On Thu, 25 May 2000 20:39:03 -0500, Glenn McCorkle wrote:
> On Thu, 25 May 2000 06:13:22 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
>> It is, however, quite possible to write programs that can do a really
>> good job in checking for errors in languages intended to be interpreted
>> only by machines. Fortunately, machines are not capable of having an
>> opinion. One of their most interesting features is that they never argue
>> with us.
> You make some very good points. I won't argue with them.;-)
> The questions we need to ask ourselves....
> Do we want the owners/operators of ISPs to start checking every page
> before allowing such page to be placed on their server?
> Do we want the ISP owners/operators to take-on the resonsibility of
> "filtering" the improperly written pages?
> Or...
> Do we (the users), want to continue doing these things for ourselves?
> Let the debate begin......<vbg>
My dear fellow Arachnids:
ISPs offer to the public a media for publications, being web-pages, which
one may submit to disseminate information to others. In this regard ISPs
are no different from other publications media such as newspapers,
magazines, professional journals, books, movies, and TV channels. All of
the above mentioned publications media have the right to publish whatever
they please and to express whatever opinions they want, regardless of
vocabulary, reading level, or grammatical style. If I were to submit for
publication my poem to "The Atlantic Monthly", the editor most likely would
reject it saying that it fails to meet that publication's arbitrary
literary standards. Any publisher has the right to maintain his
"standards", even if they be quite arbitrary. This is not censorship. I
still have the right to publish my poem myself or I could pay some other
publisher to publish it for me. Of course I would much rather prefer that
my poem be published in "The Atlantic Monthly" so as to achieve official
recognition for my talent by the established literary community. Members
of that community do have the right to be snits. The right to be a snit is
also included in freedom of expression.
A professional journal dedicated to papers on the subject of
astro-physics probably wouldn't even accept a paper written by Stephen
Hawking if the language and terminology used is intended for ordinary
folks like us. Regardless of the author's most eminent qualifications
to write upon the subject, we would expect the professional journal to
refuse to publish something that fails to meet its standards for
scientific and technical erudition and reading level.
If I want to read more about science, and if I should find the
professional journals way over my head, then I could read the "Watch
Mr. Wizard" comic books. There are standards for comic books as well
as there are standards for professional journals.
Every publisher, in every media, has a right to prescribe standards. The
Family Channel has its standards. The Playboy Channel also has standards.
By knowing the standards that are upheld by these two channels, we will
know which channel we will want to watch, depending on whatever our
tastes for entertainment.
Some newspapers are sounding boards for liberal political opinions.
Others are for conservative political opinions. Still there are some
that are open and free forums. The editors will decide on content
accordingly.
Most publications media have standards. We expect that and we accept that,
and most of us like it that way. I'm sure that most everyone on this list
would be sorely disappointed if they were to find my lousy poem published
in such an esteemed publication as "The Atlantic Monthly".
Should not also some ISPs maintain some standards when it comes to
deciding what kind of web pages they will allow to be published? Let them
be snits.
All the best,
Sam Heywood
-- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client
