The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 1–14
“Destroy the scum, and then neuter their families:” the web
forum as a vehicle for community discourse?
Brian Coffey∗ , Stephen Woolworth
University of Washington, Tacoma, Box 358437, 1900 Commerce St., Tacoma, WA 98402-3100, USA
Abstract
On-line media forums have become common vehicles to promote discussion about particular issues
or events. This essay addresses the degree to which the anonymity of such computer-mediated communication affects the level and tone of discourse when sensitive or volatile local issues are the focus
of discussion. Nearly 300 postings to a web forum that was established by a newspaper in response
to a brutal murder that took place in the community are examined. Results show that the forum was
dominated by individuals harshly critical of the assailants, their families, and various civic institutions.
Vitriol, racist denunciations, and calls for severe retribution took precedence over attempts to understand
why the event took place or to express sympathy for the victim. Forums of this nature appear to do little
to promote understanding or encourage positive dialogue. It is recommended that methods designed to
elevate the level of discourse be considered when establishing forums related to local issues that elicit
strong emotion.
© 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The Internet has created countless opportunities for people to communicate, exchange ideas,
voice opinions, and otherwise interact in a manner most would not have envisioned two or
three decades ago. Email, chat rooms, bulletin boards, and virtual communities found in such
outlets as Usenet have altered the manner in which people interact. These new methods of
communication and discourse are often seen as creating a more egalitarian world, at least in
the sense of having one’s voice heard (Walther, 1992). It has been argued, for instance, that
computer-mediated communication offers “an inviting opportunity for democratic dialogue
. . . [that can] . . . contribute to the formation of a spirit of community and civility” (Benson,
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-253-692-5882; fax: +1-253-692-5612.
E-mail address: bcoffey@u.washington.edu (B. Coffey).
0362-3319/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2003.10.001
2
B. Coffey, S. Woolworth / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 1–14
1996, p. 361). It is evident that these increased information flows are viewed as being beneficial
both from an economic and social perspective and that these new means of communication are
often seen as having a positive impact on society.
Others, however, argue that use of cyberspace to communicate with groups of people is
fraught with potential pitfalls, particularly when people espouse strongly held views or discuss
controversial issues. Because electronic communication is remote and often anonymous, “one
never needs to stand face to face with other virtual community members . . . [and] we see
extremes of human behavior and discourse” (Nguyen & Alexander, 1996, p. 117). The result
is that “participants . . . are less inhibited by social niceties and quicker to resort to extreme
language and invective” (Putnam, 2000, p. 176).
That electronic discourse often takes place on a lower plane than face-to-face interaction
is not only related to virtual distance and anonymity. Missing too are social cues that serve
to inhibit people or prompt some change in the intensity or tone of the statements being
made. There is no body language to register discomfort at what is being said, no immediate
verbal response to challenge the viewpoint, and no voice intonation to express disapproval.
In short, many of the things that keep the social self in check are absent. This is a situation that Smith and Kollock (1999, p. 18) liken to “attending a cocktail party and being
able to see only people who are actively speaking, while the room and all the listeners are
invisible.”
But the claim that anonymity may lead to invective is not new, nor is anonymity in computermediated communication always viewed negatively, since it offers individuals the opportunity
to try new forms of expression or interaction without fear of embarrassment (see, for example, Myers, 1987). Moreover, in many instances rules of behavior and conduct do apply to
electronic interaction. This is especially the case in group contexts where people are engaged
in ongoing or long-term communication (Baym, 1998). What is jeopardized in many forums
of computer-mediated communication, though, is civic membership—what Bellah, Madsen,
Sullivan, Swidler, and Tipton (1996, p. xi) describe as “that critical intersection of personal
identity with social identity.” In electronic sites where participants have the choice to remain
anonymous, the temptation to disengage from genuine and authentic interactions with others
is always present and this has profound implications for both the form and function of social
interaction in cyberspace.
Despite these potential shortcomings of Internet discussion, opportunities for interaction
show no signs of abatement. Included among these many outlets for expression are on-line
forums sponsored by various media outlets. These forums are typically found on the web sites
of many newspapers, television stations, and news magazines and invite readers or viewers to
express opinions about current events or issues facing local communities. These sites sometimes
face the same civility issues as other electronic discussion groups. For example, Schultz (2000,
p. 215), in examining the on-line forums of the New York Times notes, “. . . the forum debates
are usually highly political and energetic. While this is desirable in order to revitalize public
discussion, it surely involves the danger of attracting dogmatists and extremists.”
