We publish stories because we are invested in presenting news and information on the world of agave. As a founder-owned, independent publication that’s not beholden to advertisers, we have the freedom to tackle subjects that corporate-owned media won’t touch–either because it’s too niche or because it might offend sponsors. We attempt to provide a platform for a broad spectrum of ideas, and we don’t shy away from controversial topics. That means we understand that sometimes there will be disagreement–sharp disagreement, even. Readers who think our information or sources are wrong, misguided, or worth challenging have every right to say so, publicly and forcefully. That is an aspect of a free press.
It does not mean anything goes.
Recently, people who were quoted in a Mezcalistas article have been targeted with harassing messages. Some of this communication has crossed the line from criticism into intimidation: contact intended to frighten rather than persuade, to abuse through personal attacks and to make people afraid to speak publicly again. That is not discourse, but rather the opposite, an attempt to shut down conversation. That is completely counter to our ethos, and we want to be clear about where we stand.
We support robust criticism. Disagreeing with a source, challenging an argument, or publicly rebutting a claim is fair game. We expect scrutiny, and we obviously don’t expect readers to agree with or support everyone or everything we publish. Starting a public conversation is the intended result of a think piece, and we are here for that–whether it’s in the comments section of our website or social media, or on the reader’s own platform.
We condemn bullying. Threats, abuse, name-calling, coordinated pile-ons, and attempts to intimidate people into silence are not an extension of free speech; they are an attack on it. The people we interview agree to explain their work, their research, or their perspective. They do not agree to be bullied or harassed.
We hold everyone to a code of conduct, not a standard of opinion. We will not judge a comment by whether we agree with it. We will judge it by how it is delivered. A pointed, public, even contentious argument meets that standard. Threats, intimidation and campaigns to silence someone do not.
Going forward, we will:
- Continue to publish views and perspectives that readers may disagree with or believe wrong, because that is part of our job.
- Support any source or contributor who is targeted with harassment as a result of participating in our coverage, which includes protecting personal information they haven’t made public themselves.
- Report credible threats to the appropriate platforms or authorities when warranted.
We are not interested in policing opinions. We are interested in a version of public discourse where people can express opinions or disagree loudly without being made to fear for their safety. If we lose that, we lose the thing that makes public argument worth having at all.
Leave a Comment