Or of any of the other guilty people I can identify.
Unlike those who complained about my "threat", I won`t be just humourless and literal-minded if I report their actions to their employers and the police. The crimes did happen. The threats were real, direct, personal, and credible.
I would like to assure the cycling community of a few things. I do not need a bicycle, though the offer is appreciated. This may come as a shock, but I have one. I do not need to be lectured on the safety of cyclists on our roads. I`ve been a victim myself and have been of the opinion that cyclists are not adequately catered for since Reagan was elected. I do not need to ride to relieve stress. It doesn`t seem to work.
Most importantly, I have seen a cyclist since I supposedly threatened every cyclist and their family, and that person is alive and well.
Share