Download the eBook (8.25 MB) - ECREA Thematic Sections

Diversity of Journalisms. Proceedings of ECREA/CICOM Conference, Pamplona, 4-5 July 2011
Modification right 86 and removal
This is a right to modify content that the companies reserve to themselves. Certainly, it
is understood that it extends to the comments sent by the users, although moral rights
– the integrity of the work, which are especially recognised in countries with a civil or
continental juridical tradition, would prevent substantial modifications of the work,
equally respectable although one is dealing with a mere comment. For example,
linguistic corrections could not be performed. Although, as was done with letters to the
editor in the world of print, the medium can practice, in a consensual way, some minor
and non-substantial changes, such as shortening the length of the text.
The moral rights – in this case paternity right – make it equally impossible to publicly
reveal the identity of the author of a comment that is signed with a pseudonym,
although there are limitations: respect for others, non-usurpation of other personalities,
etc. The system of nicknames means that, although the medium knows who they
belong to, it is difficult to fulfil all of these norms in practice. In any case, the system of
registration – that of Guardian Unlimited is one of the most complete – attempts to
avoid it only being possible to identify the authors of comments by their nickname and
not by their real name.
All the media reserve the possibility of not accepting and of eliminating comments. This
latter possibility is more problematical, according to the different national legislations,
because it consists in withdrawing a work from the market, an action that cannot be
carried out so easily a posteriori as a priori, when it involves the simple non-acceptance
of a work submitted for the consideration of the juridical entity that would publish it (“to
our sole discretion”). It is also the responsibility of the user, as the Guardian Unlimited
establishes for example, to guarantee that s/he holds the rights of the material that s/he
sends (text, photos, etc.), and that they do not belong to a third party.
Finally, and to avoid the problems of internationalisation of justice inherent in a medium
as global as Internet, the legal notices mention an attractive clause that effectively
“draws” any claim that might arise to the company’s own juridical sphere. The user
must be aware that s/he submits to the national laws, and to the jurisdiction of the
courts, of the countries where the head office of the company is based.
Ethical limits
Nytimes.com and Guardian.co.uk are the most explicit when it comes to explaining the
reason for the norms regulating participation. Thus, the British newspaper attempts to
achieve “intelligent discussions” through the comments. And it understands that, to this
end, “we welcome debate and dissent”, but always with respect for “other people’s
views”. Guardian.co.uk indicates a double responsibility, that of the newspaper and that
of the reader: “the platform is ours, but the conversation belongs to everybody”. For its
part, Nytimes.com, understands participation as follows: “Our goal is to provide
86 Only applicable in continental laws.
304