Such forums typically take one of two forms. In some instances they are on-going and
provide for discussion of various topics in the news. Other news forums are more focused in
that they are established only occasionally and are intended to deal with a specific event or
issue that is of particular interest to the community. For example, focused forums may be set up
B. Coffey, S. Woolworth / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 1–14
3
to provide a setting for debate on a particular policy issue. Or, such forums may be established
to deal with a particularly dramatic (or traumatic) event that has affected a community. In such
instances the forums are often intended to help people come to terms with what took place,
share ideas about preventing future occurrences, or to voice concerns about the circumstances
that led to the event. In short, forums of this nature are intended to serve the community by
providing an outlet for constructive discourse.
How such forums are used, whether or not they serve their stated purpose, and the extent to
which they benefit the community and/or improve community relations are issues which merit
attention. This essay addresses the matter of focused on-line news forums as potential sites of
productive and beneficial discussion through the examination of one such forum established by
The News Tribune (TNT) of Tacoma, Washington in August 2000. The forum was established to
allow community members to “share” their thoughts about a senseless killing that had recently
occurred in the city.
The forum came about after the death of an individual named Eric Toews, a 30-year-old
resident of Tacoma. On the night of Saturday, August 19th, 2000 Mr. Toews was walking
near the city center when he was approached by a group of youths, one of whom asked for
a cigarette. As Toews paused to grant his request, the group physically assaulted him. Three
days later a brief description of the attack appeared in the crime section of The News Tribune
listing Toews in critical condition. The following Friday, after 6 days in a coma, Eric Toews
died. The announcement of his death was the lead headline in The News Tribune the next day:
“Man dies from beating injuries” (Burns, 2000b, p. A1).
The news story revealed that Toews was the ninth white male who had been robbed and/or
assaulted while walking alone at night in the previous month by individuals described in The
Tribune as a group of “black or Hispanic boys” between the ages of 12 and 15. Tacoma detectives
stated they believed the youths were targeting men walking alone and that they were using a
variety of tactics to approach their victims. The string of offenses was listed in chronological
order on the paper’s front page next to a location map marked by numbered dots indicating
where each crime had taken place. For the first time, Tacoma residents were alerted to a pattern
of escalating street crimes that occurred at night in the same area of the city.
Aside from the brutal nature of the crimes, the information reported in the paper carried
racial and class meanings for city residents, symbolized most notably by who the victims were,
who the suspects were thought to be, and where in the city the crimes were committed. The
majority of the incidents occurred on or near “Division Avenue,” a street aptly named since it
marks the border or “convergence zone” between a low-income, racially-mixed neighborhood
and a predominantly middle to upper-middle class white neighborhood. The string of attacks
was reminiscent of the gang and drug-related violence that had plagued Tacoma for some
time, giving the city a sharply negative public image in the greater Northwest region. However,
Tacoma’s reputation as a crime-ridden metropolis had begun to change in recent years. For
example, in 1993 Tacoma had 35 homicides and 238 reported drive-by shootings. In 2000 the
city had 14 homicides and seven reported drive-by shootings. Thus, this series of attacks had
raised concerns about a resurging wave of violence in the city (Burns, 2001, p. A1).
In the days after Toews’ death, print and electronic media coverage intensified and fliers
bearing Toews’ picture began to appear on store windows, bulletin boards, and telephone poles
throughout the city. Area residents were encouraged to take extra precautions and were warned
4
B. Coffey, S. Woolworth / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 1–14
not to walk alone at night. Many expressed anger at the police for not alerting them earlier, while
others questioned whether the crimes might be “racially motivated” and should be considered
“hate crimes.” The police defended their actions by responding that they had not linked the
different cases together until after Toews was attacked, and they assured residents they were
now giving the case their full attention. The crimes, the police maintained, were “crimes of
opportunity,” not racist attacks.
By the night of Monday August 28th, 9 days after the assault on Toews, several suspects were
arrested. Television news reported the arrests on Tuesday, and on Wednesday city residents
awoke to The News Tribune’s headline: “8 arrested in thrill beatings.” The case received
national attention with a news report by at least one of the major television networks. With the
news of the arrests came facts about the suspects. The oldest, a 19-year-old African-American
male, and a 16-year-old Hispanic male were held in the county jail to be charged as adults.
The other suspects included three African Americans (ages 15, 14, and 12), two Caucasians
(ages 15 and 11) and a 12-year-old Hispanic youth. City residents learned that the suspects
had been harassing others in their neighborhood for some time, and, in fact, were stopped and
questioned about the assaults by the police the previous week. Patrol officers even drove some
of the youths home after questioning them so that they would not be in violation of the city
curfew. After the arrests, the statements from the police in both the print and television media
reiterated earlier assertions that these were, indeed, opportunity crimes. As the lead homicide
detective bluntly concluded, these “kids would just get together and decide to go beat someone
up” (Burns, 2000a, pp. A1, A16).
