Letter from the Editor

On Monday, we published a story about the Seaford teen who was shot and killed. Although Milford Times is hyperlocal to Milford, we do cover stories in surrounding cities as well, especially when those stories have an impact on everyone in the state. This was a case that every parent and every teacher followed as a Sussex Tech student was brutally killed by another young man who was just a few years older.

In addition to this case gaining attention statewide, we also felt the need to share information that could lead to the location of the alleged shooter. As a media outlet, any way that we can assist the police in solving a crime is something we will always strive to do. Our report was factual, contained only information available from police reports and unbiased.

What we did not anticipate were the inappropriate comments that appeared on that post, the accusations that we were “falsely” reporting due to our use of the word “altercation,” comments that used the “N” word and other racial slurs and then the accusation of “censorship” when we hid comments that were highly inappropriate in light of this case.

First, I want to address the comments that the word “altercation” was incorrect. In Delaware, as in most jurisdictions, news organizations must exercise caution when reporting on allegations contained in police reports because individuals accused of crimes are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. For that reason, journalists frequently rely on neutral language such as “incident,” “altercation,” “disturbance,” or “argument” rather than definitively stating that a “robbery,” “assault,” or “attack” occurred unless formal charges have been filed and verified through official court proceedings.

Even then, some media outlets continue to use cautious wording when law enforcement has not publicly released all details of an investigation or when conflicting accounts remain unresolved. In this case, many of the details are unclear and, even though the young man arrested was charged with attempted robbery, there are conflicting reports regarding the situation.

Media organizations avoid language that could imply guilt because prematurely characterizing an allegation as an established fact could expose the organization to claims of defamation or prejudicial reporting. Additionally, excessive or inflammatory coverage has the potential to jeopardize a defendant’s right to a fair trial by influencing public opinion or tainting a potential jury pool. Responsible journalism therefore requires careful attribution, often phrasing reports as “police allege” or “according to investigators,” while allowing the judicial process to determine whether a crime legally occurred.

As for our decision to hide offensive posts, news organizations and social media administrators have the ability to hide, remove, or moderate offensive, racist, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate comments posted on their platforms in order to maintain civil discussion and protect users from harassment or hate speech. Media outlets may choose to hide comments that contain racial slurs, personal attacks, misinformation, profanity, or statements that could expose the organization to legal liability or damage productive public discourse. In many cases, moderation policies are also designed to protect victims, minors, or private individuals from online abuse and intimidation.

This practice is generally not considered censorship because the First Amendment protects individuals from government suppression of speech, not from moderation decisions made by private organizations or publishers operating their own platforms. Just as newspapers historically exercised editorial discretion over which letters to the editor would be published, modern news outlets retain the right to establish community standards for participation on their digital platforms.

At Milford Times, we will not allow a post to remain on our platforms that contain racial slurs. The “N” word, even when some of the letters are symbols, is never acceptable on our website or social media. Racial slurs of any type will be hidden. We are also a hyperlocal newspaper. National politics does not have place in discussions about local matters, unless the article itself pertains to a national event or program (something that is very rare in our newspaper). Although we will not automatically hide those posts, we will monitor them closely and if the discussion derails into name calling and the use of derogatory names for politicians, political parties or political beliefs, all of those posts will be hidden.

What we are asking is that everyone who comments remember that using racial slurs, derogatory remarks and inappropriate language is not acceptable. As of Monday, posters will be sent a private message asking them to remove their comment if we deem it inappropriate. We will explain why we are asking for it to be removed. If the poster refuses, we will remove it and send a notice that we removed it. Any further posts similar to the one hidden on that story will result in the poster being banned from posting on our social media.

We do not want to ban anyone from our social media. We hope that is never necessary. However, we cannot have our staff spending entire afternoons and evenings hiding comments that are inappropriate.

Keep in mind that in this story, a family lost a son who will never hug his mother again, never graduate from high school, never marry or have children. Two other young men, if they are convicted, will likely spend the rest of their lives in prison, and they were teenagers as well. They have families who love them and are likely devastated that their child, brother, cousin or friend took a life. Compassion for all those who must live with this crime goes a long way toward healing.

We at Milford Live are as angry as many of you. We are angry that a child died at the hands of someone else. We are angry that two 19-year-old young men allegedly felt that taking a life was the right choice to make. We are angry that one of those young men had been arrested seven months before on weapons charges, was on probation but it seems did not learn a lesson about deadly weapons. Our hiding of posts was not political, personal or because we have an agenda. It was simply because we felt the family of the young man who died as well as the families of the two men who allegedly committed this crime should not have to read ugliness. This story is ugly enough. We hope our readers understand our position.

We welcome opinion. In fact, we have an entire page dedicated to opinions. Any reader is welcome to send us their thoughts on this and we will publish it, even if it does a different viewpoint. All opinions can be anonymous. We do reserve the right to edit out obscene language. Send any letters with opinions via email.