Phil Howard wrote:
William X. Walsh wrote:Pardon me Phil??? The very terms "questionable content" which> As a web hosting provider, I would not want to tarnish my reputation
> by being associated in any way with certain types of sites. As a
> service provider, I feel there is some obligation to let other
> providers know when questionable content or sites are being hosted by
> them. Most have been very thankful for the emails, with 2 notable
> exceptions, and have been taking approriate actions.For the benefit of those who have difficulty in understanding the meaning
words used together, Mr. Walsh is not referring to any form of censorship.
Mr. Walsh is using here (See above), pretty much lead you to determine
the CENSORSHIP is exactly what Mr. Walsh is espousing.
A pretty good definition. And hence, again I would reference this definition
Censorship is when someone (usually the government, but could apply to
any entity with control) imposes on you the inability to express what you
want to say.
to Mr. Walsh's terms "questionable content", as evidence that he
is eluding to CENSORSHIP by your definition.
This is simply a case of a business choosing to, or not to,No Phil, again Mr. Walsh is referring to "questionable content".
do business with any other chosen business.
We do have laws that limitThis is a pretty fine line here Phil. Maybe...
just how these decisions can be made. But they don't involve any form of
censorship issues.> There are always going to be places for people to have these types of
> websites, and we might not be able to stop that. I would never agree
> with government involvement in stopping that, and I've not contacted
> NSI about this in any way. They don't host the site, I don't see them
> as involved.People can always buy their own printing press, or find someone with them
who is willing to do business with them. Suggesting that the government
ban a certain idea promotes censorship. Not wanting to facilitate the
speech yourself, is not censorship whatsoever.
Yes, and we have just seen one of those exceptions with the USG> I think that when a provider undertakes to host a site of questionable
> or possible inciteful content, they accept certain risks along with
> that. That includes dealing with those who will object to it, and who
> might decide not to do business with a company that chooses to provide
> services to those types of sites.Newspapers have turned down accepting certain inciteful advertising. The
courts have generally supported this (exceptions probably exist for those
cases which have specific exclusions in law).
and the tobacco industry agreeing to removing cigarette adds on billboards.
(This took place today, BTW) However no such exception exists with
or on the Internet of for any Domain Name.
Regards,--
Phil Howard | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phil | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
at | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ipal | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dot | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
net | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
