When does a comments section in an online newspaper cross the line?

I can’t answer the question.

But I can give you the comfort of knowing that in the US too, newspaper site commenters are mostly angry old retired white men.

It’s a source of amusement.

^^Gimme a break, Jay. How the hell do you know that?

⅔ of the commenters in this thread fit the description posted by @Call_Me_Jay. ;-o

⅔ of the population here is also female.

According to Wikipedia MailOnLine is funded by advertising. This may explain why it prefers quantity of comments over quality. It is apparently the most visited newspaper website in the world.

@Espiritus_Corvus OK, true. I just know that newspaper comments are filled with racism, misogyny, and general conservative dumbassery.

Also, The Mail in particular in its news section is filled with racism, misogyny, and general conservative dumbassery.

The paper earned its nickname The Daily Heil for its enthusiasm for British Nazis and maintains its conservative cred today

Yeah. That’s sad when that happens. Spreads the hate. Trolls become way over-represented. My hometown paper finally just dispensed with the comments section because it became a home for fascist trolls and not representative of the paper, or it’s general readership.

If I were an editor I would first eliminate anything ad hominem. That’s not a very fine line, that is a very obvious one. Generalized attacks on a certain type of private individual, or group of people without referring specifically to racial, religious, sexual orientation—all the groups guaranteed by our democratic constitutions—would be out. Personal attacks would be out if any identifiers were included in the comment. Without identifiers, the content is about a type of individual, and not a specific individual.

In the interest of freedom of speech, all referenced attacks on Public Individuals and their behaviour would be allowed. Unsupported attacks would not be. This is very important—and correct, as far as I’m concerned—in places like the UK where the libel and slander laws are more strict than in the U.S. Not only is it a responsible policy, the finacial health and reputation of the paper depends upon it.

Then anything off-topic. That is a finer line, but not so difficult to determine.

And this may sound really hypocritical coming from me, but the use of profanity would be a flag for attention. I believe these words, when used sparsely for emphasis along with an advanced vocabulary, enhance certain types of writing styles, but can also purposely incur anger. Flame Bait. That’s a razor’s edge and the determination of what is and is not flame bait can be quite subjective.

I would probably take a lot of heat for editing out some profane comments and leaving others. It would make my job a lot easier if I eliminated the use of profanity altogether. I would resist that.

@Espiritus_Corvus love your answer. I really thought that hate speech was illegal here, apparently not! As a female reading those types of comments, it is stomach churning. It seems here in the UK fat shaming, disability shaming etc., is all okay.

I can’t even imagine doing that, what would I say ‘Oh you legless amputee you!’ the mind boggles really. I feel the world has gone backwards.

Thank you, Ms. Love.

I made a mistake up there.

” Generalized attacks on a certain type of private individual, or group of people that did not refer to racial, religious, sexual orientation—all the groups guaranteed by our democratic constitutions—would be out.”

No. Those would be left in.

Specific attacks on private individuals, or groups of people referring specifically to racial, religious, sexual orientation—and all the groups guaranteed by our democratic constitutions—would be edited out.

My thoughts sometimes get lost while writing compound sentences.