In the court papers released later that day, prosecutors described the attack. When the group
saw Toews walking across the street, the 19-year-old asked the group if they “wanted to get
him.” The 12-year-old approached Toews and asked for a cigarette. When Toews reached into
his pocket, the 19-year-old assaulted him. Toews was then knocked to the ground where the
other youths moved in kicking, hitting, and stomping him. The 11-year-old boy reportedly
beat Toews with a stick. At one point during the assault, Toews was able to get away only to
be knocked down again by the 19-year-old who then proceeded to knee-drop Toews 28 times
in the face, counting each knee drop aloud. The group of young attackers then fled the scene
when they saw a person nearby placing a telephone call.
As the arrests and the details of the case became public on the afternoon of Tuesday, August
29th, The News Tribune announced it was starting an “open forum” on its web site inviting
community members to “share your thoughts” (Reid & Gillie, 2000, p. A1). For the next 3
days, hundreds of people logged on to the site and posted their thoughts, opinions, and feelings
about what had happened. This paper provides an analysis of the forum’s content in order to
obtain some insight into the value of this medium as a means of promoting positive community
discourse and understanding, especially in cases where the topic is one that has considerable
potential to provoke anger, ill-feelings, and social division.
2. Methodology
The News Tribune’s forum site was started late in the day on Tuesday, August 29th and ended
at approximately midnight on Friday, September 1st. Because we were unable to recover what
B. Coffey, S. Woolworth / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 1–14
5
we estimate to be the first 30 to 50 messages posted on Tuesday, our data are comprised of all
forum posts from early Wednesday morning through Friday night.
We began our content analysis of the cyber forum by grouping the responses or “posts” by
day—Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, respectively. Each post was reviewed to determine its
primary theme or point of view.
Posts were sorted into six categories as follows.
1. Those that tended to blame or criticize society in general for the crime.
2. Those that criticized or expressed hostility toward the youths and/or called for retributive
justice.
3. Those that criticized or blamed the families of the youths. These posts may also have
included criticism or condemnation of the youths themselves.
4. Those that contained institutional criticism. These included criticism of the media, the
criminal justice system, the police, and/or the department of social services.
5. Posts that expressed sympathy for the victim and/or his family.
6. “Other” posts that did not fit any of the above categories.
In addition, any mention of race in the posts was recorded according to comments that had
explicit racial and/or racist overtones versus those that discouraged or challenged racist posts
or sought to promote racial understanding. In only a few instances was race or racism judged to
be the primary topic of a post. In such cases, the post was listed in the “other” category. Thus,
figures shown for race in the data set are derived from the values listed for the six categories
shown above.
Further, to avoid having any one individual or any group of individuals skew the results
by repeatedly expressing views, we included only one post per person per day. In the case of
multiple posts, only a person’s first post of the day was included in the data. However, we did
examine the content and frequency of multiple posts by repeat users to determine the degree to
which a sense of community developed. Admittedly, limitations exist here in that it is possible
that individuals participating in the forum used different names when sending messages. It
was only on Friday, the final day of the forum, that we were able to obtain the IP addresses of
the forum participants from the site’s webmaster. This information allowed us to discount the
repeated posts of one user who registered under different names.
3. Findings
In total, 279 comments were examined. Of these, 60 or 22% were written on the first day
of the forum. This figure increased on the second day when 105 statements (38% of the total)
appeared. The third day saw the largest number of comments with 114 messages accounting
for 41% of the total. The increase in numbers over time is, in all likelihood, a function of the
fact that the newspaper hosting the site noted its existence each day in its published editions and
invited readers to provide input. Thus, the increase in activity is probably due to an increasing
number of readers becoming aware of the forum with each passing day.
As the title of this essay suggests, anger and outrage were commonly expressed in the forum.
In general, writers tended to be critical to one degree or another with nearly 80% of all messages
6
B. Coffey, S. Woolworth / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 1–14
Table 1
Forum posts by primary subject
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Total
Blame placed on society in general
Blame placed on youth involved
Blame placed on families of youths
Blame placed on various institutions
Sympathy expressed for victim or his family
Other
12% (7)
8% (5)
18% (12)
35% (21)
5% (3)
28% (12)
11% (12)
30% (31)
18% (19)
24% (25)
5% (5)
12% (13)
11% (12)
9% (10)
26% (30)
29% (33)
6% (7)
19% (22)
11% (31)
17% (46)
22% (61)
28% (79)
5% (15)
17% (47)
Negative racial comment included in message
Positive references to race
28% (17)
3% (2)
11% (12)
1% (1)
17% (19)
10% (11)
17% (48)
5% (14)
assigning blame, proposing punishments, questioning societal values, or criticizing parents,
institutions, and/or the youths themselves. Almost 40% of the comments focused on the youths
or their families. Another 28% directed criticism at institutions such as the police, the legal
system, or the media. In addition, 11% criticized society in general or raised questions about
the values of a society in which such incidents could occur (Table 1).
