South Africa struggles with online hate

It's not often you hear a newspaper editor question the value of free speech. Yet, that is precisely what Ray Hartley, editor of The Times, a daily published in Johannesburg, South Africa, did in a blog post last week. In a mere 250 words, Hartley managed to convey the frustrating divisiveness that is the byproduct of new media formats. Here is the post reprinted in full:

Is Web 2.0 stirring up racism and hate in South Africa?
I ask this question because of the hundreds - yes HUNDREDS - of highly abusive, racist and hate-filled comments that are posted on any story to do with anything on South African sites that allow the public to comment. Fortunately, these comments are mostly filtered out by administrators, but they do suggest that the open social media utopia that we dream of is in danger of becoming a cesspit of hate and anger.
A typical discussion thread goes like this:
1. An article is posted, say on why the football team drew a game after a valiant 90 minute effort;
2. A reasonable, argued comment goes up along the lines of: “We should have done better, but our defence was too weak and we lacked a striker”;
3. Then comes: “Maybe they should have stuck with a white captain. But Neil Tovey would never even get into this new South Africa trash side.”
4. The floodgates open and the racist invective flows like blood from a severed caratoid.
5. Those posting comments start reporting views they disagree with as abuse and these are removed.
6. Moderators sift through the flotsam and jetsam at a loss for words.
7. The next article goes up and it all starts again.
I don’t mean to demean the many very positive, very constructive and frequently highly articulate participants in our discussions. But there are seriously awful people out there who are finally giving vent to their seriously awful views online.
Makes you long for the old media.

As you can imagine, commenters on this post took the opportunity to prove him right -- often pseudonomously. It may be tempting to conclude that post-apartheid South Africa, a nation struggling with violence, disease and extreme social tension, is particularly susceptible to online racism and anger. But we know that South Africa is not unique and that the internet is, by its nature, an international forum.

How long before well-meaning people give up on new media as a space for childish venting and the anonymous realization of cowardly fantasies?

South African Journalist Fired for Blogging

South African journalist Llewellyn Kriel was fired from the newspaper Sowetan last Thursday after blogging about the company's mismanagement on Thought Leader. The official reasoning was that Kriel disclosed confidential information about Sowetan, which the company sent out in an email to employees. Others, Kriel included, viewed the decision as an infringement on freedom of expression. Journalist Arthur Goldstuck quotes Kriel:

“Here is an organisation whose entire existence is premised on freedom of expression. It’s an organisation that continually calls on private and public institutions to account for their behaviour. Yet, they don’t want to be measured by that yardstick.

“If a company is putting out a moratorium on new appointments, surely this is something you can argue is in the public interest to be known? Nothing in the email, and nothing in the way it was distributed, gave any indication of sensitivity or confidentiality at all.”

Sowetan published an article just a week earlier on employees' constitutional right to criticize their employer's management practices.

Andrew Trench ponders what the case may signal for the future of intellectual property rights:

WiIl we see employment contracts in media restricting staff from blogging without the permission of their employer, much like freelance writing clauses which are pretty standard in contracts these days?

What if a staff writer developed a popular blog independently within their own time and was able to sell advertising to generate income from it? How would this be dealt with?