No criticisng ferry companies on web european court says

[ETwhat?]

Harmless, I was more trying to show that it is the delight of journalists to easily change what is meant by selective editing. and that a valid comment made by clanky can be miss directed.

What I like about that case is it was the paper who took it to appeal

[alistairuk]

I don't really see the issue with this - bbc and a bunch of what I would call reputable news sites all screen comments before accepting them.

Most popular blogs do as well to some extent - at least for first time posters or anonymous postings - not doing so and relying on people to complain is just sheer laziness.

[HarmlessWeasel]

Meanwhile, while discussing comments to websites one member of officercadet.com had this to say

The other thing we learn from newspapers is that a good mis quote is never a bad thing

Not sure if you're referring to how I quoted the article or not. are you?

[CharlieDelta]

I think the Mail already moderate their comments. Which is worrying when you consider what actually gets through.

[ETwhat?]

Meanwhile, while discussing comments to websites one member of officercadet.com had this to say

websites are invariably haunted by basement dwelling social misfits.

The other thing we learn from newspapers is that a good mis quote is never a bad thing

[HarmlessWeasel]

Well the Daily Mail's going to have its work cut out.

Looks like the start of a slippery slope. The ruling may or may not be reasonable enough, but I can see lots of websites deleting any comments that could be seen as criticising instead of just "...go beyond the boundaries of acceptable criticism..."

[Clanky]

Comments sections on news websites are invariably haunted by basement dwelling social misfits (see threads ad nauseum on here stemming from the Daily Heil website), some of the less scrupulous publications almost seem to use them as a way to allow views to be published which would not normally be allowed to be published by themselves, it is about time that they were taken to task over this.

[ETwhat?]

That's not quite what they are saying,

"according to the court, if you are a news website then potentially there are certain types of story where you should anticipate such material and remove it promptly, even before you get a complaint."

the change is that rather than waiting for the person whose reputation you are damaging to make a complaint and then removing the offending comments. the news paper should monitor the comments itself and apply the same sort of controls they would over any of the paid writers, it also pointed out that the particular article received a larger number of comments than was normal and that it might have been a clue.

[Lewis]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/media-blog/2013/oct/11/online-comments-websites-court-ruling-estonian

Apparently even deleting comments isn't a defence for libel.