An Enfield blogger wrote on his site recently that by being against the idea of liquor sales on Sunday, Sen. Tom Colapietro was basically telling Enfield, on the border with a state where Sunday sales are legal, to “drop dead.” The push to allow liquor stores to remain open on Sundays is being led by Enfield’s delegation.
Colapietro, a Bristol Democrat, took exception to the post. He also took the opportunity to lash out at anonymous commenters who have been lashing out at him on Steve Collins’s blog.
State Sen. Tom Colapietro said he’s angry that some “little Republican wussy wimps” are using this blog to attack him personally in comments to which they’re unwilling to put their real names.
Colapietro, a Bristol Democrat, said he’s happy to debate issues with anybody, but is tired of anonymous attacks that accuse of things he never did, assail his appearance and generally portray him falsely.
“I’m very close to getting a lawyer,” the senator said, because he’s sick of the way some are so ready to “get personal” instead of calmly and rationally debating issues facing the state.
Okay, let’s examine this. On the one hand, Colapietro is a public figure, and he has to expect criticism. It happens. It’s not just the internet. He also engages in calling names–which is exactly the wrong response–and seems to be blaming “Republicans” for attacking him, though comments on Steve’s blog can be entirely anonymous, with no identifying information whatsoever.
However, some of the things said about him have been pretty nasty, and it’s understandable that he’s upset.
One of the features of democracy in the age of the internet is an overabundance of people trolls of all political stripes who seem to get off on being as nasty about public figures as possible, because they know that they can get away with it. It’s the sort of thing they’d never dare say to anyone’s face. The internet provides a layer of safety from which to lob insults–even more than talk radio often fosters among callers. Go read the comments on the Courant, they tend to illustrate a very dark side of human nature.
So here’s the thing. Colapietro should probably ignore what commenters are saying about him. They are often trolls who have no interest in actually engaging in productive conversation. But he shouldn’t threaten them with lawyers, either, because he will almost certainly lose. They are Americans, and he is a public figure. It’s their right, and it’s something every public figure risks. He shouldn’t respond by calling names himself, something he seems to have recognized.
But as for internet trolls (and they know who they are), maybe they should think about laying off, just a little. There’s a line between spirited debate and satire and just plain being a jerk. Just because they can say a thing, doesn’t mean that they should.
As for liquor stores: does being open on Sunday drive MA stores out of business? No? Then there’s your answer.
Loading ...
22 responses so far ↓
Thank you, Representative Colapietro, for trying to inject some decency into the online debate.
Anonymity allows uncivil discourse to flourish, and people who put their name behind their opinions deserve respect for demonstrating the courage of their convictions.
Woops.
It’s Sen. Colapietro. Sorry.
I wish we could edit comments once they are up to fix mistakes like that.
Although, the fact that he engaged in name calling is kind of lame, and lowers the discourse…
Colapietro is just mad at the world because he can’t pass the toupee he has as real…
Let him have his little outbursts, then he’ll disappear back into obscurity. This happens every year or so with him.
Someone get Colapietro a w-a-a-h-mbulance, and quick. His feelings are hurt.
I don’t know the back story, but I went through a couple of the blog threads, and I don’t see what Tommy boy is crying about.
If commenters were out and out lying about his record, or somehow threatening his family, I could understand Colapietro’s talk about lawsuits.
But whining about ridicule and insult? C’mon on, that’s what politicians have always gotten, often deservedly so.
Great part is that this would have never been heard of outside that blog but for his outburst.
Holy smokes!
ken</b krayeske, got it right!
Give the man a cigar!
I hate it when that happens
The problem with comments is that there is no reliable way to know who is actually doing the commenting. I like for people to get some kind of moniker or, better yet, a name before the comment, but I recognize that it’s really little better than anonymity because I can’t check up on anyone in the limited time I have. I do moderate the comments, however, because otherwise they’d be truly insane.
In any case, my readers do seem to lose their mind whenever Colapietro’s name comes up. Some people just hate him.
Well I don’t use my name because I don’t think I’m important enough to openly show it. I don’t have a moniker because when I created an account, I was distracted and couldn’t come up with something witty.
If you moderate here, you can easily look up what my email address is and you’ll know exactly who I am. It’s easy to find out. You’ll know the last name.
The NYTimes blog reported in 2005 that the Delaware Supreme Court Chief Justice ruled in favor of anonymous blogging. The following is from a 2008 Breitbart article:
Steele described the Internet as a “unique democratizing medium unlike anything that has come before,” and said anonymous speech in blogs and chat rooms in some instances can become the modern equivalent of political pamphleteering…
Steele noted in his opinion that plaintiffs in such cases can use the Internet to respond to character attacks and “generally set the record straight,” and that, as in Cahill’s case, blogs and chatrooms tend to be vehicles for people to express opinions, not facts.
“Given the context, no reasonable person could have interpreted these statements as being anything other than opinion. … The statements are, therefore, incapable of a defamatory meaning,” he wrote.
Anonymity does enable uncivil discourse, but Thomas Paine’s Common Sense was anonymous. You just need to use your judgment if it’s relevant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/06/technology/06blog.html
Sorry… whole thing was a quote from the Breitbart article. Forgot to italicize each paragraph. I used Breitbart because that’s what I had on my blog… though I’m sure the NYTimes blog covers the same basic info.
