If one is going to compare this list to a newspaper's letters to the
ed. page, then that is the strongest argument yet for censorship.
Would any responsible newspaper print the allegations, as written,
that we're all talking about? Absolutely not, because they'd get sued
for libel in a heartbeat, for one. In addition, I prefer to believe a
responsible newspaper wouldn't print that sort of thing because its
editors wouldn't want to be responsible for the spread of malicious
gossip.
Two things:
1. Yes, this list is published over the World Wide Web. Yes, we all
love technology and information. Now -- get over it! Let us not
sacrifice "common" decency at the shrine of the Internet.
2. Just 'cuz it can be said don't mean it's worth sayin', and if
people can't censor themselves, then someone else needs to do it.
As they used to say at the end of the three-minute editorial on the
ABC affiliate in Boise: That's my opinion, and I'd like to hear yours.
:-) Briana
Kenton Bird wrote:
>
> NO to deleting the archives.
> NO to asking anyone to filter messages before they go on the list.
> (Priscilla, Susan and Bill have enough to do already with their work
on the
> communtiy retreat.)
>
> YES to Sam's two suggestions:
> 1. Requiring that one must subscribe to the list in order to post
messages.
> 2. Requiring that future subscribers give first and last name in
order to join
> the list. (Most newspapers require that writers of letters to the
editor
> provide true name, address and phone in order to have a letter
published. Why
> can't we do the same?)
>
> --Kenton
> ***Kenton Bird, Visiting Assistant Professor
> Department of Journalism & Technical Communication
> Colorado State University
> Fort Collins, CO 80523-1785
> Voice: (970) 491-5986 Fax: (970) 491-2908
> E-mail: KBird@vines.colostate.edu
>
>
==
:-) Briana
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com