<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Blog Censorship Gains Support</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bloggingpro.com/archives/2005/04/14/blog-censorship-gains-support/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bloggingpro.com/archives/2005/04/14/blog-censorship-gains-support/</link>
	<description>News, plugins and themes for blogging applications</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:07:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggingpro.com/archives/2005/04/14/blog-censorship-gains-support/#comment-4505</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Apr 2005 07:14:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bloggingpro.com/archives/2005/04/14/blog-censorship-gains-support/#comment-4505</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;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 &#039;personal information&#039; that 2/3 uninformed respondents would like to see limited would include &lt;strike&gt;alleged&lt;/strike&gt; verfiable ciations for jusdicial misconduct? I&#039;d like to see how the questions were framed ... there&#039;s a reason polling left to experts. For instance, if they asked about &#039;sensitive persoanl information,&#039; wouldn&#039;t you say that&#039;s slightly skewing the results? I&#039;d respond that *sensitive* inforamtion shouldn&#039;t be posted, myself. But that&#039;s not the same as &#039;no information,&#039; and in the cases of judges and elected officials, I most certainly believe the public&#039;s right to know outweighs their personal privacy insofar as it impacts their conduct or job performance.&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>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 &#8216;personal information&#8217; that 2/3 uninformed respondents would like to see limited would include <strike>alleged</strike> verfiable ciations for jusdicial misconduct? I&#8217;d like to see how the questions were framed &#8230; there&#8217;s a reason polling left to experts. For instance, if they asked about &#8216;sensitive persoanl information,&#8217; wouldn&#8217;t you say that&#8217;s slightly skewing the results? I&#8217;d respond that *sensitive* inforamtion shouldn&#8217;t be posted, myself. But that&#8217;s not the same as &#8216;no information,&#8217; and in the cases of judges and elected officials, I most certainly believe the public&#8217;s right to know outweighs their personal privacy insofar as it impacts their conduct or job performance.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggingpro.com/archives/2005/04/14/blog-censorship-gains-support/#comment-4500</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Apr 2005 01:24:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bloggingpro.com/archives/2005/04/14/blog-censorship-gains-support/#comment-4500</guid>
		<description>How many people would want others to put your address  or &quot;other personal information&quot; on their blog? I wouldn&#039;t. I rarely even put my last name on the internet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How many people would want others to put your address  or &#8220;other personal information&#8221; on their blog? I wouldn&#8217;t. I rarely even put my last name on the internet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: wabson  &#187; Blog Archive   &#187; 10k</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggingpro.com/archives/2005/04/14/blog-censorship-gains-support/#comment-4497</link>
		<dc:creator>wabson  &#187; Blog Archive   &#187; 10k</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bloggingpro.com/archives/2005/04/14/blog-censorship-gains-support/#comment-4497</guid>
		<description>[...] 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&#8217;s related to wor [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 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&#8217;s related to wor [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zo</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggingpro.com/archives/2005/04/14/blog-censorship-gains-support/#comment-4493</link>
		<dc:creator>Zo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:52:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bloggingpro.com/archives/2005/04/14/blog-censorship-gains-support/#comment-4493</guid>
		<description>Wouldn&#039;t blogging be boring if you could expose people &amp; then proceed to make fun of them?! Seriously.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wouldn&#8217;t blogging be boring if you could expose people &amp; then proceed to make fun of them?! Seriously.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Skelton</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggingpro.com/archives/2005/04/14/blog-censorship-gains-support/#comment-4492</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Skelton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:43:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bloggingpro.com/archives/2005/04/14/blog-censorship-gains-support/#comment-4492</guid>
		<description>I wouldn&#039;t call that &#039;censorship gaining support&#039;. It&#039;s bad enough c&#124;net uses exaggerated shock-media titles for news entries; you don&#039;t have to follow suit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wouldn&#8217;t call that &#8216;censorship gaining support&#8217;. It&#8217;s bad enough c|net uses exaggerated shock-media titles for news entries; you don&#8217;t have to follow suit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Little</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggingpro.com/archives/2005/04/14/blog-censorship-gains-support/#comment-4491</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Little</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2005 16:07:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bloggingpro.com/archives/2005/04/14/blog-censorship-gains-support/#comment-4491</guid>
		<description>Since when did 2,500 Hostway visitors represent the views of 293 million Americans?
To extrapolate &#039;Most Americans&#039; 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&#039;s a non story backed by some dubious numbers!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since when did 2,500 Hostway visitors represent the views of 293 million Americans?<br />
To extrapolate &#8216;Most Americans&#8217; from 2000 respondants is laughable!<br />
None of this is any different from the laws concerning (and I should imagine peoples general opinion of) any other form of publishing.<br />
It&#8217;s a non story backed by some dubious numbers!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Faisal</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggingpro.com/archives/2005/04/14/blog-censorship-gains-support/#comment-4490</link>
		<dc:creator>Faisal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:46:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bloggingpro.com/archives/2005/04/14/blog-censorship-gains-support/#comment-4490</guid>
		<description>The web will never be censored.

[knock on wood]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The web will never be censored.</p>
<p>[knock on wood]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Denis de Bernardy</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggingpro.com/archives/2005/04/14/blog-censorship-gains-support/#comment-4487</link>
		<dc:creator>Denis de Bernardy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:18:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bloggingpro.com/archives/2005/04/14/blog-censorship-gains-support/#comment-4487</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

