TAHLEQUAH — When it comes to online anonymity, when is it OK for website administrators to start policing comments from the public, if ever? Is it a violation of a person’s First Amendment rights?

And when is a comment considered obscene? Who gets to define “obscene” or “offensive,” and how?

There are lots of questions. A new generation of media has prompted newspapers, magazines and television stations to provide forums for their readers to express personal opinions, often with no holds barred.

From the get-go, these forums have also allowed for anonymous postings, with no requirement of providing a name or any form of verification to identify the person as being a legitimate individual.

But commenters have seemingly grown more vocal as the Internet has begun to dominate everything that is news, leading some website administrators to adjust their posting policies.

A recent CNN.com article, “News sites reining in nasty user comments,” described many user comments “like scribblings on a bathroom stall: anonymous, offensive and full of hate.”

While many small newspapers have struggled with the inability to dedicate one or more staff members to policing online activity, even larger websites are finding anonymous comments a growing concern, as well.

As CNN reported, the Sun Chronicle newspaper of Attleboro, Mass., introduced a system in July requiring those who want to comment to provide the site with names, addresses, phone numbers and a credit card number. Those who are determined to comment will pay a one-time charge of 99 cents to activate an account, and their name and community will appear with their posts. That information will be based on the provided credit card.

“I can’t guarantee this is going to work, but I know for sure it seems to improve the discourse online, and it will certainly bring some responsibility and consistency,” Mike Kirby, editor of the Sun Chronicle, told CNN.com.

The Buffalo News will also do away with anonymous user comments on its website in August, and will require users to register using their name, city, and a phone number. Then, staff members will try to confirm those are real identities, according to CNN.

Locals have varying opinions on whether a website - specifically, one belonging to a media entity - should allow or police anonymous comments.

“Anonymous commenting was an interesting experiment that was great in theory, but failed to work in reality,” said Charles Letbetter, a former area resident who now lives in Indiana. “Comments on even the most minor and mundane articles dissolve into political partisanship, and from there, right down the toilet into name-calling.”

Misbehavior, said Letbetter, causes a “potentially-wonderful tool” to be lost.

“When one is more concerned with finding ways to blame or trash an opponent, focus is lost and truth hits the shelf in favor of pure noise,” he said. “He who yells the loudest may not win, but at least [he] keeps anyone else from being heard.”

Local resident Jeremy Combs doesn’t believe anonymous posts from the public are a good idea, but says a website should “either prohibit, or allow everything.”

“To police comments for their content would be hypocritical of a newspaper/magazine/websites, whose very existence is served by the First Amendment,” said Combs.

He thinks those who support anonymous comments are afraid to speak their minds, and usually do so under the guise of personal safety.

“[Anonymity] can defectively save you from backlash from government and private organizations,” said Combs. “But as far as comment posting, there is really no reason to be anonymous.”

Local police officer William Metcalfe believes news websites should only allow comments “deemed relevant or [that] provoke thinking in regards to the article.”

NSU employee Olga Hoenes loves to “blog” by posting comments on a Tulsa newspaper’s website, which she said requires a user identification name.

“And they have your personal e-mail and location on file in case of threatening comments,” said Hoenes.

She does realize, however, that speaking freely may have repercussions of various forms.

For Don Hutson, accountability is the issue at hand.

“We are guaranteed freedom of speech, not anonymity,” said Hutson. “We should be held accountable for our words, and our actions. Too many times people think they should be able to say what they want to say without realizing how their words are so painful when they are untrue.”

Hutson doesn’t like to see people use the “cloak of secrecy” to hide their intentions and identities.

“Stand up like a person, not crawling and cowering in the muck,” said Hutson.

The Daily Press hasn’t been immune to the changing state of online postings. Under the former Press website, a users forum allowed one to sign up, in theory using a valid e-mail address and by providing a valid name. Once activated, posts could be made on any subject.

Postings, however, quickly detoured from the original story subject and became bombarded by potentially libelous content. The forum was eventually shut down, but under a redesigned website, commenting is now allowed on individual stories. The managing editor or another staff member scrutinizes the comments for libelous content and other issues before approving them.

Users have quickly taken advantage of the option to voice their opinions. Commenters are asked to provide a name - though many choose to be anonymous - and an e-mail, which will show up along with the post.

“We tried the honor system and self-policing by participants but the few who abused the privilege, to the point of being libelous, changed the way we publish reader comments,” said Rick Lepper, the vice president of Operations and Digital Development of the Great Plains Division of Community Newspaper Holdings Inc., which owns the Daily Press.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, said Lepper, but caution must be used.

“Even though we disclaim credit for the content in comments doesn’t mean we - the newspaper - are not held accountable and could be, in some cases, liable,” said Lepper. “When the comments become degrading, defaming, incendiary, damaging and/or intentionally false or misleading, and we publish those comments in print or online, we run the risk of being complicit.”

CNHI has more than 140 company websites, he said, and of those, nearly all that allow users to comment on a particular story have adopted the policy of “published upon approval,” Lepper said.

The issue isn’t likely to fade away soon, as the world becomes more and more digital. David Williams, who moderates commenting at CNN.com, said on the site that its audience provides an array of opinion.

“They can be thought-provoking, vulgar, inspiring, offensive or hilarious, but they’re rarely boring,” he wrote.

Comments often provide writers with an idea of where to go in the future by providing story ideas; moderators do, however, have the ability to remove comments that violate CNN.com’s guidelines, or to block users “who have a pattern of bad behavior,” he said.

“It’s an evolving system and we spend a lot of time in the newsroom discussing the right approach for delicate stories,” Williams wrote. “Are racial slurs OK in a story about racist language? Is it appropriate to allow comments calling for terrorists, rapists and serial killers to be killed in the most violent way possible? Or how explicit is too explicit in a story about sex?”