Dear Sir,

“On occasion The Royal Gazette may decide to not allow comments on a story that we deem might inflame sensitivities or discontinue them when the discourse is lowered by commenters to unacceptable standards. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers”.

Blah, blah, blah.

In other words, it seems, we want to shut this discussion down, it suits us to do so.

Why? Why don’t you have gumption to really say why you’re shutting down the comments? Some threads run and run. They ramble on strangely (maybe not); those about “weed” go on and on etc about “hey man, we should legalise this stuff”.

Why, why, why did you shut down the discussion “Gay couple planning to leave Bermuda”? I didn’t read comments that would “inflame sensitivities” or fail to meet “acceptable standards”. Define “sensitivities” define “acceptable standards”.

I wanted to write in support of Joe Gibbons, but the comments section was shut down in short order. Why?

ANGELA OUTERBRIDGE

Editor’s note: I’m sorry you did not have a chance to comment before the Joe Gibbons story was closed. Our policy is very clear on when comments are allowed and not allowed. This policy can be found online.

In this instance, a succession of comments had to be deleted that continuously lowered the level of discourse to a point where we felt it had to be shut down.

Same-sex marriage is a sensitive topic that brings out the worst in an online community in Bermuda that, for provocative invective, is already among the worst to be found anywhere — all while hiding behind pseudonyms in the main, which makes the situation unpalatable.

As we do not have a full-time moderator of the site, and given the demands of producing a daily newspaper in conjunction with live breaking news, I stand by pulling the plug in advance of the 72-hour cut-off.