The Cape Breton Post just deleted more reader comments. It isn't the first time they've done so, and it probably won't be the last.

The latest censorship occurred on the article announcing that our former Economic Development Officer, John Whalley, launched a lawsuit against the CBRM.

Among his complaints in the legal filing are "constructive dismissal" after he pointed out issues with a land deal. When he raised these concerns over a conflict of interest, he was called into the CAO's office. Then Michael Merritt removed him from the port file.

There are lots of reasons for everyone to be concerned with that particular deal.

Quick reminder: It's the one where Mayor Cecil Clarke convinced a majority of the obedient councillors to vote for using tax dollars as if the CBRM was a banking institution. During the session, Councillor Paruch had to remind them that they are actually not in the banking business.

Like a bank?

Yes. They actually borrowed $1.2 Million dollars in taxpayer debt to buy land from a well established local business. Then they leased it back to McKeil Marine at break even - minus the lost municipal taxes.

Whatever your position may be on the issue, one thing is at least clear. It's a matter that is and certainly should be of public concern. And there should be a public discussion facilitated.

But apparently the Cape Breton Post isn't willing to permit that discussion. And on that note, let's get back to the topic of censorship with reader comments.

Unreliable Moderation

The CB Post has moderation standards in place. And they should have them. After all, the public voice doesn't need to be profane or abusive in order to convey an idea.

But that isn't what happened here.

Based on personal experience, the Post frequently delays approval of reader comments. This can be easily confirmed when it takes longer for your first comment to get approved than ones you posted afterwards. If you pay attention, you'll also notice them getting approved in batches.

As someone who never posts anything foul or improper, when my own comments are delayed in the moderation queue, I'm very curious as to why that might be. TBD.

However, there is an even bigger concern. And that is when comments are initially approved... and then deleted entirely.

Two Full Articles, All Comments Deleted

This recent John Whalley lawsuit article wasn't the first time the CB Post deleted all comments from a controversial article. They did it with Mary Campbell's article: "Whose Port is it Anyway?" too. At least those two are the ones I've been aware of.

They restored some of those removed comments after a public backlash - but not all.

The commonality shared by these two articles is that they cover subject matter that is critical of the Cape Breton Regional Municipality. With the first deletion, the Cape Breton Post team stated the following on their Facebook page:

"After concerns were raised this morning regarding comments pertaining to a column..."

It goes on to say "comments were turned off". But the rationale was vaguely stated as "concerns were raised".

As readers, we're not quite certain who raised those concerns. However, it would not be a very good measure of journalistic integrity if an outside party could anonymously raised objections to public comments they did not like - and have them removed. So let's cross our fingers that it was just a weak decision by inside management.

A Call for Accountability, Integrity, and Journalistic Courage

I would not call for abandonment of the Cape Breton Post team's moderation practises altogether. There are certainly going to be comments that don't deserve to be posted on their platform. For those that are vulgar or abusive, I would happily volunteer to hit the Delete button for them.

However, the CB Post should respect its readers and the members of the community that sustain their business. It should not steal away their voice without very strong supportive reasoning to do so.

Here is a basic process to set your moderation on the right track:

If you receive a demand that comments be removed (as a formal legal notice or otherwise):

• Require that party to be specific about which individual comments are the subject of their complaint,
• Require them to demonstrate the legal argument for why those comments should be removed,
• Defend your readers' right to comment as much as reasonably possible, and
• Don't allow advertisers to have any excess influence over removal decisions.

And if you do make a decision to comply with such demands:

• Remove only those comments for which you agree that the argument made for its removal is valid (on a legal basis),
• Leave all other comments in place,
• Post an editor's note that indicates (a) that you received a complaint about comments and have complied with a request for removal, and (b) who it was that made that request, and
• Inform the readers whose individual comments were deleted by private email.

Protect the voice of your readers. Make them your first priority.

If you can't commit to doing that, then just turn off all comments. And let readers drift away further into social media and more progressive platforms where their feedback is welcomed.

As for what was so problematic with the comments posted, I'm left quite uncertain: