The verdict is in.
Former Ridley Township Police Officer Brian Decker is guilty of misdemeanor assault in an altercation with a Wawa clerk who carded him as he bought some smokeless tobacco. He also was convicted of harassment, but acquitted of terroristic threats.
The verdict is also in from many of our online readers. They are not happy.
That is because we disabled their ability to post comments on the story on our website.
It is not something I especially want to do. I happen to be a big first amendment proponent. I am a newspaper editor, after all, when I’m not blogging in my spare time.
But the comments posted on our website are becoming increasingly problematic.
That is particularly true of the Decker story.
As quickly as we moderated the comments, taking down objectionable material, they simply popped back up again. You can ban commenters and they simply show up under a different e-mail address.
The attacks on Decker – and more importantly his family – clearly crossed the line of anything that can be considered fair comment.
Online readers were incensed. Some actually pulled an end-around by posting comments on unrelated stories.
One person actually took the time to post a nasty comment concerning our decision. They did so by tacking it onto the bottom of a man’s obituary.
Nice, huh?
The comments had two common themes: we were censoring their ability to express their beliefs, or we were in the pocket of powerful local politicians and cowering under the shadow of the Ridley police department to downplay the Decker story.
Let me take that last one first. My guess is that we’re not all that popular among Ridley police right now. We have plastered the Decker story all over our front page several times now, including our front page lead when the verdict came in late Monday. No one in the Ridley department has contacted me about our coverage, nor called to complain even about the nature of the online comments when they were allowed. The notion that we are “in the pocket” of the Ridley police department probably comes as news to them.
The other is a bit more delicate. I am a firm believer in free speech.
One reader put it this way: Why is it we can voice our opinions on Chester shootings, a 27-year-old man marrying a 14-year-old, etc. … but when it comes time to voice our American-given right to opinions on an ex-Ridley cop, we can’t? We want answers, and I will copy and paste this comment over and over if you remove it. This is not a threat, this is a promise.”
Here’s your answer: You are absolutely correct. You have every right to express your opinion.
But you don’t necessarily have any right to do it – especially in the way too many commenters clearly are – on our site. We determine how we handle comments. What goes up, what comes down. And what stories we decide we want to ban comments on.
The Decker story is not the first on which we have disabled comments. My guess is that it will not be the last.
Former Ridley Township Police Officer Brian Decker is guilty of misdemeanor assault in an altercation with a Wawa clerk who carded him as he bought some smokeless tobacco. He also was convicted of harassment, but acquitted of terroristic threats.
The verdict is also in from many of our online readers. They are not happy.
That is because we disabled their ability to post comments on the story on our website.
It is not something I especially want to do. I happen to be a big first amendment proponent. I am a newspaper editor, after all, when I’m not blogging in my spare time.
But the comments posted on our website are becoming increasingly problematic.
That is particularly true of the Decker story.
As quickly as we moderated the comments, taking down objectionable material, they simply popped back up again. You can ban commenters and they simply show up under a different e-mail address.
The attacks on Decker – and more importantly his family – clearly crossed the line of anything that can be considered fair comment.
Online readers were incensed. Some actually pulled an end-around by posting comments on unrelated stories.
One person actually took the time to post a nasty comment concerning our decision. They did so by tacking it onto the bottom of a man’s obituary.
Nice, huh?
The comments had two common themes: we were censoring their ability to express their beliefs, or we were in the pocket of powerful local politicians and cowering under the shadow of the Ridley police department to downplay the Decker story.
Let me take that last one first. My guess is that we’re not all that popular among Ridley police right now. We have plastered the Decker story all over our front page several times now, including our front page lead when the verdict came in late Monday. No one in the Ridley department has contacted me about our coverage, nor called to complain even about the nature of the online comments when they were allowed. The notion that we are “in the pocket” of the Ridley police department probably comes as news to them.
The other is a bit more delicate. I am a firm believer in free speech.
One reader put it this way: Why is it we can voice our opinions on Chester shootings, a 27-year-old man marrying a 14-year-old, etc. … but when it comes time to voice our American-given right to opinions on an ex-Ridley cop, we can’t? We want answers, and I will copy and paste this comment over and over if you remove it. This is not a threat, this is a promise.”
Here’s your answer: You are absolutely correct. You have every right to express your opinion.
But you don’t necessarily have any right to do it – especially in the way too many commenters clearly are – on our site. We determine how we handle comments. What goes up, what comes down. And what stories we decide we want to ban comments on.
The Decker story is not the first on which we have disabled comments. My guess is that it will not be the last.
Comments