Phil and all,
Phil, I think after reading your response's here that you misunderstand
my meaning, or I did not enunciate it well enough. I shall try again
here to be a bit more clear. >;)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Phil and all,
> >
> > Phil Howard wrote:
> >
> > > William X. Walsh wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Pardon me Phil??? The very terms "questionable content" which
> > Mr. Walsh is using here (See above), pretty much lead you to determine
> > the CENSORSHIP is exactly what Mr. Walsh is espousing.
>
> Questioning the content does not specify an action to be taken to deal
> with it if you even decide to deal with it. And if that action is to
> freely choose not to associate with it, then it is not censorship.
Ah, but association and refusing to host that individual's domain
are two entirely different things or actions. One is effemerat, the other
is not. Both is based on Mr. Walsh's attitude or behavior towards
something that may be offensive or disagreeable to him personally.
To disassociate is fine for Mr. Walsh the individual. To refuse service
of hosting a particular domain because it is offensive is another entirely.
The latter for a public service, in unexceptable and also not legal, under
restraint of trade laws and discriminatory practices laws, the former is not.
Hence, Mr. Walsh in the latter, is practicing a form of censorship, but
not in the former.
> If,
> OTOH, one proposes the government prohibit it, then one is proposing
> censorship.
>
> Blindness is not a virtue in evaluating how life around you will affect you.
> The real issue is what one does about a situation.
Exactly right. And tolerance is, in effect the law.
>
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > A pretty good definition. And hence, again I would reference this definition
> > to Mr. Walsh's terms "questionable content", as evidence that he
> > is eluding to CENSORSHIP by your definition.
>
> Mr. Walsh is not in a position to be censor. He is in a position to suggest
> or propose censorship on the part of those who are in such a position. He
> has not done so.
As a government, you are right here. Mr. Walsh is not in a position to sensor
speech or freedom of expression. As a business that serves the public,
he IS in a position to censor or otherwise discriminate. Much case law
is already available on this point Phil.
>
>
> Some have interpreted my own statement as suggesting that InterNIC, which can
> be argued to be in a position of authority until competition is in place,
> close down, hold, or delete the registrations mentioned. However, what I
> did mean to say (and failed to include a smiley which would probably have
> clarified it better to perhaps 50% of those who misunderstood it) was that
> if InterNIC were to take such an action, it might likely go unresponded.
Agreed it would and likely does in most cases.
>
>
> A business choosing not to associate with a given message is not censorship.
As you state this or use this wording and as it applies to an individual this
is correct. However as it applies to a service oriented business, such as
hosting services for a Domain Name, or any other public service, it does
not.
>
>
> > > This is simply a case of a business choosing to, or not to,
> > > do business with any other chosen business.
> >
> > No Phil, again Mr. Walsh is referring to "questionable content".
>
> He is questioning the content, and he may even decide to act on it (if he
> indeed has that questionable content in his own situation). If he declines
> to do business with someone based on the content he has questioned, it is
> not censorship because he is not even in a position of authority.
This would depend on his stated reason for not hosting that domain.
> He does
> have authority within his own business, but aside from specifics certain
> laws spell out, a business is not a free society.
Agreed it is not. But a public service business does have certain
requirements that it must uphold to. Censorship or discrimination
in any of its forms, within the law, is not expectable business behavior.
>
>
> The questioning of the content is not censorship.
Questioning it alone is certainly not censorship. Acting or refusing service
due to the possibility of it being offensive, IS CENSORSHIP or discrimination.
>
>
> Deciding to not do business with someone based on the questionable content
> is not censorship.
Yes it certainly is.
>
>
> > > We do have laws that limit
> > > 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.
> >
> > This is a pretty fine line here Phil. Maybe...
>
> Censorship is what those in authority do to exclude all possibility of a
> given idea to be spoken (in the figurative sense).
This is one definition that is correct as it applies to governments or
governmental bodies.
>
>
> Business is a give and take transaction done by 2 or more parties when each
> party feels it is in their own interest (the interest of a for profit business
> being to gain a profit). If doing business with a certain party does not put
> a reasonable business person in such a position, then they would choose not to
> be involved.
Correct. However hosting a domain that may contain "Questionable
Content", whatever that is, is not necessarily bad for profit incentive.
The example that Mr. Walsh originally used covering a range of
potential Domains, Porn, Are indeed very profitable in almost
every case. Hence not good for profit is not a reasonable reason
for not hosting those sort of Domains, if handled correctly of course.
>
>
> > > > 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).
> >
> > Yes, and we have just seen one of those exceptions with the USG
> > 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.
>
> I would question the USG coercing the tobacco industry into not advertising.
You may as do I. But they have already done so. So you are too late
unfortunately. And a travesty has been committed.
>
> But I would not question any advertisement based business who freely chose
> to not carry a tobacco ad, unless I felt they had made an erroneous business
> decision (and then, only if I had an interest, such as being a stock holder
> or director).
Well as an american citizen (Non smoking), I still would and do find
such action offensive and dangerous as well as disingenuous.
>
>
> --
> 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]
Regards,
--
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
