A story for every victim

Comments, when do they cross a line?

The Homicide Report has changed its request for comments to better reflect the scope of posts that the report has invited since it began in January 2007. Instead of “Share a Memory,” readers are now asked to “Share a memory or thought” about the homicide victim. Also, links are provided to frequently asked questions about our practice of including killings by police, and the race/ethnicity of victims and suspects. A resource list for victims' families is also available.

The change was made in part to stem debate among readers about what is appropriate on the Homicide Report. Some readers have been upset by critical comments and protested that The Times was inviting only memories. In response, we have clarified on individual comment threads that our intent always has been to create a forum both for victims to be remembered and for readers to discuss the impact and causes of violence in communities.

On Tuesday, “Aleks” posted a comment criticizing The Times for approving comments of family members fighting among themselves on a victim’s page. “This is by far the most offensive thing you can do to a person KILLED. They would never want to be exposed like this in a million years. If you would simply say post your comment, but no, and therefore we have this embarassing, needless, and idiotic drama which plays out on the comment boards.”

The comment also said: “I mean, you know the paper is at a low point when, in the year 2010 there is an article which headline reads: ‘Why does the paper use racial identifiers.’”

What do readers think? Is it offensive to allow critical comments or to permit families to disagree on a public forum? Is it a “low point” to address why the report identifies the race of victims and alleged perpetrators?

-- Megan Garvey

Post a comment

Before you post, here are some answers to frequently asked questions:

Remember, all posts are approved by a Times staffer. Profanity and personal attacks will not be approved.

  Required
  Required

42 reader comments