Wow, Matt sure seems like a dick. I think I'll take his advice, and not read his blog anymore.

Wh wuld ny n d tht?

The comments sections of blogs are not free speech areas. Bloggers can set their own posting rules and moderate, exclude, or disevowel as they please.

If I were spit-balling what would be "wrong" about it, I'd say that it is sort of like attributing to the person something they did not actually say. (i.e., I said "you are fat and stupid" but now consumerist is showing that I said "y r ft nd stpd").

The counterpoint is that disemvowelled posts usually note that they have been disemvowelled. Plus, a poster probably agrees to let the blog disemvowel on signup.

My guess is that some angry poster sent a letter saying that they were going to sue for libel or slander or something and -- even though it was baseless -- the lawyers figured that it is easier to just stop letting bloggers disemvowel than to fight this angry poster.

@leftturnonred: That's what I was thinking as well. By disemvowelling comments, you're attributing comments to users in a way that makes it no longer their comment. It's a bit like consciously and purposely misquoting someone.

Bottom-line: If you don't like the comment, delete it entirely or remove all the text and leave the line "Comment Removed by Moderator." No one is arguing against the right to moderate your own blog, but you shouldn't be able to misrepresent what a commenter says either.

@sharkzfanz: disempatialvoweling

So did he disemvowel the lawyer's letter?

in my short time of having a blog, instead of disemvoweling or banning I made it where I put an IP address or username in, and the only only that could see that comment was the IP address, username or me. Therefore they would continue to flame, but nobody could see it, and they had no idea.

WOW, finally someone takes out the "Y" as well. YES!

CAN WE PLEASE HAS T-SHIRT? PLLLLLLEEEEEEEASE!

@shoelace414:
Back at the dawn of the internet, when I first started moderating, they called this "Troll Hell". I used to stick two or three rabid posters together in their own little interdimensional pocket and let them go at it. Of course, that is my current status on consumerist so...

@sharkzfanz: U is a vowel :)

@B: Agreed. He appears to be the Cash4Gold of bloggers.

@G.O.B.: Come on!: Why couldn't they just disemvowel the comment but leave a note that says "Commend disemvoweled by moderator"?

My guess? Either it somehow violates copyright, or you are suggesting someone said something they didn't (defamation/libel). Both of which are illegal, but their application to a comment is something a real lawyer would need to decide upon. My guess is the webmaster retains the right to edit comments, and therefore it is legal.

Copyright is my guess.

@shoelace414: Vbulletin forum software has that function and calls it "Tachy Goes to Coventry". The poster can see his comment but nobody else can.

@Smashville_makes his own comments at home: Yes, disemvoweled Consumerist shirts should be premiums for the next fundraising drive.

Suggestions:

Wh s ths n Cnsmrst?
Slw nws d?
H shld hv jst shwn hs rcpt

I would love to see the details on what possible leap in judgement on an attorney's part makes this have any sort of merit.

I understand the idea of atributing remarks to someone taht they did not in fact type, but he's attributing them to a name on the internet, not necessarily a specific individual. I'm pretty sure I can't sue for defamation or anything else if someone makes disparging remarks about my username. Heck, even my real name would be tough to prove, as I doubt I'm the only Rock Stallion in the world.

My guess is that this is a copyright issue. Disemvoweling could be considered creating an unauthorized derivative work, and thus a copyright violation. However, it would seem this could be easily circumvented by a clause in the terms of use for posting granting the blogger the explicit right to disemvowel the content of the comment.

I am not an attorney (except "in propria persona" - Latin for "Lawyer with a fool as a client" :) - consult a real lawyer for real advice.

@leftturnonred: I doubt it -- I expect the lawyers object to it as an editorial matter.

I would expect that their lawyers told them that too much disemvoweling would indicate that the bloggers were actively editing the comments. This could be a problem since most safe-harbor provisions of internet law require that the service provider NOT actively edit user content. The basic idea is you are responsible for user content if you actively edit, and are not responsible if you don't. Someone must think that excessive disemvoweling indicates active editorial control. I can understand this POV, but am not aware of any case law on this subject.

@MrsLopsided: Not one someone else's dime.

