College paper editor details sexual assault

As long as we get the hits, we don't care.

And by we, I mean them.

 

fuck them.

 

Americans know how to drive? Ever get stuck behind a gray hair going 20 in a 55 zone? Or out in Kansas where the speed limit on some roads appears to be 15? (Sorry, Kansans. )

As for the original subject, rape's not funny or worth derogatory comments like that. That's bullshit.

 

what i can't understand is why certain stories - say, uh, um, duh, you know, anything to do with sexual assault , pedophilia, etc., - aren't automatically exempt from comments. the newsroom should give its web editors discretion and allow editors to err on the side of banning comments from more, rather than fewer stories. i think most newspapers that allow comments on articles have a general comments page so just put on a generic tagline allowing comments elsewhere.

 

TO OUR READERS:

After careful deliberations, we have decided that many of you are simply too gross to comment on this story. So if you're in the mood to spew, kindly head on over the sports section where some are speculating on whether the local baseball coach will make it to midseason.

REGARDS,

The editors


I think editors deserve what they get when they abdicate their role of editors and allow unfettered comments on any story. But I don't think the answer is deciding which stories are fair game for comments and which aren't. Just admit that the whole damn thing hasn't done anything for newspapers from either a business or taste standpoint and stop it completely.

 

Sure, and those same loons are then encouraged to post defamatory accusations and outright lies about the coach and, often, the sports reporters who wrote the story.
I look forward to the first time a newspaper is sued because of anonymous reader comments. That part of the paper/web site should be held to the same standard of libel ... reckless disregard for the truth. A paper's disclaimer that it isn't responsible for reader comments is not a defense. Reporters/editors can't get away with printing defamatory, racist, sexist, inflammatory tripe. Why is acceptable for the rest of the product?

 

I think the reason most comment sections go unedited deals with the legal aspect of it. In some sort of twisted logic, papers that edit comments and have something like the previous examples of the atrocities make it in are liable for those comments. Those that don't, aren't.

 

Who says? Has that theory been tested in court, or is just what publishers keep telling themselves?

 

for the 100th time: the web is not held to the same libel standard as print.

 

Again, who says? Why should libel laws differentiate between a newspaper's print product and its web site?
(I get that we're not talking about web sites like deadspin, etc., though it will be interesting to see what the courts decide when a site is sued for libel. Same standards?)

 

the fucking law says.

 

Sorry TP, I didn't realize a newspaper's web site had been taken to court. When? Where?

EDIT: I know there's a federal statute that makes chat rooms immune, but it's my understanding that case law pertaining to online libel is still in its infancy. I haven't heard of any newspapers that have been sued because of libelous reader comments.