Subject: Re: LinkExchange
Hi Carolyn,
Sorry to take so long to get back to you - although we try to respond
within
24 hours it sometimes does take a little longer. Although I'm the person
who
dealt with most of the banners when they first came up, I wanted to take
the
time to research some of the newer cases.
I don't have the email anymore, but I believe I sent it around the
middle
of July, 1997...around July 12-14. I'm sure, since I no longer have the
email, that it would be very difficult for you to find it in your
records
if it was received, so I will state here what was said in the other
email.
Thanks, it probably would have taken a while for us to find it.
Basically, the email asked for clarification on ILE's terms regarding
Just a side note, but we prefer LE to ILE (we changed our name from
Internet Link Exchange to LinkExchange last year).
banners, specifically those that dealt with
President Clinton and
similar
issues. Since you sent this e-mail, you obviously have been to
my web site, so you have an idea of what I am referring to. While looking
through some sites using your Surfpoint Search engine in July, I came
across the "Clinton Impeachment Home Page" banner.
(the one seen on the web page http://www.gargaro.com/ilepage.html) Since
similar banners were not allowed, I was curious as to what made that
banner acceptable.
Our position has always been that we will not advertise banners which
are inflammatory (i.e. designed to rile people up), and that banners must
maintain a neutral tone. This policy was first applied to the "first
felons" banner. There, the problem was not with the fact that they wanted
to impeach
Clinton, but rather that the banner was potentially libelous. While our
policy hasn't changed wholesale, we have moved towards being a lot
more inclusive with banner content.
I wasn't sure if your policy had changed, or if there
was a subtle difference that made that banner acceptable.
Although our policies have changed slightly over the past year, in this
case
I think it is the "subtle difference". We're fine advertising a banner
which
says "Impeach Clinton '97 - Right on the Web". However, we can't
advertise
one which says "Stop the Clintons. Do it for America. In you're Heart
You
Know They're Wrong". Again, I should point out that the sites were fine -
our problem was only with the banner that they wanted to advertise over
our
network.
Here is our current policy on banners with political content:
Banners with political content must maintain a neutral tone. They should
not
contain belligerent or disrespectful wording and imagery, and should not
be
inflammatory. Banner content must surpass the standards established for
site content as listed in the terms and conditions of membership.
Every banner is reviewed on a case by case basis. In the event that a
member's banner does not meet the above policy, the member may request
clarification of how this policy applies to their banner.
I was curious
because I felt it would not be fair to have a page about banners that
were
not accepted in to ILE if in fact those banners would be accepted
now.
Some of those banners always would have been acceptable. Part
of the problem is a miscommunication - our banner checking program is
highly automated and the form letter is a bit harsh. The actual letter
says (or said at the time):
I'm sorry but we have a policy against allowing members to have
material on their banners that might be considered inappropriate
or offensive.
Most people took that to mean that we thought their banner was
offensive, when really what we meant was that it was inappropriate for
advertising on the network.
The banners are all checked in by hand, and there is a lot of discussion
about the banners. In some cases, if the individual writes in we'll
review the banner again (as noted in our policy above). Unfortunately
(as was the case with the first felons banner) the first response we get
is occasionally an expletive-laden hate letter.
Or
at least point out on my site that while some banners are still
unacceptable, (if that is the case) that some other banners of similar
nature are now allowed in ILE, and an explanation of why.
I do want to point out one mistake I made in my last letter - the Clinton
Impeachment Web banner, which I did not think had been submitted,
actually had been. Its fine, and should have gone in.
Also, I was just curious as to
whether the banners which were not accepted to ILE a while ago would now
be accepted? I ask because, for instance, I was told that the "abortion
causes breast cancer" banner was not allowed (I do realize that they
submitted another banner which is now running) because it had the word
abortion on it. There are other banners now in ILE circulation with
that word, so I didn't know if the policy had changed?
It wasn't the word "abortion" alone that caused me to ask them to change
the
banner - it was more the statement as a whole, which at the time was
pretty
hotly debated. As it is now, that banner is acceptable (as mentioned,
we've
moved to be more inclusive with the banners we accept).
Also, I know that
banners regarding impeachment of the president were not allowed before,
but there are banners now in ILE's circulation with that info now. I
can't
really tell a difference between the impeachment banner running in ILE
now
and the ones that were not allowed. So, I was wondering as to what the
difference
was between those banners......
I think we've already covered this. The "Impeach Clinton '97" banner was
accepted and advertised, the "Clinton Impeachment Web" SHOULD have been.
The other two were not allowed and would not be today, either.
Does this make sense or have I confused you? :) I've almost confused
myself with this email! :)
Well, I just hope you can get a clear sense of what I was trying to say
from my rather scattered response. If you have any more questions,
please let me know.
Thanks,
Jason