Censored on CiF, community standards, Guardian Watch, latest

What “community standards” did this comment breach?#13

This comment was censored by the Guardian. Which of the well-publicised CiF “community standards” did it breach?

snapshot of where it was:


  • Does it “misrepresent the Guardian and its journalists”?
  • Is it “persistent trolling or mindless abuse”?
  • Is it “spam-like”? Or “obviously commercial”?
  • Is it “racism, sexism, homophobia or hate-speech”?
  • Is it “extremely offensive of threatening?”?
  • Is it “flame-wars based on ingrained partisanship or generalisations”?
  • Is it not “relevant”?

If none of the above – why was it taken down?

see our archive of censored comments. And if you see any egregious examples of the Guardian censoring its “free” comment sections – email us at editor@off-guardian.org, and send us screen caps if possible


  1. I think a lot of comments are deleted on account of the personal opinions of the moderators. I expect that most of the moderators are ‘normal’ people; ie people who believe the narrative promoted by the mainstream corporate media is the truth.

  2. StuHart says

    The comment was going well until the author used 2 words in the same sentence that will automatically get you moderated – Clinton and crook. Subtlety is the name of the game in The G. Perhaps “flexible approach to honesty” would have resulted in a published comment.

  3. If I had vote for one of these candidates I would go with Trump, he is loud and sometimes overbearing but I believe he is far less dangerous than Bankers darling Kilary Klinton!!

  4. M. le Docteur Ralph says

    The true memory hole.

    At least there is a record that your comment existed. I posted a comment to Jonathan Freedland’s latest Al Qaeda support piece:


    and it has simply disappeared without trace after getting 3 recommendations.

    I courted controversy by pointing out that the majority of the population lived in Western Aleppo and that accepting Al Qaeda’s photos of chalk dusted children was the equivalent of accepting Goebbels reports from Stalingrad and my comment just disappeared.

    Before I start seeing five fingers I must also mention my real thought crime: I cited Bobby Kennedy Jr’s article in Politico:


    Comment is not free if it disappears.

  5. Paolo says

    I just had a look at the Guardian, something I actually now never do after having been a daily reader until 2014. One of the headlines read “From liberal beacon to a prop for Trump: what has happened to WikiLeaks? ”
    I thought to myself, replace Trump with NATO and Wikileaks with the Guardian.

    • chris owen says

      I notice that when wikileaks was publishing during the Arab Spring the G was keen to publish and discuss under Russbridger. However, none of the clinton wikileaks have surfaced in the G and are barely mentioned. Funny that eh?

  6. michaelk says

    Here’s Glenn Greenwald at the Intercept covering the dreadful attempts by Democrats in the US media attempting to smear Assange and Wikileaks as Russian stooges and linking Trump and Assange to Putin in the most partisan and outrageous fashion. The adoration of Clinton is really awful. It reminds me of the way Germans were encouraged to worship the ground Adolf Hitler walked on as holy. I simply can’t wait if Clinton wins in November, the ladies and gentlemen at the Guardian will be beside themselves with clost to hysterical joy as yet another new era, showing the truth about the United States will be rung in,.


  7. Jen says

    Fact is that The Guardian wants – as in REALLY, REALLY WANTS – Killer Klinton to win the US Presidency. That’s what matters.

    The Guardian doesn’t care that if KK became President, one of her first decisions will be to declare a no-fly zone over Syria. That’s precisely what The Guardian wants to see done: anything and everything that gets Bashar al Assad out of power in Syria. What happens next, The Guardian hasn’t thought about at all.

    Any BTL comment that suggests KK is unqualified to be President gets zinged in the neck.

    • chris owen says

      Have to disagree there. I agree they WANT that to happen but even KK isn’t mad enough to take on the Russians in a war they would probably lose considering how close the Russians are geographically. Also the US has become very slack in its war machinery development. It makes lots but the advancement is nowhere near as radical as it used to be. Now its about making money not winning wars. The Russians have made big progress. Their aircraft and air defence systems are without comparison. A war would also expose western weakness and the failure of European commitment. Israel would also be threatened and KK would not want that. Expect to see major support politically, militarily and financially from KK to Israel but it will be all posturing.

  8. Seamus Padraig says

    Not long ago, I posted a comment labeling the Clintons as “hopelessly corrupt,” which got my comment yanked. The message The Graun sent me claimed that my statement ‘raised legal issues’. I say the Clintons are the legal issue!

  9. Kaiama says

    the grauniad automatically promotes comments containing the author/journalist’s name for human scrutiny. we never know precisely who scrutinises the comments, but i suspect the authors/journalists are involved in the process.

  10. Kevin Morris says

    I could be entirely wrong but I do wonder if anyone reads the letters that are purged.

    Some time ago I wrote a letter to a provincial newspaper and made the comment, ‘it looks as if this has been worked out on the back of a fag packet’. I got an email telling me that my comments could cause offence. I changed my comments to, ‘It looks as if this has been worked out on the back of a cigarette packet’ and my comments stood.

    The newspaper’s letter checking program had obviously read the slang term, ‘fag’ as homophobic abuse.

      • Kevin Morris says

        This one and the newspaper was the Yorkshire Evening Post.

  11. Alessandro says

    Probably drew an uncomfortably close parallel to the non-existent distinction between the Conservatives and the Blairite wing of the Labour Party in the UK.

  12. chrisb says

    As far as I know, HRC has been convicted of no crime. So don’t be surprised if a website decides not to be party to someone defaming her as a ‘crook’. It would be more interesting to see what the Guardian would do if someone stated that she should be charged with a particular crime.

    • JJA says

      I agree that the probable issue is the word ‘crook’. I almost never read the Guardian anymore because of its relently pro Clinton anti Trump, anti Corbyn, anti Putin line. Has the Guardian ever printed quotes from Trump (other than the red herring sexism stuff) involving his regular descrption of her as ‘Crooked Hillary’?

  13. Because the truth is not allowed on Mainstream media. Just like Hillary is vetting what the media say about her [ wikileaks ] The UK is no better, and no different. I gave up mainstream 10 years ago, and refuse to read it, or watch it, as it became increasingly clear that they were all on the same agenda. Much like finding out that wikimedia has ties to the Clinton foundation.

    The alt media now have the narrative. You can do you own home work and make your own opinion of the stories that you find, rather than have one rammed down your throat. As an example people who are truly reporting the news, show you their sources of information. This allows you to double check, as I mentioned earlier. But the mainstream report everything as fact with no way of checking, and therefore you have to take their word.

    We were told emphatically that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, it was a lie. And once again wikileaks reveals that they planned to invade Iraq long before 9/11. And yet people now are believing the anti war sentiment being spewed by the said media, as though it were true.

    There are many growing sites who will provide more truth than you will find on the poisoned mocking bird mainstream media. If you hit nerve, they take it down.

    • Sandra Tulin says

      OF COURSE the invasion of Iraq was planned and began long before 9/11. The entire WMD discussion began in 1991, and the lies grew so long convoluted, waiting and agonizing the vetting of “information” that it got boring to the American people long before the invasion’s specific planning and implementation. That is why it is difficult for me to believe anyone in Congress during that time was a real “hawk,” including Hillary Clinton. If any press reporting went on for that long, think how long the discussions that we never hear about must have been?


Comments are closed.