The harshest comments were reserved for the youths and their families. For example, one
person wrote, “I wish this state [had] the death penalty! That way I could go and watch each
and everyone of these punks get FRIED!!” Another person suggested that “each of these boys
should be publicly whipped and then executed on the six o’clock news” and a third noted,
“There may still be hope for the youngest of these criminals, but shoot the 16- and 19-year-old
in the head and save a few tax dollars.”
Relatives of the youths were the targets of similar comments, especially after interviews by
television crews during which one relative blamed the incident on the fact that the boys “were
bored.” In fact, many writers responded to various segments of the televised clips as is the case
with one person who noted, “I am just as pissed at Mom, Auntie, and Gramma for being so
damn stupid. From checking out the tattoos on those ‘babes’ I can assume that they haven’t
spent a lot of time volunteering at the local Boys and Girls’ Clubs. Slimebags.” Another asked
of the parents, “. . . How can you sleep at night? Where were you when your children were out
killing because ‘they were bored?’ How can you even call yourselves parents?” Still another
writer suggested that perhaps it is the relatives who should be punished: “If these brats are too
young to understand that beating a man to death is wrong, then strap their parents into Old
Sparky or put the needle in the parent’s veins.” One other person argued that both the parents
and the youths deserve punishment with the comment,
If these punks are found guilty, their parents should be held financially responsible to all the
victims and their families. These punks should be given the most severe punishment available
by law. We need to purge the EVIL from among us. These thugs are the poster boys for EVIL.
The punk that drop kicked his victim 28 times deserves death in my opinion. His parents deserve
sterilization, so as not to ever produce again such a menace to society . . .
Finally, one individual was more terse but no less blunt in expressing an opinion about the
youths and their families with the words, “IT’S TIME TO HANG THE PARENTS WITH
THEIR CRIMINAL SPAWNS.”
B. Coffey, S. Woolworth / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 1–14
7
While forum participants were quick to condemn and while there were numerous calls for
harsh punishment, expressions of sympathy for the victim and/or his family and friends were
limited. In total, only 15 participants, a scant 5% of all messages, expressed some sort of
compassion for those affected by the crime.
Twenty-eight percent of the messages criticized various institutions such as the police department, the news media, or the criminal justice system. Participants complained about the
manner in which the investigation was handled and how the incident was reported. In addition,
some argued that the incident would not have occurred were it not for a lax criminal justice
system that coddles offenders.
For example, one individual wrote, “I only wish our judicial system would finally take a
stand against these ‘KILLERS’ instead of wiping their noses and blaming it on society as a
whole.” Another argued, “This kind of atrocity happens because perpetrators have no ‘fear’
of justice. The ‘judicial system’ has pretty much told them that ‘even if they are caught,’ the
consequences will be modest.”
The media were also criticized for their reporting of the crime with many participants
arguing that The News Tribune was sympathetic toward the youths and their families. The
following is typical of the response to the newspaper’s reporting: “I am personally offended
at the biased reporting your reporters are performing by putting their own spin on this very
tragic . . . incident. The reporters are sympathizing with the families of the thugs who killed
that man.” Others suggested that the newspaper bore some responsibility for the incident. One
person wrote, “Tacoma News Tribine [sic] . . . should share some of the negligence in this
matter. Why didn’t the New’s [sic] Tribune pick up on these beatings and report the news to
the public BEFORE someone was put into a coma by these beatings.”
However, in criticizing institutional behavior some of the strongest words were reserved for
the Tacoma Police Department who, many felt, handled the investigation in a shoddy manner.
One person noted, “Not only do the heads of the guilty party need to roll, but some at Tacoma
P.D. The first one that needs to go is the Chief of Police. What kind of stupid, irresponsible
idiot is this person?” Another wrote, “the chief of police, at best, has a great deal of explaining
to do, and at worst has some of this blood on his hands.” Still another noted, “As a Caucasian
resident of Tacoma I am glad that finally our community gets to see the police sit on their
butts, eating donuts and wasting money. This is nothing new it’s just unfortunate it took this
long because this is what the minority communities have been facing for years.” Yet one more
example of the public’s frustration with local law enforcement is found in the words of the
individual who wrote, “The police make me sick. They described the terror by these punks
as ‘obnoxious behavior,’ and the officer speaking said he was surprised it was youth doing it.
What planet did he come from . . . ”
Finally, 47 of the participants (17% of the total) fell into an “other” category. Typically
these were people who voiced thoughts or opinions only tangentially related to the issue. They
included, for example, calls to embrace religion, demands that citizens’ rights to carry firearms
and protect themselves be preserved, and reports of similar incidents that happened elsewhere.
