John,
Over served boater? You cant be serious.. Perhaps he was drinking and was over the limit and had some sort of medical issue.. Dont judge unless you know the facts..By the way, if you had a clue you would know that EVERYONE exceeds the night time speed limit..

So readers can not provide independent information without it being censored? One of the great things about Patch is that it provides a forum whereby neighbors can share information without spin from the media, or distortion of facts from the governemnt. Who are you to say that you are going to censor a readers comment because the polcie didn't provide the information? Are government news sources the only approved information you will diseminate? Careful- this is a very dangerous precident you are setting saying that readers can't post indepenedent comments without facts being confirmed by government information. why not is a comment with the information and a caveat like "this information has not been independently confirmed by Police or government sources" sufficient?

"We do not have these facts confirmed by the New Jersey State Police, therefore we cannot post them". Welcome to the USSR.

I should have posted this all in one comment (and proofread first), but I am totally incensed by this. Do you call yourself a journalist? Do you realized what you are doing when you insist facts must be confirmed by the Police? Someone provided you with information- why not pursue that? How do they know this? Is it reliable? You have their username, so you should be able to look up the email address.

To say "we only publish information from the police" is absurd, dangerous and scary. If you are trying to be a local media outlet you have a responsiblity as a journalist to provided news from all sources- not just from the Police, the Mayor, the council or other "approved government sources".

You should really be ashamed of this and you should uncensor that comment and post that information immediately!

just another way for big brother to censor us as it seems we no longer live in the U.S.A. but in all actuallity we now live in the U.S.S.A. united sociolist states of america in the peoples republic of new jermany

Actually I usually write quite well, but I was so mad that I just didn't take the time to proofread. I cut and paste a few sentences around trying to make my point and ended up with a bit of a mess in my first post. Maybe it should be censored?

and you thoughts on posting any thing you dam want concern me as to your sanity, with that thought you need to get your own forum,ill wait for the real story with confirmation from law inforcement,comments can be very imformative but not with additude, and paranoia

jazzman: 1.) you should proofread. 2.) I never said one should be allowed to post "any thing you dam(sic) want". There is a big difference between saying you should be able to post "anything you want" and saying that reader submitted content should not be censored simply because it has not been confirmed or approved by government sources. Journalism does include a responsbility to make some effort to validate the truth, but to censor a post just because the police have not confirmed or approved it, is seriously what happened in Soviet Russia and Communist China.

Oh Kate you're such a genius.. Someone is speaking his/her mind using emotion and made some typos and you are riduculing them.. Big whoop.. you couldn't think of anything else to type..If anyone looks rediculous its you.. get a life..JACK@SS!

You could say "A witness to the accident reported that the person driving the boat was XXX and that he appeared to be intoxicated". If a neighbor said "It was Warren and I saw him", I would have a case for slander (or is it libel, I can never keep those straight) against that commenter, but for you to censor that comment, just because the police didnt verify it, is not good journalism. If the police didnt verify it, and you are considering censoring the post at least reach out to the poster first, and see if he/she is a reliable source. You shouldnt censor first, ask questions later. We all know that reader comments are not the same thing as an artice written by a Patch contributor. Perhaps a disclaimer like "reader comments are the opinions of readers... " or some other appropriate language would work. As a journalist, you should always be leaning toward the side preserving free speech. If your policy is to censor post containing facts unless the police confirm those facts, that is still a scary policy. What if I claimed to be a witness and my facts disagreed with the police account- would you censor my comments? What if I said it was not XXX who was driving, I saw YYY driving. Would you censor me because I dont agree with the police account?

sussex county mutants

It's not exactly like someone walking into "my house". It's like someone walking into a newspaper office and saying "I have some information" and the editor saying "your information cant be published until the police approve it".

Patch sets up the forums for readers to comment on stories. It is one thing to say "we will censor comments that we find to be slanderous or inaccurate after we investigate the validity of those comments", but quite different to say "we censor comments that have not been confirmed by the police." INDEPENDENT confirmation does not mean police confirmation, it means taking some steps to see if the comment is a bunch of BS, or legit information. I'm saying we shouldnt be censoring first- if we are going to censor, we should have a good reason to do so.

jazzman you say the dumbest things.. really

Yes, very intelligent, well thought out response. Good little sheep.

@Warren:
li·bel   [lahy-buhl] Show IPA noun, verb, li·beled, li·bel·ing or ( especially British ) li·belled, li·bel·ling.
noun
1.
Law .
a.
defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
b.
the act or crime of publishing it.
c.
a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.
2.
anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.
Libel law
3.
to publish a libel against.
4.
to misrepresent damagingly.
5.
to institute suit against by a libel, as in an admiralty court.

This would apply to the website hosting the forum in which false information was given.

sdsdsd:

Section 3(e) of the Defamation Act 1996 is the most relevant here and further states that:

A person shall not be considered the author, editor or publisher of a statement if he is only involved as the operator of or provider of access to a communications system by means of which the statement is transmitted, or made available, by a person over whom he has no effective control.

Whilst this may sound like long winded jargon, it appears to make express provision for website operators, omitting their liability. This is because their role is to simply transmit the material, and because of this, cannot be held responsible for forming its content. They essentially, have no control over what is written.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/5463073

The key statement in your post is "...by a person over whom he has no effective control."

Hey everyone - take it easy on Warren. He must have misplaced his baseball !

Lisa,
I couldnt agree more..

ok ...really ? im thinking about suing you right now for harassment and i think ive got a case,having whole lots of witnesses here to testify to the fact,try researching that

jazzman- very intelligent argument you make. Good luck with that.

and where do you think they peee,same lake,ive seen that same trick,Byam bay must be the cesspool

The same law does apply to boaters. If an intoxicated driver of a boat is stopped by the marine police, he/she will be placed under arrest for DUI. Just because a boat has a bar on it, doesn't mean the driver is drunk. I know that boat...it's actually very nice. I do agree with your being upset by how some people disrespect the lake by throwing garbage, cigarettes, sinking bottles and cans, etc. One weekend last year I witnessed some Jacka** dumping his hot charcoal out of his grill into the lake. He must have actually thought it would sink. Well, it just all floated along, where everyone was swimming...I wanted to punch the jerk out! I have to assume people who do things like that do not live on or near the lake and could care less....Weekend Warriors. I believe if they are caught by the marine police, the same "no littering" laws apply and they will be issued a summons.

Susan,
I’m trying to be nice here but it bothers me when people speak about the lake that I grew up on 50 years plus without know what they are saying.. Where does the lake get its water from? We don’t fill it up with hoses, its spring fed.. The lake is obtaining thousands of gallons of NEW FRESH water daily which is cycled by all the boating, weather etc.. Furthermore, the overflow of water is released to the Musconetcong river. When you take the millions of gallons of water that are being cycled through the lake and compare it to 3 months (mainly weekends) of people taking a leak, the results most likely cant even be detected if there were environmental tests done looking for this.. Am I gonna reach down and grab a cup full to drink, no.. But as far as saying you wont swim in the lake, perhaps its a mental thing and something you need to work on..

Thank you, Infact, for confirming my sentiments regarding the lake. I was going to comment about the lake being spring fed, the water release at the damn, water flow, rain water, etc affecting the lake in positive ways, but I wasn't sure how to word it affectively. I'm on the same page as you!