Web commenters run correctly amok

[Jim Thomsen]

My paper has a firm policy that, with rare exception, we do not publish the names of people who have been arrested until they have been formally charged.

With the advent of comments on Web stories, however, our intrepid readers have found an end-around on this policy. The county jail's daily roster, with names, charges and other info, is online and updated around the clock.

It doesn't take much skill for a smart non-journalist to compare booking dates/times and pending charges against the facts in the Web story (which usually contain information helpful to such searchers, such as ages and hometowns) and put a name to the suspect. These commenters then post the name (and often the link) in the comments thread with a "Hey, Dad! Look at what I did!" sort of glee.

So ... what do we do? Delete those comments? Or leave them and say: "Hey, WE didn't post that, so don't yell at us?" The commenters didn't violate our stated guidelines against profane or libelous commentary, after all. What's OUR legal liability? What would be yours in such cases?

What do you think?

[glorifiedproofer]

Our comments section is completely different from the font of the story. We have had cases of folks dropping names in stories. I believe our policy is that if we don't edit it, we are not liable for any slander. Once we give the comments oversight, then we become legally liable for what is said. At least that is the explanation that our editor gave to the copy desk. Not sure I agree with it, but that is what we adhere to right now. It's a changing world, I could have a different answer in a few hours.

[fev]

I think GP's generally right -- if you don't touch any of it, you're not held responsible for not editing the bad stuff. (It probly goes without saying that an actual legal opinion might differ and would certainly be better.)

Still, I think the bigger question is about the comments themselves. I have yet to see a reader comment on a story that adds to the sum of human knowledge. Most of them are belligerent, self-serving and stupid. Can anybody out there point to any actual journalistic benefit from allowing your bottom-feeding readers to post stuff like this, from a story about a 14-year-old girl who was fatally shot?

"This group of breeders should be spayed and neutered."