Talkbacks are beautiful

Even repugnant responses contribute to public debate; anti-talkback bill foolish
Amnon Levy

Truth be told, I really like to read talkbacks, and when I finish reading a news story I quickly continue to the responses. I like them as a writer too, and they are the only reason why I chose to write online and not for a newspaper. And believe me, talkbacks have not been kind to me. Truth be told, the common response to my articles, particularly on issues of war, peace, and minority rights, comprised swearwords, insults, libel, and whatnot. And still, it is very important for me to read all those messages.

What do I like about it? Why is it so important for me to read these responses? After all, we are not talking about criticism even. In many cases we are talking about the readers’ vomit; unprocessed vomit being poured onto the keyboard and finding its way to the screen. What can one learn from vomit?

Back Talk

'Talkback Bill' passes preliminary reading / Amnon Meranda

Knesset approves bill making respondents and site managers liable for talkbacks. MK Yacimovich: Bill impinges on freedom of speech

Full story

Well, I have been a journalist, playwright, and TV announcer for more than 20 years. Criticism is my territorial water. Those are indeed not recommended drinking water, but nonetheless I got used to consuming them. Various critics published hundreds of reviews on my work, some of them quite belligerent. It was indeed scathing criticism, yet it did not come from the writers’ gut. Critics too have an audience, and they wrote to it. When a professional critic writes a review it should be first viewed as a column meant to entertain readers – because critics also have rating that affects them. At times they are not just affected; they work for that rating.

The criticism leveled by talkbackers, however, is free of all this. Here we are talking about something that comes from the gut. The combination of anonymity and a human need to respond to what’s happening, said, or written, leads talkbackers to verbal violence on the one hand, but also to a fascinating exposure of feelings and thoughts that no other place can allow.

Democratization of writing

Precisely because the words are not processed and have no rating, and because this kind of writing does not come with a salary or anything in exchange aside from the publication of the message, precisely because of all that I view this as an important form of freedom of speech. Talkback vomit may be a repulsive thing, but it is very authentic. For that reason, it has great value.

The talkbackers took the monopoly away from the press’ authorized writers. One no longer needs to be part of distinguished elites in order to express an opinion. Anyone can do it, and everyone counts. You can write with spelling mistakes. You can write without thinking. You can write foolish things. It’s permitted. It’s ok. In my view, this constitutes a sort of wonderful democratization of writing and of the right to express an opinion. Any attempt to limit it is needless and harmful.

True, sometimes it hurts to read. It’s bothersome or insulting. Those who are unable to withstand such criticism should not be exposing themselves to the public. But what will we gain if talkbacks are neutralized? The gut will suddenly turn to producing polite pamphlets? This is not what will happen. The feelings would remain the same, but the outlet would be blocked. Members of the traditional elite will again be given the right to censor; to determine what is tolerable and what is not. Public debate will lose.

The new talkback bill that aims to impose legal and criminal responsibility on talkback writers and on websites is anachronistic and foolish. This is a war waged by the old elite for its lost place in the Internet era, which led to the democratization of expressing opinions. This bill fails to see the new freedom of expression space introduced by the Internet; it fails to see the important public value of exposure to this lowly culture and the beauty inherent in the ugly talkbacks.