Steele described the Internet as a “unique democratizing medium unlike anything that has come before,” and said anonymous speech in blogs and chat rooms in some instances can become the modern equivalent of political pamphleteering…
Steele noted in his opinion that plaintiffs in such cases can use the Internet to respond to character attacks and “generally set the record straight,” and that, as in Cahill’s case, blogs and chatrooms tend to be vehicles for people to express opinions, not facts.
“Given the context, no reasonable person could have interpreted these statements as being anything other than opinion. … The statements are, therefore, incapable of a defamatory meaning,” he wrote.
Ghengis,
I stand behind what I have written. Colapietro might not like my choice of headline. However, the reality is that this blue law is anti-free enterprise.
Moreover, it violates the substantive due process and equal protection rights of liquor store owners, as enumerated in the Connecticut Constitution. If state legislators fail to bring the law into conformity with legal precedent, liquor dealers will have their rights vindicated through litigation. It is in the interests of no one: liquor dealers, consumers, or the state to litigate the matter.
Moreover, I would add that it is incredibly hypocritical for Colapietro to launch ad hominem attacks on his critics, while complaining about the unfairness of criticism on a blog.
Democrats and Republicans alike should be upset with the tactics employed by Colapietro. Bottling (no pun intended) the Sunday liquor sales bill up in committee and failing to submit it for an up-or-down floor vote is not open government.
Regarding, critical blog posts: Senator Colapietro should not be so shocked to discover the gritty, hardscrabble nature of Enfield politics. The reality is the politics is not supposed to be never-ending sequence of lobbyist dinners, reception lines, baby kissing and rubber chicken civic dinners. It’s not about standing around and eating things— it’s about doing the people’s work.
Politics is not for the weakhearted— you better have the grit and strength to take criticism on the chin, like a man.
See, that’s what I don’t get: Bristol isn’t exactly Nicetown either.
My understanding is that the blue laws restricting liquor sales on Sunday were pushed by the liquor store owners.
Unless you are near the border, having no alcohol sales on Sunday doesn’t mean much in reduced sales. People just buy more the other days of the week and store the alcohol at home. So reducing the hours available reduces expenses (no need to pay someone to man the store) while not reduced revenue that much. It does, however, inconvenience the consumer.
The liquor stores also know that if alcohol were allowed to be open Sunday, the grocery stores would definitely sell beer (since the grocery stores are already open). However, the liquor stores might or might not open, depending on their personal preference for working on Sunday. So people that purchased beer would purchase less from the liquor stores and more from the grocery stores (because if someone was out Saturday and realized they were low on beer, they would currently buy it, whereas if groceries sold beer on Sunday, there’d be no sense of urgency).
Liquor store owners near the MA, RI and NY borders obviously feel differently, because they are competiting with liquor stores across the border.
Don’t suppose the benefit to the consumer has any bearing on the debate?
In the very old day, matters of this kind used to be settled by dueling. We all remember the Hamilton-Burr duel, but that duel followed reports in newspapers (little more than party organs at the time) of a scurrilous attack on Hamilton written by a “reporter” who would in our day have no difficulty in writing anonymous barbs in blog commentary. After the Jefferson-Adams campaign, the reporter’s body was fetched out of the Potomac. Lincoln, who used to write unsigned editorials for Republican Party newspapers, was challenged to a duel and said to his challenger that since he issued the challenge and Lincoln had the choice of weapons, he had chosen snowballs at fifty feet. Or was that Mark Twain? In any case, why not bring back dueling (wink, wink)? It certainly would make scurrilous commentators think before they wrote.
Hello… our Founders even signed comments with “pen names” ..
Read this – it’s very interesting:
http://www.magic-city-news.com/Editor_s_Desk_34/A_Climate_of_Fear_34683468.shtml
Hamilton used Pacificus and Camillus.
Benjamin Franklin often wrote under pseudonyms, including “Silence Dogood,” “the Busy-Body,” “Obadiah Plainman,” “Robin Good-fellow,” and of course, “Poor Richard.”
etc.
Sometimes using anonymity gets the point out there without the baggage of existing prejudice against the commentator.
Anonymity can be a good thing. But unhinged viciousness never is.
Long understood Colapietro has a VERY thin skin and is uncomfortable with anything less than deity-like worship.
Also heard that he’s just changed the title of his constituent mailings from “The Rug Report” to “Toupee Topics”
(that thing couldn’t look more phony if it had a chinstrap…)
And Publius wrote the Federalist Papers.
I understand the value of anonymous sources in reporting, too.
But I also know that when I write a news story, and I put my name in the byline, it means that I am responsible for the contents of what follows, it means that the full faith and credit, as it were, of my human being, stands behind those words.
It may be unfair, and even utopian and childish of me to expect the same out of others who publish. But if we seek to utilize the written word to foster discourse towards improving our democracy, we should work to build trust, which begins from our names.
I would just hope people aren’t afraid to use their names because they think that some law enforcement agency is trolling this blog or other blogs looking for those stupid enough to exercise their First Amendment rights in the open.
That’s not the kind of country we live in, right?
For years part of Tom’s “charm” was that he was a “deese and dose” ham and egger. He started out as a shop steward in the old New Departure plant in Bristol. However, after multiple terms in Hartford, (with prescious little to show for it some would say) the act is wearing thin. Hearing him speak publicly is often an embarassment, since he makes Jim Amann look like Stephen Douglas.
You must log in to post a comment.