8 Responses

1. Denis de Bernardy

   April 14th, 2005 at 8:18 am

   1

   This story reminds me of a slashdot entry on e-scrabble. It is irrelevant: If a country or a hosting company censors your celeb zoo porn blog, spare yourself trouble and host it elsewhere.

2. Faisal

   April 14th, 2005 at 9:46 am

   2

   The web will never be censored.

   [knock on wood]

3. Mike Little

   April 14th, 2005 at 10:07 am

   3

   Since when did 2,500 Hostway visitors represent the views of 293 million Americans?
   To extrapolate ‘Most Americans’ from 2000 respondants is laughable!
   None of this is any different from the laws concerning (and I should imagine peoples general opinion of) any other form of publishing.
   It’s a non story backed by some dubious numbers!

4. Andy Skelton

   April 14th, 2005 at 12:43 pm

   4

   I wouldn’t call that ‘censorship gaining support’. It’s bad enough c|net uses exaggerated shock-media titles for news entries; you don’t have to follow suit.

5. Zo

   April 14th, 2005 at 4:52 pm

   5

   Wouldn’t blogging be boring if you could expose people & then proceed to make fun of them?! Seriously.

6. wabson » Blog Archive » 10k

   April 15th, 2005 at 5:40 am

   6

   [...] sa being able to wget the files off it. Warwick people may be interested in a story about blog censorship, via Blogging Pro. But as it’s related to wor [...]

7. Jon

   April 15th, 2005 at 7:24 pm

   7

   How many people would want others to put your address or “other personal information” on their blog? I wouldn’t. I rarely even put my last name on the internet.

8. Richard

   April 16th, 2005 at 1:14 am

   8

   A further 72 percent favored censorship of personal information about celebrities, and 68 percent information about elected or appointed government officials such as judges or mayors. I wonder if that ‘personal information’ that 2/3 uninformed respondents would like to see limited would include alleged verfiable ciations for jusdicial misconduct? I’d like to see how the questions were framed … there’s a reason polling left to experts. For instance, if they asked about ’sensitive persoanl information,’ wouldn’t you say that’s slightly skewing the results? I’d respond that *sensitive* inforamtion shouldn’t be posted, myself. But that’s not the same as ‘no information,’ and in the cases of judges and elected officials, I most certainly believe the public’s right to know outweighs their personal privacy insofar as it impacts their conduct or job performance.