Wow, I just can't believe they censored and took out the "Thank you Europe" thread. There was no "name calling" going on there, why did the editors take it out?

The editors are back on duty? Maybe they'll do something about that "looking for a fantasy girl" thread that's been on the US board all day, lol.

They also just took out the US thread that was titled, "?." I posted a paragraph from an MSN story about a gay labor day parade being held in the French Quarter, with a comment that New Orleaners are certainly as different as they keep insisting they are! That was pulled almost as soon as I posted it. Are the editors homophobic, or are they worried that Art and Mabel Traveler from Manchester, MO won't like it?

kswl, they may or may not be homophobic, and they may or not be worried about Art and Mabel, but their 2nd rule on board usage is "All postings must be your own words (i.e., no cutting and pasting of copyrighted material)."

see, I just broke the rule.

LOL, ron, I will get this deleted too then:
They also say ( see rules at the top of the page)
<i>Please keep to the topic -- travel. All postings must be your own words (i.e., no cutting and pasting of copyrighted material). Representing yourself as another Travel Talk user is strictly prohibited. A civil tone and no advertising or commercial promotion are also requested. We reserve the right to delete any post and disqualify any screen name for any reason.</i>

oops, forgot about rule #2. I usually do try to paraphrase, but this particular quote was just so funny---the picture it evoked of two dozen people valiantly holding their parade amid the debris of a natural disaster--that it couldn't have been said any better.

<i>Representing yourself as another Travel Talk user is strictly prohibited</i>
This is a fairly new rule, no doubt prompted when a certain poster decided to post as a well liked Fodorite, saying trashy things. Happily, the editors took care of that one right away.

&quot;A civil tone&quot;? I'd like to see how they figure that one out!

I don't call it censorship when someone moderates a private commercial forum that they own.

Censorship is things like interference with what books are taught in schools, or stopping news services from reporting.

It isn't censorship if I remove a campaign sign that someone else erects on my property.

Keith

Amen, Keith.

Best wishes,

Rex

Keith, not all censorship is exercised by the government. A censor is one who is charged with the responsibility of reviewing material already published or prior to publication for immoral, illegal, offensive or politically incorrect content, and removing it. It is an editorial act in the broadest sense of the word.

When you remove a political sign someone else has put in your yard you are not censoring; you are exercising your right to private property.

I agree that Fodor's has the right to censor the content of these message boards, and they are censoring it.

&quot;When you remove a political sign someone else has put in your yard you are not censoring; you are exercising your right to private property.&quot;

Now I'm really confused. Like it or not the Fodors website is &quot;private property&quot;. If the owners of that website remove a post they don't like, how is that different from the owner of any other private property removing a sign? Just because Fodors allows the public to use its website, doesn't mean that the public &quot;owns&quot; it! I may allow people to cross my lawn, but that doesn't mean I've given up my right to call the shots!

We recently sufered through another piss and moan session over the yanking of several threads.

E-mails of protest were suppposedly sent to the &quot;editors&quot; and so forth.

I was roundly criticized when I commented that the owners of the site can do anything they wish and that the site is ultimately not under the control of any of the posters.

I thought I was right then and this simply reconfirms my belief.

If you invite people to place signs in your yard, Patrick, and then remove only the ones you do not like, you are censoring the content of the signs.

Keith's argument implied a single sign placed without permission in his yard. The person who places that sign without permission is trespassing. These are two completely different set of circumstances.

Fodor's <i>does</i> censor the messages. Fodor's has every <i>right</i> to do so.

&gt;not all censorship is exercised by the government.

Hmmmmmm. I was uder the impression that, since the ancient Romans, a Censor was an authorized official.

&gt;A censor is one who is charged with the responsibility of reviewing material already published

That seems like an official to me

&gt;or prior to publication for immoral, illegal, offensive or politically incorrect content, and removing it.

That's editorial.

&gt;If you invite people to place signs in your yard, ... and then remove only the ones you do not like, you are censoring the content of the signs. &lt;

I must respectfully disagree.

Private persons cannot be forced to promulgate views with which they are in disagreement.

At least in the US.

ira,

if you selectively remove the signs, you are censoring. kswl did not say that you do not have the right to censor messages your own property...just that it was censoring per his definition (with which i fully agree). this is consistent with the view that fodors is censoring the board but they have the right (and perhaps responsibility) to do it.

&quot;Private persons cannot be forced to promulgate views with which they are in disagreement.&quot;

And that is why removal of the same is legitimate censorship.

I think the problem here is that everyone seems to focus solely on the negative connotation of the word. A censor is not a government official. As a parent, I censor media that enters my home. Employers censor the content of their employees' emails. It is an executive, but not inherently governmental , function. And there is nothing inherently wrong with censoring content in a private industry setting, such as Fodor's.

Thanks, Walkinaround. If I had gone back to the screen and not simply sent my hour-old response (called away to the phone) I would have seen you responded better than I could have.

Of course, I should have read the rules. But I have cut and paste other materials before and they were not taken out. Besides, wouldn't it have been easier to simply erase my post instead of the whole thread?

well, this isn't just &quot;fodors rules&quot;, it's copyright law and the rules on virtually every single forum on the web. I am always surprised at how many people think it is okay to just copy material from other sources and post it wherever they want.