Race was also a factor in the public’s reaction to the assaults. Prior to the arrests the assailants
were described as a gang of blacks and Hispanics. After arrests were made the media identified
four of the youths as African American, two as Hispanic and two as white. Further, the point
was made that all of their victims were white. These facts served as catalysts for references to
8
B. Coffey, S. Woolworth / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 1–14
race in many of the reactions studied. Sixty-two of the forum’s participants (22% of the total)
made some reference to race. About half of these were calls for the youths to be charged with
hate crimes, given that the majority of the offenders were people of color, all of the victims
were white, and the county prosecutor’s indication that the state’s hate-crime statute probably
would not be invoked in this case.
The reactions by those commenting on this element of the case generally reflected a sense
of resentment that hate crimes were not being recognized because of the race/ethnicity of the
youths. In essence, writers charged that a form of reverse discrimination was taking place.
Three examples typify the reactions of those who dwelt on this topic. One person wrote, “I too
want to know why this is a ‘thrill’ crime not a ‘hate’ crime. It seems we label things differently
depending on the race of the victim and/or the criminals.” In a similar vein, a second individual
noted, “It amazes me that this is not being considered a hate crime. If it is against blacks or
other minorities, it is automatically described as such. If its [sic] against whites, it’s considered
a ‘random crime.’ Ah, political correctness!” A third writer was more forceful in noting, “I am
fed up here. Every time a black gets beat up or stoped [sic] by the cops . . . it’s racial. But if a
white gets beat to death . . . it’s not. I say bull.”
About 28% of the writers of race-related comments ignored the hate-crime issue but directed
racial invective against the youths or society at large. In some instances the comments were
overtly racist. For example, one individual wrote, “. . . Until the minorities who spawned these
murdering scum take responsibility to clean up the miscreants who commit such crimes and
stop making excuses for their sorry conduct, this type of nonsense is not going to stop.”
Others were equally racist but employed other techniques to make their points, as illustrated
by the following attempt at sarcasm:
Come on people! Let’s not be prejudiced! That the 10 or more victims were white is just a
corny coincidence. I’m sure if they could have found any black people . . . during that time they
would of beat them up too. As for [the victim] if he had been black I’m sure [the offenders]
would have done 28 knee-drops to HIS unconscious face too . . . .
In other instances racist comments were directed further afield. For example, one person
asked, “How soon can we expect The Rev. Al Sharpton and perhaps Johnny Corchran [sic]
or the likes to pervert justice and Tacoma tax payers end up with a multi-million dollar law
suit?” Similarly, another writer noted, “If these 10 attacks happened to any other race other
than white, we would have the likes of Jessie Jackson’s face on the news every day for a
month—screaming for justice . . . ” And yet a third said,
If [the police] would have warned the neighborhood ‘watch out for a group . . . made up of
mostly blacks and Hispanics’ the ACLU, the NACCP [sic] would have been all over them. Sure
a white guy died as a result of their political decision . . . since he is white, there is no interest
group to make him their cause celebre. If you are not part of a ‘protected class’ in America in
2000, then you better get used to this.
One other forum participant sought to stereotype the broader African-American community
in noting “. . . minority children are taught . . . that Honkies [have been] out to get them . . .
for so long that they are basically free to do whatever, whenever they want . . . .”
B. Coffey, S. Woolworth / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 1–14
9
Finally, only a small number of people who injected race into the proceedings did so in
a positive manner. Of the 62 messages dealing with race, 14 (22%) were calls for racial
understanding or pleas to tone down the racist rhetoric that was appearing in the forum.
4. Discussion
The first finding in this study that we believe merits discussion is the overwhelming number
of critical posts. While the criticism was directed at several sources ranging from the youth
and their parents to institutions like the media and the police, the harsh nature of the posts
suggests that the web forum was an outlet for people’s anger, outrage, and frustration over the
attacks. Because it was the newspaper that sponsored the forum, it stands to reason that those
who posted comments did so after reading stories in The News Tribune since that was the only
place where the forum was advertised. The events and the media’s coverage of them elicited
emotional reactions in people which were then expressed in the forum. However, the manner
in which this was done, we believe, is significant to our understanding of the Internet as a site
for community building and meaningful interaction.
While the percentage of critical posts is noteworthy, so too is their focus. The majority
of critical posts were focused on the youths and/or their families and, as the examples in
the findings section imply, many of these comments were extreme in the way they expressed
sentiments of revenge, retribution, and vigilante-like ideas. In contrast, a public meeting held
while the forum was ongoing and attended by some 400 to 500 community residents was
notable for the lack of vigilante rhetoric or threats of revenge. There were neither the extreme
calls for retribution nor the racist comments that were offered up in the web forum.
The differences between the comments at the public meeting and those on the newspaper’s
forum can be related to the format of each. The web forum permitted anonymity with no
social constraints on reactions to the incident, language used, or attitudes expressed. However, the community meeting was organized and moderated by the Tacoma Police Department.
