Click on our Sponsors to help Support SunWorld
The comments are reproduced as received; only some minor spelling and punctuation errors have been corrected. -- Editors
- Date: Fri Nov 1 10:58:27 PST 1996
- The "average" person can usually pinpoint what is objectionable,
even the perpetrator doing it for whatever reason. The modification
depending on the institution should be suitable. A corporation and
governmental agency held to higher standards than a university. One
modification does not fit all. Each individual case must be decided for
it's objectionable content.
- Date: Fri Nov 1 13:02:44 PST 1996
- In every case of an objection, the only action should be to provide
a label (using the proposed standard for labeling of Web content...
sorry I can't reference the specific standard title/number) identifying
the objection. It would be quite useful if standard labels and contents
were established for labeling based on the objections described. I
believe that NO censoring should be attempted in any case. The Internet
has always been ruled by anarchy, and Usenet before it. That is its
greatest strength and should never be lost.
- Date: Sat Nov 2 15:05:45 PST 1996
- I think that browser creators and WWW creators should agree on
something to transmit when pornographic material is about to be
transmitted. Then people who don't/shouldn't see such stuff could turn
something on in their software to filter it out. Other than that, I
think that the prevailing laws on publishing should work okay for the
Internet. ISP's should be treated as book stores. Corporations whose
employees post/do might be responsible and should publish a policy on
the issues. Educational institutions should apply the same publishing
policies as they do for other student publications.
- Date: Sat Nov 2 15:53:00 PST 1996
- It depends on situation.
- Date: Sat Nov 2 23:11:57 PST 1996
- Ask contributor to modify content to please. If and only if no
compliance remove page.
- Date: Mon Nov 4 22:32:10 EET 1996
- Basically, God has given us a gift: Freedom of choice. IAPs - An
offending page have to be checked at least - most likely will result in
lost time browsing rubbish. You do not cross a street on a red, right?
And stop your car even if there is no pedestrians. Just following
"rules of the house." Yet no force in the world can stop you from doing
otherwise -- except self-control. IAPs are just roadbuilders, therefore
roadsigns have to be installed -- they have to know where pits are, but
they are not liable for the fact that you decided to cross well-marked
"red-tape." Modification can include "red-tape" and/or disclaimer.
Adults have a right to fall into pits on their free will :-) Foreign
governments -- well, I'm sure Iran would!
- Date: Tue Nov 5 02:22:18 PST 1996
- Notify the creator of the material, and have him to do whatever
necessary. Unless it is against the law or company policy, then there
is really no rush.
- Date: Tue Nov 5 09:21:33 PST 1996
- Either have the content removed, or the content moved to a page, and
the original page contains a link to it.
- Date: Tue Nov 5 10:37:30 PST 1996
- Removal altogether or modification to remove objectionable material.
"Freedom of speech" should not constitute license to commit other
crimes (slander, defrauding, etc.).
- Date: Tue Nov 5 10:58:34 PST 1996
- If the pages are modified they should be modified by the creator of the
pages. If the person commited a crime by creating the pages then the
person should be prosecuted and punished. If found guilty of a crime
the pages should be modified by the creator or the ISP per the court's
directions. The court could order a temporary change to the site
pending the outcome of the trial, but could then be held liable for
damages should the author be found innocent.
- Date: Tue Nov 5 16:14:22 PST 1996
- Removal and/or rearranging of the offensive material.
- Date: Tue Nov 5 17:04:48 PST 1996
- Depends entirely on what the content is.
- Date: Wed Nov 6 20:04:52 PST 1996
- Remove objectionable content.
- Date: Thu Nov 7 04:29:50 PST 1996
- Creat a disclaimer in the case of a objectionable content. Censorship
only leads to a form of "mind control" and depicts a shallow org.
Providing a warning banner on those pages in the case of a corp. might
also be appropiate. In the case of a law enforcment involvement
situation. That would depend if there is a local ordinance or state
statute as to whether any censorship should be considered or removed.
Any org. Law enforcment, private, or public that hosts pages or provides
access, should not and cannot be held responsible for the actual
contents of that page. Nor should they, after agreeing to host that
content should they than say that due to the nature of that content,
than subsequently remove it or censor it due to it's content,
reguardless of the nature of that content. This is a obvious violation
of the 1st Amendment of the constitution. I therefore cannot abide by
such a notion or policy.
- Date: Thu Nov 7 13:14:49 PST 1996
- Up to them. If they don't think it will hurt their sales, there seems
to be no reason to modify.
- Date: Thu Nov 7 13:45:49 PST 1996
- Remove or tone down the offensive material. Why do you distinguish
between the opinions of yourselves and foreigners? We all have valid
opinions, except Islamic terrorists.
- Date: Thu Nov 7 14:15:54 PST 1996
- A covering page that specifically makes the entity serving the page not
liable for the content unless the owner of that content has
relinquished his/her responsibility, in which case, the owner's page
should be removed. A warning saying that access to the page may be
logged for legal/statistical purposes. Also, a policy that makes the
owner responsible for their own content AND providing the security
guidelines and features to help the owner keep their data secure.
- Date: Mon Nov 11 17:15:25 PST 1996
- It depends.
- Date: Mon Nov 11 22:48:47 PST 1996
- If the Web page is reflective of the corporation, or the college, etc.,
than it is a "company" page, then if there is an objection, it
should be considered in the light of differing customs and cultures.
