Blog Dialogue and anonymous statements

When creating a blog you need to take some choices. Among the choices is the degree to which the reader should be able to leave comments. With the Judge blog , I want to contribute to more openness about the judge's role. Blogging without comments from the readers will not make any sense. I wanted a blog dialogue. It was natural for me to allow anonymous statements as well. I have not added any prior censorship before comments are published. As a blog owner, I still have the opportunity to delete comments.

Photo: Paloetic

The comments from you readers have been the most exciting as editor for the Judge blog. I have experienced life as a judge as very protected against input and criticism from the outside world. In particular, I find that the professionals we meet - prosecutors, defenders, legal aid lawyers, counsel, experts, interpreters - all are very careful to give critical feedback. The threshold for appealing a judge to the supervisory committee is probably too high. In Norway, the judge is appointed for life, and many are too afraid for coming into any discredit with the court to take the chance to criticize the judge. The anonymous commentators on the Judge blog don’t need to be afraid of hidden reprisals. Here I am not protected. Some posts have also been critical.

Getting response from the readers gives me a lot, but I want to go a step further. My goal has been to develop a dialogue with the reader. How to start a blog dialogue? Expressions on the blog are often characterized by being very strong statements.  Strong words are used. The writers do not hesitate to describe people in negative terms. In other words - statements are often apt to create distance. The strong statements make it easy to be on the defensive. But I will not defend myself, I want a blog dialogue.

How do you get to a dialogue with a reader who utters the following :

"Who is born with a pre-given right to punish me for using a less dangerous drug than alcohol in my own private sphere?"

"To condemn people for using drugs is oppressive and a gross abuse from prosecutors and judges.

The misguided and anti-human drug legislation we have in Norway creates more problems and destroys more lives than the use of drugs will ever be near. "

I don’t have as purpose to convince readers that my perspective is correct. I would not be a digital neighboring woman. My desire is to understand other perspective about the Court's role in society. I have therefore tried to avoid flagging own opinions strongly. Instead, I replied to the post by asking questions to the reader. Questions asked because I sincerely want to understand.

The dialogue with the reader who was negative for drug law also resulted in the fact that I understood a little more. He told me, among other things, a story about forced treatment that challenged my own opinions. I never commented on the statement "who are born with a pre-given right to punish me ...", but the anonymous reader later wrote:

"Finally, I am aware that you just do your job, which is to judge by the Norwegian Law, and that there are politicians in Parliament who ultimately will decide this debate."

Receiving criticism is not always easy. I have also learned that some allow themselves a more direct form when they give anonymously statements. There have been several personal attacks. It seems it is a low threshold for readers to describe how they perceive me as a person. I must be honest to say that some of the personal attacks upset me stronger than I thought ahead.

So far I have only deleted one comment. To post " child custody and finances "Marius wrote:

"Rune Lium! You are a very sick   person! Put your finger in the soil!! You idiot!! "

Marius took the deletion with composure, and tried with a new post in which he described why he thought I did not had understood so much. Marius contributed and made a dialogue possible. In retrospect, I'm not sure it was correct of me to delete the comment. Perhaps I should instead have challenged Marius to elaborate on why he reacted so strongly?

My impression is that most think it is positive that I reply to their cpmments. After the establishment of a two-way contact, the statements change. It seems like they take to consideration that they are having a conversation with someone. The language used is muted, and it is easier for me to understand their message.

In particular, the post "Notification obligation for child care?" triggered a lot of comments. In the post I raised the questions if the judge should notify child welfare authorities about his concern for a child in a situation where the family runs the risk that the electricity is shut down. And the reaction came. Several gave very clear message that the notification to child protection was not for the child best interest. I think it developed to an interesting blog dialogue. An interesting phenomenon was that many attributed my opinions about the child that I had not expressed. It was a bit like I was going to accommodate all opinions all judges have, and not least to answer for what everyone had experienced in the courtroom. Some examples of statements: 

•  "Is embarrassing to read what you write!"
• "A judge who allows employees in the public administration to commit illegal, criminal crimes is itself a criminal."  
•  "A judge who does not know that the child (and parents) best is to safeguard the child (and parent) rights under applicable law is far-fetched."
•  "To deprive a person of his father or mother or her child, is comparable to a multiple murder."

I thought that the debate became a bit one-sided negative against the Child Welfare administration, and posted: 

"Your attacks toward the child welfare administration, and everyone who treat cases under the Child Welfare Act, appear to be very extreme. I struggle to understand why you are so judgmental at all."

The person answered me, and I felt that we still had a good dialogue. But not all readers were pleased that I used terms like “extreme” about his statments. In an anonymous post, it was stated that everyone had freedom of speech. One wrote then: 

"It worries me, Lium, that you have a way to set guidelines on Rune LHS statements. You attributes his characteristics and thus turn them into, for you to be something you call condemnation."

But anonymous ended his comment with: 

"Why?"

In other words, an invitation to continue the dialogue. And the blog dialogue has continued. So far 208 comments. One of the participants changed my nickname from Rulium to Lurium (In Norwegian Lur means smart – his intention I guess was to be funny – and in my opinion he was). And maybe so. In any case, the sum of all post really gave me new insight. I hope the the blogdialogue will go on and on.