@MrsLopsided: Damn,if I ever go back to blogging, I'ma get me summa that. Sounds like a total win-win.

Here's where his reasoning falls down:

"- blog comments are not protected free speech; they rely on someone else publishing (posting) them - publishing is a privilege, not a right."

" A reminder, I don't get paid for this. I'm not employed by the TU. My words aren't theirs. And I don't feel they are responsible for my actions, good or bad."

Either it's an open forum and they get to speak freely, or it's a limited forum and you're subject to the same editors who publish both your blog and their comments!

Good heavens! Don't those lawyers have anything better to do with their time? I'm sure there are plenty of useful pro bono things they could get involved with, like helping those folks in the other post and Consumer's Union lay the smackdown on Cash4Gold.

@theblackdog_LovesCarRepairBills: We do that, it looks like he doesn't. I don't buy the misattribution argument either, because you're not really changing what the person is saying, you're just taking the vowels out to make it less readable. Similar to, say, adding strike and blink tags, sticky caps, and rainbow font.

Now that I think of it, I think we should start doing that.

Apparently, many legal departments of newspapers have come to the conclusion that any moderation of the comments section beyond excluding comments with dirty words, etc. could open them up to claims of defamation if something slips through that's libelous (i.e., "Well you were monitoring the comments so you shouldn't have let that libel slip through!"). My guess is that this falls into the same category.

@sharkzfanz: "u" is a vowel genius. =)

@leftturnonred: What about the treatment of glides, hm? Won't someone think of the y, w and i ??!!

I always liked the system that some sites have of putting trollish or inappropriate comments "below threshold," requiring users to click a link in order to bring the comment (and any sub-replies to it) up for reading. True, it's less punitive than disemvoweling. However, you don't run into the semi-squicky gray area of whether editing blog posts falls under some sort of copyright/defamation/libel issue, and you still get the benefit of obscuring the comment such that users have to go out of their way see what was posted.

lke th cncpt f dsmvwlng. Y cn stll rd whats gng n f y rlly wnt. Knd lk lght rt13

@Traveshamockery:
mk my wn fd t hm.
Ths s wh dn't shp t WlMrt.
Ppl stll t t McDnld's?

@Smashville_makes his own comments at home: I think it would be fun to disemvowel our own comments. And, maybe for a donation, even more fun to disemvowel the posts of others. :)

@DefineStatutory: I am not a blood sucker, but I would think the legal basis starts with the disemvoweled post being a derivative work.

@bobert: Billable hours are billable hours.

@Geekybiker: Actually, good idea. they probably should just rot13 the comments. Me likey.

Because with disemvowelling, there are still chances that it might be wrongly reverse engineered.

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Why would you be subject to the 'same editors' ??
If it's your blog, you make the rules. It's not protected.

Wht d y thnk f thm ppls??

@Smashville_makes his own comments at home: Yes, I agree. We want this shirt. With the font featured above.

I agree that copyright and libel are the two main concerns. Copyright is normally handled by the site's ToS/T&Cs/User Agreement/etc, which normally gives the hosting site rights to adapt and reproduce the comment. Libel can probably be handled by explicitly marking a comment as being edited by the site owner, or removing the username, etc.

Of course, IANAL. ;)

@GitEmSteveDave_WonAForeignLottery!: Don't you mean, "S!"

@MostlyHarmless: It better be organic.

@Crabby Cakes: Perhaps just a printout so we can make our own t-shirts at home.

@GrenadeTestSubject: @Smashville_makes his own comments at home:

so is y, geniuses.

@TheWillow: Not always, genius.

@TheWillow: s nt vwl! thr r nly fv vwls!

@pplkd: ctlly d tht qt bt. {e}

@Inka Dinka: This I could buy.

@doctor_cos: It's not "his" blog -- it's hosted by Hearst, subject to Hearst's control. Hearst is also telling him how he can control the comments.

Either publishing is a privilege -- as he says when speaking of his commenters -- or it's a right, as he says when speaking of himself.

If he does want to have control over his commenters instead of being subject to Hearst and its lawyers, he can always go self-host a blog somewhere or use a more open platform with a looser TOS.