It would be unfortunate if the Post decided to forbid posts because of a few chronic abusers. Surely there must be a better way.
Maybe requiring registration to anyone that wants to post?

I have to log on to this site everytime I want to use it. Isn't this at least one gate to keep people from being completely anonymous? It's not like this is Craiglist. Or maybe it could be--flagging of noncompliant ads or posts is common on that site. Of course, the normal ones are bad enough--you must have to be really awful to get flagged!

Ha! That's rich! Whenever convenient The Post wraps itself with the protective blanket of the First Ammendment but that very same protection of free speech doesn't apply in these blogs. Hypocrites.

I'm not saying I don't support your Code of Conduct, I just find this Note to Readers amusing.

Why should the Post publish anonymous comments online when it requires a full name and truthful contact information in its letters to the editor in print? Why shouldn't people stand behind their words? What right is there to use the Post's own online forum to harass, deceive, intimidate, and cyberstalk? I urge the Post to come up with a system that would require those who hope to have their words published under the Post's auspices to say who they are and provide some background information to the Post that can be checked, if necessary.

It seems a bit unfiar to close down a comments section for the actions of a few people, and lets be honest...Rees. Outside of him, the remaining comments outside of the code are so trivial that it shouldn't take much in the way of resources to control them.

You use Movable Type as your baseline code, which already contains a "sign in" function...why not just use it? Then you can ID and ban habitual violators.

"We have taken steps to remove the offending comments and commenters from our posts. Further actions are also being explored."

You guys aren't going to do a Bill O'Reilly on us and send security after those of us that "offend" you?

This is great to hear. As a politico, I'm pleased to check in from time, but the off-topic posts, attacks, Rees posts, attacks-on-Rees posts (which are just as bad), are tiresome and useless. It would be nice to have a forum for people to exchange ideas and insights on the topics raised by the bloggers, while leaving the playground spats behind.

Hey, John Aravosis over at Americablog deletes reader comments he finds offensive -- which appears to be pretty much anything he doesn't agree with. Heck, he deletes entire threads. If a self-proclaimed progressive blogger like him can practice arbitrary censorship who's to complain when the Washington Post does it?

Look, everyone, stop blathering on about the First Amendment. It doesn't apply to privately-owned blogs.

And calling comment moderation "censorship" makes a mockery of the many victims of actual censorship in this country.

AAARGH, you are my hero. The First Amendment complaint is the most overused and misunderstood argument raised by the general population, who seem unable to understand its scope or its purpose. The fact that the Post provides a forum for *any* immediate reader feedback is impressive. To protect its journalists and other readers from personal attacks and insults is to be applauded and, I believe, will encourage more people to engage in discussion and facilitate more meaningful dialogue than turn away those frustrated by the requirement to show others basic respect.

As an American, I applaud the Post for deleting comments that are offensive, in word and ideology. It is important to clean up this place so that like-minded thinkers can get on with the discussion and not be stymied by overt liberal attacks on the reporters and blog commentators. Might I suggest that the reporters themselves do the deleting? That way they can participate more actively in the Democracy they so staunchly defend with their writing. Better yet, include a delete button next to each post we all can use so that anything we deem unworthy of inclusion can be edited on the fly.

There is a very wise saying - Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

I don't understand people who can't just agree to disagreee but have to try to bully others into submission. I have an opinion. You have an opinion. I think it's amazing that we have the opportunity to voice those opinions in an open forum.

It's too bad that the actions of a few may ruin it for the rest of us who appreciate open discourse.

If the Post's reporters did a better job of reporting the news (which includes doing some research from time to time) instead of shaping the news or regurgitating press releases then maybe they wouldn't get so much criticism from their readers. That said, if the reporters and the editors won't work to improve their product then maybe they should either get thicker skins or find another profession.

Occasional Reader: i challenge you to point to a single press release that has been blithely posted on this site. meanwhile, i don't think we've taken down any criticism of our work (which, frankly, has been sparse). we've taken down posts that include our home addresses, veiled threats against us, veiled threats against others and obscenities and vulgarities, most related to the ward 3 council race.
perhaps if you read the site a little MORE occasionally, you would know that....

Here's an ad hominem attack: all y'all who feel that deleting comments on a privately owned blog is censorship - you're all morons. Complete blithering idiots. Censorship would be if the government prevented you from saying what you want or need to say. What's the Post planning on doing? Stopping you from coming into their PRIVATELY owned forums and talking trash. You can still start your own damn blog and whine about how the liberal media is keeping conservative America down (while conveniently forgetting conservatives hold the power in all three branches of the federal government).

