What a great change. Happy to see this!

It is good to see editorial sensitivity to the desired balance while still maintaining the importance of publishing names in certain contexts. Will you duly report names when/if related charges are filed?

The public defender's notion that names should be redacted from official press releases, and links to such avoided, is misguided. True, these are offsets to the intention, but this is official material released in the public interest. It is not the purview of the press to edit or censor such information rather it is their duty to publish it or cite it. The salient question here is, what should the police department be releasing, under what circumstances?

I find it appalling that people who are arrested are named at all. As it states in the article, an arrest is not a conviction. I have heard the argument that, "Well - police don't arrest someone without a good reason" and "Where there's smoke, there's fire" and blah-blah, but job applications these days do NOT ask, "Have you ever been convicted of a crime?" They ask, "Have you ever been arrested?" This is discriminatory both racially and economically.

I agree with Barb 3 on the following;
"The arrestee is a prominent person in the community, a public safety employee or a school employee." why set these people apart? The old saying that "you can't un-ring a bell" holds true here. I feel that only after a conviction should the names be released to the public, otherwise it will, and has become trial by media and gossip. Let's protect the innocent until they are proven guilty.

Suppose President Trump were arrested in Mountain View, it would be a story. Trump would deny any wrongdoing, of course. He might claim it stems from a vast left-wing conspiracy. Vladimir Putin could chime in - agreeing that his fellow despot may well have been framed. The point: even when there is only an arrest, the arrest and the arrestee may be fully newsworthy. If a school employee were just arrested for molestation, should the newspaper wait until there is a charge or conviction or a conviction affirmed after an appeal? No. In many instances,the public should be told about even just credible allegations against public employees. Or against a private child care provider. Or a nursing home. Before your child or aged father is the next victim.

Making fun of Trump, I see. He deserves it.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

This is good. I agree that only after a conviction should the accused's name be released or printed.
Otherwise, why not be fair and name the accuser? There are many circumstances where people lie to the police to gain an advantage. This is so in many divorce proceedings.

Thank you for doing this!

Either do it or don't.

The four exceptions listed simply make you hypocrites. Why is any one person more entitled to have their name redacted than anyone else? You said it yourself. An arrest is not a conviction. Regardless of the person or the severity of the crime, you are possibly defaming that person until they are convicted in a court of law by a jury of their peers.

If possible, go through archives and apply this policy for cases where the person was not later charged.

This will have real impact. I know that Google cache exists and it will take some time for the change to be felt.

While this is a nice start, the policy falls way short with its exception of "prominent members of the community".

First, that leaves a lot of wiggle room to include a wide range of folks.

But more importantly, unless that "prominent" person poses an imminent safety threat, as opposed to a titillating or salacious news story, that "prominent" person deserves the same fairness and privacy as any other citizen. And in fact, that "prominent" person could suffer an even more harmful fate that a non-"prominent" person, as this news would be more likely to travel far and wide.

It5's hard to stand on principles isn't it MV Voice? I support your efforts, but it looks like when it's a teacher at the local HS, out him right away. if it comes out as a bogus charge, well, these things can't be helped.

Snark aside, I would like to see the Voice's explanation of why they so quickly violated this new policy in the case of the recent MVHS math teacher.

Here's the relevant portion of our policy that explains why the suspect was named in this case:

There are some exceptions, all of which are subject to our editorial judgment: the arrestee is a public figure, a public safety or school employee; the arrest was for a major "violent" crime; the arrest was the result of an extended police or FBI investigation; or, as decided by the editor, the crime is of broad public interest or concern.

You can read our full policy at Web Link

I agree w the MV Voice policy