Andrew Ian Dodge of the heavy metal school of politics part of the blogosphere (assuming that it is indeed that Andrew Ian Dodge) replies to my earlier posting today about the responsibility if any which bloggers have for comments posted by others on their sites:

In a word no. You post a disclaimer that you are not to be held responsible for your comments and leave it that. If you censor your comments then you become no better than the MSM sites.

I have to say that I disagree. See my firm but droll Terms and Conditions:

This site has been set up and paid for by Charles Crawford. He owns the site and all the material he posts on it.
Anyone visiting or attempting to post comments on the site is in effect a guest, and so is expected to behave in a reasonable, civilised manner. Anyone posting comments on this site agrees that he/she retains all ownership rights in the material so posted and that he/she will relieve Charles Crawford from any and all liability for any damage that may result from such postings. He/she also agrees that Charles Crawford may use such comments or extracts from them publicly or otherwise as he may choose.
Interesting, pertinent, thought-provoking, witty and perceptive comments are especially welcome. Comments which seem to Charles Crawford to be libellous, obscene, pornographic, unnecessarily offensive, menacing, false, unnaturally long/boring, misleading or otherwise objectionable are liable to be deleted without warning. Alternatively he may highlight them to draw wider attention to the commenter’s seeming discourtesy.
Charles Crawford makes no promises or warranties or any other commitment on the accuracy of anything posted on this site either by himself or by others. There may well be errors, omissions, lapses of memory, tendentious claims, unwise opinions and unnecessary or truculent exaggerations. In fact, they may be the best bits.
Plus there is the none-too-trivial detail that even if I make a bold disclaimer that I am not liable for any unlawful/libellous material posted by others on this site, the law might say that I am liable if it ever came to a lawsuit. Guido and others may be up for am expensive legal brawl but also have various mirror-sites and other ingenious IT defences in place to help fend them off. I don’t.
Finally, the practice of some newspapers in deliberately not allowing some comments to be posted when they discredit a story or otherwise go against a certain line is beyond contempt. As far as I can see the Daily Mail has even ‘censored’ some of my own modest comments to this end. And many others.
But refusing to post material which is annoying or provocative or embarrassing is one thing, the more so if the site sells itself as not doing that.
A site which says clearly that it will edit out stupid abusive material to keep up a certain standard and ‘house-style’ is surely behaving fairly and honestly.
Basically, I do not regard it is ‘censorship’ to refuse to post material which I find unnecessarily offensive/racist etc.
It’s my site. I pay for it. If you want to come in, please wipe your feet.