So the word asshole is still ok? But I just can't call people assholes. Only Matt can do that.

When is the article that started this shit storm going to get a [ARTICLE EDITED: UNNECESSARILY ABUSIVE LANGUAGE.]?

So I can tell someone they're being an asshole, I just can't tell them that they are, in fact, an asshole.

Also, as far as comment moderation goes...

Disemvoweling is probably a stronger tool than outright deletion. You guys should look into that style instead:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disemvoweling

So can I say someone is just kind of a [WORD DELETED: EXCESSIVELY ABUSIVE]? Is that too excessive? [Apparently so.—Steve]

Do they need IT guys to delete those comments?

How will we know if the comments are really edited or "sock puppet edited"?

I mean if I say Graham should [EDITED: UNNECESSARILY ABUSIVE LANGUAGE] and [EDITED: UNNECESSARILY SEXUAL LANGUAGE]. How will Graham know if I want to give him an [EDITED: NO YOU CAN'T USE THAT WORD EITHER] after [EDITED: THOSE ONES TOO], or if I'm just paying around and I didn't say anything at all, (other than use too many brackets and capitals?)

And just for the record: Matt Davis is fine. When I start walking and drinking again, I'll buy him one of his fake beers.

Damn, those Spice Girls were hot!

why do you need to delete those words?

why do you need to delete anything?

who are you protecting?

WHAT ARE YOUR CRIMES?!

Is there any delineation in your censorship with respect to literal vs figurative usage? E.g., "I bet Posh has a beautiful cunt" vs "Matt Davis is a cunt"

For that matter is it OK to say "I bet Posh has a beautiful asshole" or "Matt Davis is an asshole"?

I'm guessing this is all off the board but I want to make sure.

Hey y'all, doesn't Google allow for anyone to set up their own blog? Since when did the Mercury become your Thor's rod? I got a hunch the Merc won't be the reason IT ever goes down...in the words from who I hear are wise, "get over it."

Or are there more intelligent class/race/equality issues to be discussed here?

Can I accuse someone of snorting cocaine again for old timez sake?

Damn, the censors edited my post. :-P

How about:
Wm. Steven Humphrey did not give my dog HIV, HPV, or Goneria. I'm not going to comment on where my dog got the Herpes though.

Is that OK?

Good luck on that one. I put up with the ads primarily because this is one of the few open season areas left in pdx media, which is the main reason its so entertaining.

I'm more than a little surprised your legal department vetted this- soon as you start censoring, you're liable for damages. No censorship, and you have a nice safe harbor.

You're just going have to keep tightening rules over and over again until you just shut it down.

P.S. I gave Steven Humphrey's dog guinea worms. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUz9gqLmyQ0

I gave the Spice Girls and their dogs herpes. My bad.

I drink the fact that I skirt the line. I drink it up!

@ fahqueue: Maybe it's just late in the day, and I'm missing the joke, but what do you mean when you say, "soon as you start censoring, you're liable for damages. No censorship, and you have a nice safe harbor?"

@commenty colin

Your lack of knowledge at how the internet works is slightly staggering.

The base concept is that ISPs and websites are not liable for the content posted by their users as long as they don't have any proactive editing of those posts. They are not legally liable for the content posted therein. They are allowed a reactive editorial stance though. If a company or individual contacts the ISP or website about an IP infringement or a defamatory comment, then they are liable to make the requisite edits.

The speed of the edits and the stance taken by the Mercury staff seems to indicate a proactive editing stance. Therefore they are now liable for ALL posts and not just the ones that they are notified about.

However... this is not to say that there is some hyperactive reader who is constantly reporting "bad" words to the staff so that they can make the edits.

The simple middle-ground is to create a word filter. The administrators create a list of words they don't want and what they'd rather have in their place. This alleviates the burden of editing for stupid words that inflame stupid people. Thus allowing the management to focus in on the people who are saying the really mean stuff.

Or they could just take the simplest and best route and just edit for statements that are actually criminally liable instead of just in poor taste.

If you're going to be responsible for editing all the comments from the fucktards who post here, tell your boss you need a raise.

@colin safe harbor is legal jargon for a statutory/common law provision that explicitly states some sort of exemption from the wrong side of a prosecution or civil law suit.


Examples include:

- "good samaritan" laws that protect people providing assistance from getting sued later on
- securities law provisions that protect stock analysts from getting sued if their good faith forecasts don't pan out
- protection from having to pay EPA clean up costs if the contamination was caused by a prior owner of the land and you did a pre-purchase environmental assessment.

Deleted: SPAM

So a guy can call himself a Gaping Cum Dumpster Faggot as his handle, but I can't call him that.

What SHOULD I call him?

fahqueue: That isn't correct, it never has been. There are some laywers ho like to pretend otherwise and treaten people, but I think those laywers [EDITED: UNNECESSARILY ABUSIVE LANGUAGE]. See:
http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a…
for an example. That lawsuit isn't about whether Yahoo could or should remove that profile, (note that Yahoo did remove it in the end,) but about the excessive amount of time they took to do so. They point out that yahoo could be held liable if they'd promised to do so and hadn't, but they never did that. Likewise, the Mercury could be held responsible if they promised to enforce these rules for every comment, but they don't, they just said that they COULD enforce them. It is all kind of silly when you think about it with a non-online example: in Oregon it is illegal to go faster than 70 mph on a public street, and some people have gotten tickets for it. But if someone goes 80, and crashes and hurts someone else, does that automatically mean the hurt person gets to sue the police for not enforcing the law that time? Nope, not at all, we all understand that the police can't enforce every single law all the time, there isn't enough police. It is very simalar for comments on a website, the moderators can respond to "calls", and if they see something inapproprate themselves they can respond, but they don't have to supervise everything anymore than the police can/should...

@ Matthew: Thanks for the perspective. I asked fahqeue because that sounded like a crazy reading of the law as he and Graham explained it. Yours sounds more in line with (my) public policy goals. Under the other regime, it seems ridiculous that hosts would be basically forced to censor either everything or nothing, or be potentially liable for libel.

Please explain to me why it is ok for Dan Savage to use this blog to call people offensive names and smear them personally but it is not ok for your readers.

p.s. I love Savage and would not want him to change one word.

I agree with Spartacus. Savage used to start his advice column with "Hey Faggot", (and wanted to call it that but his editors wouldn't let him,) so I have trouble seeing why we shouldn't be allowed to use it here...

-Rowdy, the Herpes Infected Dog