A large police presence was evident, it had a 2-hr time limit, a police officer opened the
discussion and spoke for the first half-hour, television cameras were present, the police specifically called for tolerance of differing viewpoints, and speakers were required to state their
names.
During the public meeting there was criticism of the police, there were calls for accountability, and the parents of the youths were criticized. However, the criticism was muted and it was
expressed in civil tones. Further, pleas for racial understanding, expressions of concern for the
community, and calls for finding solutions to violence of this nature dominated the meeting.
Race as a potentially controversial issue was introduced only once. In response to a speaker’s
request that the police and the public avoid “racial profiling” in reacting to the incident a person
in the audience noted that it was the youths who had engaged in racial profiling. Clearly the
format of the meeting, the approach adopted by the majority of speakers, and the presence of
the police and the media affected the tenor of the gathering and created a distinctly different
response to the matter than was the case on the Internet.
Admittedly, communication in the physical presence of others is not necessarily the more
productive or more positive form of discourse given that “face-to-face interaction does not
10
B. Coffey, S. Woolworth / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 1–14
necessarily break down boundaries, and to adopt it as an ideal will likewise not necessarily
facilitate communication, community building, or understanding among people” (Jones, 1998,
p. 26). However, communication in the physical presence of others does tend to bring about
restraint and, in many cases, a tempering of the words used to make points.
We also found that the information released each day in both the print and broadcast media
tended to influence the content and nature of these responses. For example, on the first day The
News Tribune reported the arrests they referred to the assaults as “thrill crimes” but the specific
details of the attack on Mr. Toews were not included. On that day 28% of posts blamed or
criticized the youths and/or their families. On the second day the graphic details of the attack
on Toews contained in the court papers were printed in the paper and reported on television.
These details included the “28 knee drops” that led to Mr. Toews’ death and a comment by
a grandmother of one of the suspects that explained away the youth’s behavior as the result
of boredom. The forum participants reacted strongly to this. Postings that expressed anger or
called for punishment of the youths and/or their families increased to 48%. Much of this anger
lingered into the third day when 35% of all posts in the forum called for retribution/punishment
or criticized the youths and/or their families. In sum, we see a significant correlation between
the content of the stories in The News Tribune each day and the tone and content exhibited in
the web forum posts.
Another interesting finding is that a small percentage of the posts that we categorized as
“Other” involved instances where people used the forum as a vehicle to promote specific
agendas that were not directly related to the attack. For example, several people used the
forum to argue against gun control suggesting that if Mr. Toews (or any of the other victims)
had been armed then the attacks could have prevented. Others used the forum to promote
religious views and in one instance, the forum was used to recruit members for a known hate
group. This evidence suggests that some individuals used the web forum to advertise and/or
promote their own religious and political agendas with little regard for the specific issue at
hand.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this forum was the degree to which racist attitudes were
expressed. Nearly 20% of all the posts during the 3-day period addressed race in a negative
fashion. Sixty percent of those posts called attention to the issue of hate crimes. In these
instances forum participants complained that a double standard was being used in determining
what constituted a hate crime. In general, they argued that the criminal justice system favored
minorities in designating when a hate crime had been committed. The remaining 40% of the
race-negative posts were much more extreme in the manner in which they exhibited racial
bias. In some cases all people of color were characterized in negative ways. In other instances
the families of the youths were depicted in harsh racial terms. This sort of reaction was not
found in the public meeting. Nevertheless, this does not mean that many in attendance did not
harbor feelings of ill-will toward people of color. If such feelings existed among those in the
audience they were likely not expressed because of the constraints of identity, media and police
presence, and the face-to-face venue of the event. However, it is argued that the anonymity
the Internet affords gives prejudiced people license to publicly express racist attitudes. This
contention is reinforced by the fact that only 25% of those who expressed negative racial views
in this forum included their email address as a part of their post, while 53% of all other forum
participants included theirs. This discrepancy suggests that the majority of those individuals
B. Coffey, S. Woolworth / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 1–14
11
who expressed such prejudicial attitudes did so only because they could remain completely
anonymous.
Along similar lines, only 5% of forum participants expressed sympathy for the victims and
their friends and families. Again, in the public forum where individuals had to stand in one
another’s presence, calls for racial understanding and sympathy were a more common theme
espoused by those who spoke at the event. That the reverse is true in cyberspace reinforces
the notion that discussants in Internet forums are more willing to use the Internet to express
extreme social and political viewpoints.
One final finding we believe is noteworthy is that initially the forum was not used as a
means for the participants to interact and/or respond to one another. For example, on the first
day only five people could be identified as repeat users and only 8 or 11% of the postings either
referred to other posts or invited others to respond. A similar situation is found on the second
day when there were nine repeat users and only four of the posts invited others to respond
directly. However, this changed markedly on the third day when 30% of all posts were from
repeat users. Also on the third day, 64 or 37% of all posts were what we consider responsive
or interactive in nature—that is, they built on an idea presented in another post, responded to
a point made by someone else, or asked another participant a question.
