Comment Violation Test Results: We don't agree on Komisarjevsky comments

The jury for Joshua Komisarjevsky agreed last week that the death penalty was the most appropriate punishment for his crimes against the Petit family. But when it comes to handling online comments on this topic, it seems we are a hung jury.

As of the time of this writing, my comment violation test from yesterday has received 22 responses. If you haven't taken the test, but still want to -- SPOILER ALERT -- I'd recommend not reading this post until you've done so.

Let's take a look at how your votes compared with our moderators.


"GOOD! He deserves it, the low life piece of trash. I am so glad that the jury didn't see through all the BS the defense attorneys paraded up onto the witness stand. Boo Hoo, his childhood sucked, he was molested he was this, he was that. Alot of people have suffered things similar to what he has and never did what he did. May he go straight to hell along with Hayes and I hope Dr. Petit and his family find some measure of peace from this and are able to try to move forward with their lives. The doctor and his family are in my thoughts and my prayers as always!"

• Allow this comment - 17 votes
• Block this comment - 5 votes
• NHR Moderator Decision - ALLOW
• My comment on the comment: This is a difficult one to call. If going by Register Guidelines, I would lean towards blocking this one, because of "low life piece of trash," which is a name-calling personal attack. To make comments like this an easier call, perhaps we need to add more context on how we handle 'name-calling' of public figures and convicted criminals. What are the exceptions? Would we have handled this comment differently before the trial? It also celebrates or promotes the death of an individual, which is not something that is defined in our policy, but fits into the category of 'personal attack.' Which is something else we should define a little more in our policy, because in this case, a jury decided he should be put to death. How does that change the conversation?

"Rot in hell satan's minion" 

• Allow this comment - 12
• Block this comment - 10
• NHR Moderator Decision - BLOCKED
• My comment on the comment: Under Register guidelines, I'd lean towards blocking this one. Personal attack.

"This is something that the Chinese are really good at. Take him and his partner out behind the courthouse, put a bullet in their heads and send a bill for the bullet to their families. Maybe then this lawless society will take notice and the violence will stop."

• Allow this comment - 10
• Block this comment - 12
• NHR Moderator Decision - ALLOW
• My comment on the comment: It's challenging, but I'd allow this one under Register guidelines.

"Too bad Donovan can't be executed with him."

• Allow this comment - 7
• Block this comment - 15
• NHR Moderator Decision - BLOCKED
• My comment on the comment: This one is more clear cut for me with Register guidelines. It's a personal attack against Komisarjevsky's lawyer. You can comment on how you don't agree with our law system, or how Donovan handled the case. But kill him? I fail to see how that is constructive dialogue on this story thread.

"Good, although I get sick at the thought of the load of liberal lawyers and liberal loon judges in CT who will stall this guy's execution for decades. CT is a joke. Makes me wanna move to another state just to get away from them."

• Allow this comment - 21
• Block this comment - 1
• NHR Moderator Decision - ALLOW
• My comment: Only one person voted to block this one, and it wasn't me. This one is fit for publish under Register guidelines.

"Don't progressive left gasbags like "Really" just make you barf ? Apparently "conservatives" are brainless minions of Rupert Murdoch who cannot comprehend the left wing "truth" that vile roaches like Komisarjevsky should be spared because they are just mixed up tots. My suggestion to "Really": Become a pen pal of his while he's on death row, and maybe you two can compare notes on your sorry and pathetic lives."

• Allow this comment - 13
• Block this comment - 9
• NHR Moderator Decision - BLOCKED
• My comment: This one challenges the Register guidelines in a number of places, but I would have allowed it up until the poster calls the person they were responding to "pathetic."

*Burp*

• Allow this comment - 7
• Block this comment - 15
• NHR Moderator Decision - ALLOW
• My comment: Ah yes, the inevitable burp discussion. You can argue that it is a comment violation because it isn't 'on topic.' And yes, some people are offended by it. But grounds for blocking? To me, I say it's like a 'bad word' in that it's only as offensive as you use it. Sometimes a burp is just a harmless burp. Sometimes it's a harmless comment. I'd allow this one.

"This was the only conclusion that could have been reached. The only possible mitigating factor would have been the ineptitude of Komarapist's hapless counsel. The only reason to have given him LWP would have been the greater likelihood of prison justice."

• Allow this comment - 18
• Block this comment - 4
• NHR Moderator Decision - BLOCKED
• My comment: I'd allow this if the commenter didn't refer to Komisarjevsky as "Komarapist." Personal attack under Register guidelines.

"hey FREEDOM OF SPEECH LET ME TALK HERE... STOP ERASING MY COMMENTS WHAT ARE U FRIENDS OF THE FAMILIES OF THE MURDERERS?? HANG THEM IN THE MORNING , SUPPORTING THEM TEN YEARS IN WAIT IS NO JUSTICE. PUBLIC HANGING"

• Allow this comment - 10
• Block this comment - 12
• NHR Moderator Decision - ALLOW
• My comment: Another one of those that celebrates the death of an individual. And if this test is any indication, this is something we need to define with more detail in our comment policy. Under the Register's current policy, I'd block it.

"Lives infairhaven - No he is not a human being. He tried once to blow his braibns out and he failed, perhaps this time he will get another opportunity and succeed and save the Ct taxpayers a ton of money."

• Allow this comment - 9
• Block this comment - 13
• NHR Moderator Decision - ALLOW
• My comment: I wouldn't allow this with the Register's current policy, since it's a personal attack and celebrates the death of an individual. This area needs more definition.

Are you surprised by the results? Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the decisions made on these comments, what do these results tell you? What areas do we need to add some more context to in our guidelines? Tell me - ahem - in the comments. I don't have a comment policy.