# "Unable to Accept Comments for Legal Reasons" Why? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 20, 2013, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unable-to-accept-comments-for-legal-reasons-why/658839 "2013-05-20T16:50:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Carryon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc29f/32.png) [@Carryon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carryon)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unable-to-accept-comments-for-legal-reasons-why/658839/1 "2013-05-20T16:50:41Z")
Here’s a link to a story at the Daily Mail from the UK > **[Killed for his iPad: Father tells of his devastation as 15-year-old son dies...](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2327385/Fathers-devastation-son-dies-dragged-car-clinging-iPad.html)** > > According to investigators, Marcos Arenas, 15, was walking down a Las Vegas street with the iPad when a passenger got out of a vehicle and tried to steal it. It is about a theft of an iPad. At the bottom it says > [@](#): > > Sorry we are unable to accept comments for legal reasons . Why??? ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unable-to-accept-comments-for-legal-reasons-why/658839/2 "2013-05-20T17:02:59Z")
> [@Carryon](#): > > Here’s a link to a story at the Daily Mail from the UK > > [Father's devastation as son dies after being dragged under a car while clinging to his iPad | Daily Mail Online](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2327385/Fathers-devastation-son-dies-dragged-car-clinging-iPad.html) > > It is about a theft of an iPad. At the bottom it says > > . > > Why??? Possibly due to UK libel laws which have (I seem to recall) held newspapers responsible for comments published on their articles. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unable-to-accept-comments-for-legal-reasons-why/658839/3 "2013-05-20T17:28:55Z")
Libel, and contempt issues. The England/Wales Contempt of Court Act of 1981 makes it criminal contempt to publicize material which impairs the course of justice in certain cases flagged by the Attorney General. I didn’t think it applied to criminal proceedings in foreign jurisdictions but maybe they’re just being uber-cautious. ETA: US law also makes publications liable for defamatory comments posted by users in public fora. The difference is that this only applies to moderated publications in the US. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unable-to-accept-comments-for-legal-reasons-why/658839/4 "2013-05-20T17:30:27Z")
If that were the case, surely it would mean no British newspaper would ever allow comments on stories on its site. In fact, many (maybe all or most) regularly do. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unable-to-accept-comments-for-legal-reasons-why/658839/5 "2013-05-20T17:43:20Z")
Eh? As I said, the law only applies to specific cases identified by the Attorney General. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unable-to-accept-comments-for-legal-reasons-why/658839/6 "2013-05-21T20:58:43Z")
Normally in instances of this sort trial/charges are still pending against someone else involved in the affair and publishing information which might prejudice a fair trial would be a contempt. This does not apply to foreign news, however, so it’s hard to see why in this case. Possibly someone running the _Daily Mail_’s hasn’t looked at it too closely but just done it as normal. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unable-to-accept-comments-for-legal-reasons-why/658839/7 "2013-05-21T22:11:32Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Eh? As I said, the law only applies to specific cases identified by the Attorney General. I was responding to \*\*Andy \*\*L, not you. He appeared to be attributing the problem in a very general way to newspapers being responsible, under UK libel laws, for comments on their site. In any case, as this is a US case it seems unlikely that the British Attorney General would have ruled on it in the way you suggest. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unable-to-accept-comments-for-legal-reasons-why/658839/8 "2013-05-21T23:09:48Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > I was responding to \*\*Andy \*\*L, not you. He appeared to be attributing the problem in a very general way to newspapers being responsible, under UK libel laws, for comments on their site. > > In any case, as this is a US case it seems unlikely that the British Attorney General would have ruled on it in the way you suggest. I thought I recalled cases in which UK libel laws had led to lawsuits about comments, and imagined that the newspaper might anticipate legally questionable comments for an article about a killing (while they might feel that the risk of such comments was significantly less for less inflamatory articles, and thus allow comments on those). I should have been more clear - you’re quite right that what I wrote would suggest that no articles would ever have comments (and I should have researched the question before answering off the top of my head anyway - sorry about that).