This lack of interactivity during the first 2 days of the forum is somewhat perplexing. We
believe a number of things may explain this. It may be that no themes or particular subjects
emerged that prompted or invited direct responses from others. It also might be that in forums
such as this people initially post a message to express anger or to emote in some fashion, and
only after the immediacy of the emotions subsides are people more willing to engage with
others. On the other hand, it might be that forum participants wait to see what themes or lines
of thought repeatedly surface in the forum before they begin to respond directly to others. And
finally, some individuals may wait to see who the repeat users are. For instance, on day 3 we
found that repeat posters returned to the forum at different times throughout the day to view the
comments and submit additional posts. Repeat postings by the same individual often appeared
several hours apart. The fact that on the third day users begin returning to the forum on a regular
basis and posting additional comments is an interesting phenomenon. In essence, individuals
are now making the forum a part of their day. They are repeatedly drawn to the site and make it
a point to express additional thoughts. It may be that for a small group of users the forum begins
to take on the characteristics of a “soap opera” in which they are permitted to participate. Who
these people are and why they adopt this approach on the third day is something that deserves
further investigation. Further, the final hours of the forum were dominated by a select group of
repeat users who had, at that point, begun to monopolize the forum for their own conversations.
For example, approximately 50% of all repeat posts for day three appeared during the final two
hours of the forum. During this time thirteen individuals were repeat posters. However, three
individuals accounted for two-thirds of these posts. During the final few hours the repeat posters
did not verbally attack one another. However, they did carry on socially divisive and, in part,
racially-charged dialogue. Further, none of these participants included their email addresses.
The fact that it took so long for interaction to take place over this highly-charged issue and the
fact that those who participated chose to remain anonymous from one another merit further
inquiry on the part of those who seek to better understand the dynamics of interactions in
cyberspace.
12
B. Coffey, S. Woolworth / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 1–14
5. Conclusions
The role of the electronic forum as a vehicle for constructive dialogue to promote understanding and to address community concerns appears to be limited in certain situations. Indeed,
in some instances, such forums are counter-productive to their stated purposes. This may well
be the case when the topic is likely to have raised the ire of many in the community, as did the
senseless killing of Mr. Toews. The forum analyzed in this study was intended as an outlet for
concern, a vehicle to express sorrow and sympathy, and a means to let people try and understand why the incident took place and how such incidents might be prevented in the future. In
short, it was intended to bring people together. However, the volatile topics of race and crime
coupled with the anonymity of the Internet served to create something entirely different. What
emerged was a series of vitriolic, argumentative, and racist denunciations of the youths, their
families, and various socio-political institutions.
Communication in the physical presence of others carries with it restraints. In some fashion,
those listening to us hold us accountable for what we say. We are aware of this and structure
our conversations and behavior accordingly (Goffman, 1959). Electronic communication, in
large part, removes those constraints. Furthermore, passions are often fueled by what others
say. Forums are often unmonitored and, hence, uncensored. When people see others expressing
extreme or outlandish views they may be less inhibited in expressing their own sentiments in
equally strong terms. This appears to be particularly true for short-term forums where no sense
of “virtual community” develops since participants do not have the opportunity to get to know
one another over an extended period of time.
In some cases the web forum appears to do little to help people come to terms with an
adverse event. Clearly this is the case when people aired thoughts about the death of Eric
Toews. It would be difficult to argue that this particular forum brought people together in
any meaningful way. Rather, the manner in which the forum was used was socially divisive.
The impact of this is magnified by the fact that the forum was sponsored by the community’s
leading news organization. This lent some degree of credibility to the forum, it no doubt
increased readership/authorship, and it may well have led to the impression that the sentiments
expressed in the forum were reflective of the general public in much the same way that “letters
to the editor” are judged to reflect the public’s views.
However, only a fraction of letters to editors are ever printed, they are not anonymous,
and extreme or volatile language rarely appears on opinion pages. In the case of unmonitored
forums the writers are usually unknown. We do not know their ages, their backgrounds, or their
places of residence—nor can we easily find these things out. Thus, the forum becomes a means
of expression for people who otherwise would not (and in many cases probably should not)
be heard. This is not to suggest that forums such as these should be discontinued. However,
media outlets may wish to give more consideration to the types of topics selected to promote
community understanding and dialogue.
