Receipts Included: What CCN’s Vaccine Comment Section Says About Its Supporters

I was hoping Cowlitz County News might give me just one day off from writing about the nonsense that spills out of its Facebook page. Apparently, that's too much to ask. At this point, CCN ought to put me on their payroll. They keep supplying the material, and I keep doing the writing. It's practically a business partnership, except I'm not getting paid and they don't seem smart enough to know they're helping.

CCN seems to have a rather fascinating interpretation of free speech. They believe they should be free to publish whatever nonsense they want, criticize whoever they want, and push whatever political narrative suits their purposes. Fine. That's how free speech works.

Here's the part that apparently requires advanced mathematics: the rest of us have that same freedom.

We can criticize CCN. We can question its coverage. We can point out hypocrisy when we see it. We can call out ugly behavior in its comment section without being accused of trying to silence anybody.

Funny how the free speech crowd gets a little less enthusiastic when the speech is directed at them.

The latest CCN comment-section circus started with a post about politicians getting their COVID and flu shots. A perfectly ordinary subject. Somehow, the discussion managed to produce vaccine misinformation, attacks on a cancer survivor, an ableist insult, a homophobic slur, and an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

That's quite a haul of bullshit for one Facebook post.

Apparently, surviving cancer doesn't earn you a little respect

Mary Katherine Ray explained that she had survived breast cancer in 2012 and thyroid cancer in 2015. She also explained why she chose to get vaccinated.

You'd think surviving two cancers might earn a person a little compassion. Maybe even a brief pause before strangers start taking potshots at her medical decisions.

Not in the CCN comment section. Apparently, some folks decided that surviving cancer wasn't enough of a challenge, so they volunteered to make her Facebook experience another one.

Imagine going through breast cancer and thyroid cancer, surviving both, and then having to defend your healthcare decisions to people whose medical credentials appear to consist of owning a smartphone and having very strong opinions.

Meg Marie challenged Mary Katherine, who explained her cancer history and why she chose to get vaccinated. Rather than accepting that Mary Katherine was discussing her own experience, the argument continued.

Then somebody called Mary Katherine "retarded" over her vaccination decision.

Well, there's a contribution to civilized discourse. When your argument is running on fumes, apparently an ableist insult is the intellectual equivalent of throwing a folding chair into the ring.

Let's get something straight. Nobody has to agree with Mary Katherine's medical decisions. Nobody has to get vaccinated because she did. People are entitled to question public health policies, discuss risks, and disagree about medical treatments.

What they aren't entitled to is immunity from criticism when they decide to mock a cancer survivor.

Apparently, "my body, my choice" comes with a little fine print in certain corners of Facebook: Your body, your choice, unless we don't like your choice, in which case we're going to act like assholes about it.

Homophobic slurs. Because apparently an actual argument was too much work.

The screenshots also show James Christianson posting an insulting image of Mary Katherine alongside a personal attack.

Another screenshot shows James using a homophobic slur.

Remember, this entire shitshow started with a post about vaccinations. We went from politicians getting shots to personal attacks, an ableist insult, and a homophobic slur.

That's one hell of a journey for a conversation about needles.

I'm sure somebody will rush in to explain that it's all just free speech. Yes, we know. Nobody said people don't have the right to express offensive opinions. The First Amendment is not a mystery novel.

Here's the distinction that seems to be escaping people: having the right to say something doesn't make what you say intelligent, defensible, or free from criticism.

You can exercise your right to speak and still look like an absolute jackass doing it.

CCN can establish rules for its own page and decide what it will allow in its comment section. The public can question those choices. The screenshots show what was visible when they were captured, although they don't establish what moderation actions may have occurred before or afterward.

The question is perfectly reasonable: What does CCN consider acceptable behavior in its comment section, and are those standards applied consistently?

Facebook University is back in session

Naturally, the vaccination discussion also attracted claims about remdesivir, PCR testing, and supposedly dangerous vaccine ingredients.

The confidence was spectacular. The supporting evidence seemed to have called in sick.

Medical treatments have risks. Vaccines can cause side effects, including rare serious reactions. Those risks deserve honest discussion. Nobody should be expected to switch off their brain simply because a medical authority says something.

The problem is treating every dramatic Facebook claim as established fact because it confirms what you already believe.

A number without context isn't proof. An anecdote doesn't establish causation. Repeating a claim until your friends agree with you doesn't turn it into science. It just means you've managed to create a little echo chamber where everybody gets to be wrong together.