You people who are shouting, "Oh noes, censorship!" have neither respect for nor understanding of private property, and you probably don't even realize it.

What a waste of $700+ million and what was to be the National Capital's South Mall.

http://wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com/2006/06/no-instead-spend-700-million-for-new.html

The problem is that the internet, much like the smtp [email protocol] requires no real validation, ergo people can spoof email addresses, packets of data [Pseudo web page served from a personal computer [phishing]]

As much as they try to create registration it won't stop the anonymous stalkers. The TCP IP protocols need some work in the Validation departments.
The Three way hand shake and many others work well, but people simply fail to password, or protect their networks. Weak passwords on wireless systems are a great way to get free internet by piggybacking on an open wireless point.

Coffeeshops and airports offer another way to use free web access and then use anonymous free web-accessed email accounts/sites on the internet to use for registered sites, Ergo you are still anonymous. IP addresses on work to a certain extent, because even a Cable or Satteliet account will release and renew a new IP address thru the winipcfg utility. The DHCP protocols. [X^B OEBT

I'm sorry, but isn't the point of a web-based immediate comments feature an eclectic mix of remarks both reasoned and impassioned, both sarcastic and earnest? If you don't want this, why have the feature at all? If you want to exercise such control, why not just remove the comments section you have altogether?

You're not tied to the format you have. You could solicit comments via a posting feature that isn't automatically published and then post the ones you feel are most representative (clearly labeling them as such). I think this is more in line with what you desire. Right now, though, you have a technology that is much more indiscriminate and much more robust. Either use it or change it. Don't complain about the fact folks are using it the way it is designed. And don't pretend this is the fault of any of your readers when it actually reflects an ineptitude, lack of foresight and/or thin skin on your part.

It has been said before me above, but it bears repeating: If you would concentrate on being a fine and fair news-gathering agency rather than capitalistically entering a new market and desparately trying to be something you're not (i.e., a blog), you might gain a level of earned respect and witness the incendiary comments posted about you diminish.

If you go through with this plan to arbitrarily judge comments, you're only inviting endless criticism by trying to objectively qualify comments that are inherently subjective in nature. Who's to say what I find offensive, unpalatable, incendiary, etc. couldn't be completely worthy or informative to someone else? A staff of journalists especially ought to realize the sticky slope this presents and ought to appreciate the shades of gray a blanket policy such as this is bound to miss. By editing the section, you take away your readers' prerogatives to decide for ourselves what additional information is enlightening. You insult our intelligence and maturity, acting as though we need you to be gatekeepers about how to react to your articles.

If you truly want to foster a continued, frank discourse (after the last word of each article) and/or want to gauge how your pieces are received, you ought to be laissez faire with the comments section. Otherwise, how is the section any different from your articles themselves: solicited, packaged, edited -- and completely condoned and endorsed -- by you?

gaymafioso - they're just banning trolls. If you think no blog has ever banned trolls, you might want to think about actually reading a blog.

admittedly imperfect definition of troll: someone who uses internet anonymity to post knowingly inflammatory statements, ad hominem attacks, spam, or annoying information; and/or someone who knowingly posts personal information of their targets in public forums (this kind of information includes, but is not limited to, home addresses, phone numbers, their target's kids' school information).

They're not censoring ideas here or anywhere on WaPo.com's blog section.

Seriously, go out into the blogosphere and actually read real blogs - many of them do not tolerate trolling, which is different from simply posting opposing (or even relatively obnoxious) opinions. It doesn't even matter if they're political blogs, news blogs, or anything like that - many blogs that celebrate TV shows, movies, or actors end up having to ban certain users for trollish behavior.

I think the issue is that some people just have an ax to grind. You, for instance, "Ward 4 Resident," if you're the same one posting comments in other sections of this site, obviously have an ax to grind with Fenty. To say that Lori Montgomery or the Post has been pro-Fenty, though, is laughable. There's loads to criticize from the standpoint of any candidate from what's written, and some of what's she's written about Fenty has been slanted negatively.

By the way W4R, any insider knew that the couple of private polls done last year showed Fenty with a sizeable lead. Lori Montgomery of all people knew that. You would think that since she turned out to be correct you would have thought of that.

Some people are just whacko! I guess there's not much to do about it until the posts are removed...