Moreover, while we do not advocate censorship, we do think some monitoring of the content
of web forums is in order. One option available to media organizations is asking participants
to register as forum users. Such an approach may serve to temper the content of postings and
reinstate the social constraints that are otherwise absent in electronic communication of this
sort. We do not believe a registration requirement compromises the free speech aspects of
B. Coffey, S. Woolworth / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 1–14
13
Internet forums. In such instances participants still have the right to express their viewpoints,
however outlandish. Further, they continue to remain anonymous to other posters. The only
thing that registration does is reveal the identity of forum users to a small, non-participating
group (i.e., the site’s webmasters). This will introduce a level of “social presence” that is well
below that of face-to-face communication but more than is found in completely anonymous
electronic communication (see, for example, Gackenbach, 1998, p. 50). The introduction of this
low level of “constraint” may well serve to improve the dialogue associated with controversial
and emotional topics.
This case study suggests that in some instances the potential for Internet web forums to
serve as sites for the exchange of effective, positive, and constructive ideas is limited. Rather
than fostering honest and meaningful dialogue among individuals affected by a disturbing
and racially-charged incident in their city, this study has shown that the forum was actually used by participants to subvert the very possibility of this occurring. While we take
some comfort in knowing that there were individuals who challenged the tone and content of overtly racist messages posted in the forum, they were clearly in the minority. The
civility, empathy, and reasoned commentary so important to the substance of any democracy existed only on the forum’s fringe as the majority of participants sought to use the
forum to blame and criticize while sometimes advancing their own extreme beliefs behind
the veil of anonymity. We are reminded here of the work of legal scholar Stephen Carter
who, in his treatise on civility, describes an “etiquette of democracy” that “requires that we
express ourselves in ways that demonstrate our respect for others” (Carter, 1998, p. 282).
There were few instances of such democratic mannerisms at work in The News Tribune’s web
forum.
The case also raises a number of prospects for further research. For example, the difference
between long-term and short-term forums merits further attention. Is there less likelihood of
extremism within ongoing cyber-communities or does it depend on the topic being considered?
Another avenue for exploration is the question of place. Are people more likely to respond
more vigorously to an incident or issue that is local rather than something from which they are
further removed? In other words, is there a distance-bias that affects rhetoric when coupled
with the anonymity of cyberspace? Finally, the matter of anonymity versus identification is one
that merits more study. When people identify themselves in some respect (e.g., by registering
to be part of a forum or by including an email address) does this make them less likely to
engage in rhetoric that people find offensive? Findings from such work may be of value in
promoting civility and community in cyberspace.
Finally, if one sought to find something positive about the role of a web forum such as
this, it might be argued that, while the forum was a depository for expressions of rage, the
mere act of making such pronouncements (e.g., “there is no way that you fix these worthless
idiots . . . get THEM off the face of the earth . . . to [sic] bad we can’t do their families
in too”) may have, in some small way, allowed forum participants to release themselves
of the immediacy of their emotions. This, in turn, may have decreased the possibility of
their pursuing an even more extreme response to this incident. Should this have been the
case, we still find little comfort in the potential of cyber venues like this to promote understanding and further community discourse when they deal with volatile and emotional social
issues.
14
B. Coffey, S. Woolworth / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 1–14
References
Baym, N. (1998). The emergence of community in computer-mediated communication. In S. Jones (Ed.),
Cybersociety (pp. 138–163). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1996). Habits of the heart: Individualism
and commitment in American life (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Benson, T. (1996). Rhetoric, civility, and community: Political debate on computer bulletin boards. Communication
Quarterly, 44(3), 359–378.
Burns, S. (2000a, August 30). Eight arrested in thrill beatings; 7 boys, 1 man suspects in spree that killed Tacoma
man. The News Tribune (pp. A1, A16).
Burns, S. (2000b, August 26). Man dies from beating injuries. The News Tribune (p. A1).
Burns, S. (2001, January 22). Arrests made in all homicide cases from 2000. The News Tribune (p. A8).
Carter, S. L. (1998). Civility: Manners, morals, and the etiquette of democracy. New York: Basic Books.
Gackenbach, J. (Ed.). (1998). Psychology and the Internet. San Diego: Academic Press.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
Jones, S. (1998). Information, Internet, and community: Notes toward an understanding of community in the
information age. In S. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting computer-mediated communication and
community (pp.1–34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Myers, D. (1987). ‘Anonymity is part of the magic’: Individual manipulation of computer-mediated communication
contexts. Qualitative Sociology, 19(3), 251–266.
Nguyen, D. T., & Alexander, J. (1996). The coming of cyberspacetime and the end of the polity. In R. Shields (Ed.),
Cultures of the Internet (pp. 99–124). London: Sage Publications.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Reid, C., & Gillie, J. (2000, August 31). Grief, anger spill out; 2 suspects plead not guilty to murder in court
appearance. The News Tribune (p. A1).
Schultz, T. (2000). Mass media and the concept of interactivity: An exploratory study of online forums and reader
email. Media, Culture & Society, 22(2), 205–221.
Smith, M. A., & Kollock, P. (Eds.). (1999). Communities in cyberspace. London: Routeledge.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction. Communication Research, 19(1),
52–90.