For anyone interested in actual information, the CDC provides resources on vaccine safety and vaccine safety monitoring.

Read the evidence. Ask questions. Challenge claims. Just remember that having internet access doesn't automatically make you the head of infectious disease at a major hospital.

Pablo Senada chimed in with the suggestion that vaccinated people have low IQs.

Nothing screams intellectual superiority quite like announcing that everybody who disagrees with you is stupid. It's a particularly useful tactic when you don't have enough evidence to support your argument.

Calling people dumb doesn't make you smart. It just makes you the person calling people dumb.

From vaccinations to antisemitic conspiracy theories. What the actual hell?

Just when you think the comment section has exhausted its supply of nonsense, somebody claims that liberals are working with Jewish people to commit genocide against the white race.

We started with vaccinations. We ended up with an antisemitic conspiracy theory about genocide. Apparently, staying remotely connected to the original topic was asking too damn much.

There are legitimate reasons to criticize politicians, parties, and public policies. Blaming Jewish people for an imaginary plot to destroy white people isn't political analysis. It's antisemitic conspiracy garbage.

Free speech means people can express their opinions. It also means the rest of us can point out when those opinions are hateful, ridiculous, or both.

Nobody gets a constitutional force field protecting them from criticism. There is no magic phrase you can utter that makes the rest of us legally or morally obligated to pretend your bullshit smells like roses.

CCN's version of free speech comes with some mighty convenient fine print

Here's where the hypocrisy becomes difficult to ignore.

CCN wants the freedom to publish what it wants, criticize politicians, frame stories according to its editorial priorities, and encourage public discussion. Fine. That's its right.

The rest of us have the right to question its coverage, criticize its choices, and point out a double standard when we see one.

Apparently, this is where the conversation gets uncomfortable.

Criticism isn't censorship. Disagreement isn't oppression. Being challenged doesn't mean your constitutional rights have been snatched away by a gang of angry neighbors armed with keyboards.

If CCN publishes something misleading, people can challenge it. If its coverage appears biased, people can say so. If its comment section contains personal attacks against a cancer survivor, a homophobic slur, and an antisemitic conspiracy theory, people can ask why that content is appearing there.

That's not censorship. That's accountability. It's also part of the whole free speech arrangement that CCN seems so eager to defend when it benefits them.

You don't get to demand an open microphone for yourself while treating everybody else's criticism as an attack on your freedom. You don't get to insist that your right to speak is sacred while acting as though other people have no right to question what you publish.

That's not free speech. That's wanting a one-way street where everybody else has to follow the rules while you drive down the middle with your hazard lights on.

CCN can establish rules for its page. It can enforce them. It can decide what kind of content it wants associated with its name. Readers can decide whether those decisions deserve their respect.

Nobody is demanding that CCN agree with every critic. Nobody is suggesting that every rude comment deserves a ban. The question is whether the standards are consistent or whether acceptable behavior depends on who's doing the talking.

Free speech is not a special privilege reserved for people who agree with you.

What a concept.

My final thought

I'm not bothered by people disagreeing about politics. I have no expectation that everybody will agree with me, and I don't need a participation trophy when somebody doesn't.

What bothers me is the double standard.

CCN wants the freedom to publish what it wants. Its supporters want the freedom to express their opinions. The rest of us want the same freedom to criticize what we see without being treated as though we've committed some terrible offense by disagreeing.

The screenshots show a cancer survivor being mocked over her medical decisions, an ableist insult, a homophobic slur, vaccine misinformation, and an antisemitic conspiracy theory. These are legitimate reasons to question the tone and standards of the discussion.

CCN doesn't have to agree with me. Its supporters don't have to agree with me. They can say what they want, and I can point out what I think is wrong with it. Readers can make up their own minds.

That's how free speech works. It's not complicated, although you'd never know it from the way some people carry on when the criticism is aimed in their direction.

You can defend someone's right to speak without defending what they say. You can believe in free speech without pretending every ugly comment is admirable. You can disagree with someone's politics without treating their cancer history as an opportunity for a cheap shot.

Those are basic concepts, not advanced calculus.

The problem isn't that CCN has opinions. The problem is the apparent double standard: freedom when it benefits them, outrage when other people use that same freedom to challenge them.

Welcome to Cowlitz County News, where everybody gets to speak their mind, but apparently everybody else is supposed to shut the hell up when they have something to say about it.

Bring your own fact-checker. Common sense, consistent standards, and basic manners apparently cost extra.