There is no need to gratuitously offend others. On the other hand, if
the page accurately reflects the policy or beliefs of the company etc.,
and there is no other equally accurate way of dealing with the subject
matter that would be less offensive, than it should be left alone.
- Date: Tue Nov 12 08:33:14 PST 1996
- Since I only think that corporations should censor or modify it contents
I would say it is up to the corporation.
- Date: Wed Nov 13 01:33:28 PST 1996
- Just a mild warning about content.
- Date: Fri Nov 15 23:42:54 PST 1996
- When `should' is used in the questions, I read it as `should decide in
their own self-interest,' and not `should be legislated to do.'
Corporations should have the right to control their `official content'
that is written by employees to express the views of the corporation. I
doubt that this is much different than corporations rights regarding
printed publications. Universities, ISPs, and other sites which rent
or give space to other parties, but do not ask those parties to speak
on their behalf, should, *in their own interest*, flag objectionable
articles with a rating which can be used by filtering programs that
users run to remove objectionable material.
- Date: Mon Nov 18 09:03:32 PST 1996
- I chose censorship only for the corporation, because it differs from
the others in paying its employees to generate content, and pays for
the equipment and support of the service to serve its own business
reasons. If a relevant group of people responsible for the public image
and legal status of the Web service determine that there is value in
the content which can be preserved while removing the offensive
material, then valuable content should be preserved. If there is no
content or purpose beyond being offensive, then it should be removed.
- Date: Tue Nov 19 09:25:49 PST 1996
- So, that the page in question does not violate any laws. The contents of
a page may be seen guestionable by an individual, but ONLY the
goverment/ (or better, the law/the court) should have any influence on
pages. Of cource, pages which obviously brake a law, should be removed.
But a pure opinion must not be seen as a reason for any kind of
censorship. A company may well have a policy what is allowed and what
is not, and I see that quite reasonable. The equipment etc., after all,
do not belong to the individual in question.
- Date: Tue Nov 19 11:01:33 PST 1996
- Use mainstream moral standards to determine if the content of these
pages is suitable for all ages of Internet users.
- Date: Tue Nov 19 22:23:41 PST 1996
- For corporations: They should be able to have whatever they want on
their Web sites. If management decides that a lower employee has put
something not appropriate on the site, then it has the right and
responsibility to have it changed. This is not censorship. It's
business. If employees don't like that, they are free to set up their
own Web pages as private individuals away from the corporation.
- Date: Wed Nov 20 03:17:50 PST 1996
- So that it follows established laws.
- Date: Wed Nov 20 08:52:35 PST 1996
- Either remove the objectionable content or provide prior notice of the
- Date: Wed Nov 20 10:43:56 PST 1996
- Corporation Web pages reflect the corportion's view and should be
edited to reflect that. This editing includes responding to comments
they receive from elsewhere. Other providers act as communication
vendors and should not be responsible for content. Only if it can be
shown that some content is in violation of the law, should action be
taken regarding that content. The law applying would be the law in the
jurisdiction of the server. (e.g. copyright violations etc.)
- Date: Thu Nov 21 14:11:53 PST 1996
- It would depend on the objection. Can an offending graphic be removed
while still leaving word content. Is most of the content okay but one
paragraph objectionable. It also depends on what the person is
objecting to. Are they pointing out something illegal that the IAP (or
other org) just may not have been aware of or are they complaining
about something that is normally freely available to the general public
(of all ages). If it is truly illegal content (in the country carrying
the page) such as child porn, then the action should be "remove the
page." Modify/censor would be used for stuff that isn't illegal but
would be objectionable to the majority of the public. If it is only
objectionable to a minority of the public, then a warning would suffice
(eg. not suitable for children ). Going back to the question of
newservers (since you didn't have a comment box there)...Since there
are plenty of "free" newservers out there that carry every group you
could imagine, there is no "free speech" issue associated with a
particular provider refusing to carry objectionable groups. This is
especially true of corporations. I see no problem with them only
carrying newsgroups whose content is applicable to their employees job
activities. If they want to read personal stuff, do it on your own
personal account with an IAP.
- Date: Sun Nov 24 15:32:53 PST 1996
- It depends on the law enforcement agency involved. If a page ridicules
a law enforcement officer or agency due to a faux pas on the
officer/agency's part, leave it alone. We have something called the First
Amendment. If however the page contains incitement to criminal
activities or information on how to commit crimes, the page in question
should be censored and the author should be prosecuted (Just like in
the print world). If however the page contains material that should
have a limited circulation, access control systems should be
implemented to restrict access to individuals and organizations with a
need to retrieve the information.
- Date: Sun Nov 24 18:50:04 PST 1996
- The Web server in a corporate setting is private property of the
corporation, which may be made available to employees as a benefit
which should be used within the parameters that management sets. If an
employee wishes to put objectionable material on a company's network
via the company sponsered Web page, management may wish to speak to the
employee about modifying the offending posting or moving it to a
commercial system, or they may just delete it.
- Date: Mon Nov 25 00:58:52 PST 1996
- Perhaps tone it down a bit!
- Date: Tue Nov 26 19:27:05 PST 1996
- Remove the objectionable content.
Click on our Sponsors to help Support SunWorld
If you have technical problems with this magazine, contact