With a sincere apology to anyone who has been offended in the past — either directly or indirectly — I decided last week to stop our practice of online commenting for stories appearing on our Web site at wacotrib.com.

Until we have a way of verifying who is posting comments and ensuring that they use their identity, I do not anticipate returning to the practice of commenting in the same manner that we have done in the past.

In a word, I’m motivated to take this action because of nastiness.

The technological ability that allows communities of interest to join in online discussions continues to hold great promise for the Internet.

But as long as people are allowed to hide behind anonymity, I am now convinced, this promise will never be fulfilled.

I can’t say there was any particular tipping point that led me to this decision last week — beyond the fact I am increasingly finding myself in a position of trying to defend or justify a practice that I have come to conclude is indefensible.

It’s a practice in which people, using pseudonyms, viciously attack one another — and lately attack one another’s relatives — with virtual impunity.

It’s cowardly. It’s shallow. It’s divisive, and it underscores the poisonous atmosphere that masquerades as public discourse these days.

There have been promising moments when commenting added further insight into what was being reported.

Unfortunately, those moments have been rare, and, frankly, I haven’t seen much evidence of this kind of discourse lately.

Instead, it has been a caldron of meanness that, far from shedding light on a topic or offering insight, has demonstrated how small-minded and petty people can be.

Perhaps the most difficult aspect of listening to people complain is trying to explain why these comments are allowed to be posted on our Web site to begin with.

Various courts have ruled that, legally, we as an institution are not liable for scurrilous content if we can demonstrate that we are self-policing. That is, if we can demonstrate that we respond to reader complaints and remove the objectionable language, then courts say our chances of being successfully sued for libel are diminished greatly.

If, however, we show any evidence of editing comments or of monitoring some commenting and not monitoring others, then our liability increases.

In essence, several lawyers have told us, we can’t do anything about this vicious commenting until it is posted.

People, even local judges I have spoken with informally, do not accept such legal reasoning — particularly when, at that moment, they’re reading something nasty about themselves or a relative.

In the past, I have been willing to take the criticism in hopes that reasoned argument would eventually overtake petty attacks on our Web site and we would truly become an electronic town square for this community to debate issues of the day.

I have concluded I was wrong. As long as we continue to allow anonymous postings, electronic snipers aiming bullets of venom will always disrupt and corrupt the discussion, driving off those seeking honest and civil discourse.

I am proud of the steps we have taken on our editorial page to raise the level of discourse since the Robinson family took ownership of our newspaper.

But I can no longer justify in my mind working so hard to have informed debate on our editorial pages, only to allow our image to be undercut by the vileness and hatefulness of anonymous commenting on our Web site.

I remain amazed at how civil discussions are on the social media site Facebook. I’m convinced that the reason for this is that people’s names and often pictures are attached to their comments.

Until I can figure out how to stop anonymous postings, I can no longer justify providing a forum for this poisonous discourse while hoping against hope that civility will somehow win out.

Editor Carlos Sanchez can be contacted at 757-5703 or csanchez@wacotrib.com.