QRZ Censorhip? Why?

kc4cld writes "QRZ Censorhip?



I would like to know why QRZ holds ( like the Topband list from Contesting.com) articles and comments from readers willing to help. When somebody write about normal situations ( not mentining names, organizations, clubs, etc...why hold or " censor" the writers? )


Just a note from the editor:


We do not censor articles for content. I will pass on an article if there are a significant number of grammatical errors. Articles that are not really news might also be passed up. The QRZ Forums might be a better place to post such items. I will not publish an article that is one sided or a blatant bash on a single individual or entity.



Willie Peloquin, N8WP

QRZ.com News Editor




I posted ( never was released) a past article talking about irregularities and abuses in 160 meter band and I guess the Editor don't like my comments and in his full right ( they own the place or the site) , but people need to know the policies in reference to what to write, when and about WHO or WHOM.



Censorship in America in the new Milenium is bad taste. Even CNN and the big TV networks allow different comments to the viewers.



Looks like the QRZ owners are afraid of the free expression and the right of the First Ammendement.




For me, if QRZ want to miss colaborators and people like me who can help , it's OK but at least, let us know the " rules" and do not waste our time.( I'm a writer and I wrote 2 books about antennas in spanish and I was Technical Editor for Radioscan, a ham radio magazine for 4 years)



What a shame the waste of time.



Lionel Remigio, KC4CLD
Extra Class in Miami not afraid to express his FREE opinions."

 

Just a note from the editor:


We do not censor articles for content. I will pass on an article if there are a significant number of grammatical errors. Articles that are not really news might also be passed up. The QRZ Forums might be a better place to post such items. I will not publish an article that is one sided or a blatant bash on a single individual or entity.


Willie Peloquin, N8WP

QRZ.com News Editor

 

Not long ago I attempted to post a reply to an article. The posting was rejected, and rightfully so, with some comment from the editor about "lameness". Couldn't the editor have protected Lionel from appearing to be "lame' in the same manner? QRZ does a fine job.......thanks......mike

 

Willie:



In my writing I was not"one sided or a blatant bash on a single individual or entity" . I never mentioned names or call signs and that is not my style.


May me some typos?..well that is possible. My native language is spanish and when I'm in a rush I can make mistakes. Not news? I accept that. My posting was not a " news" posting and more a real " warning or critics" to some operations in 160 meters.



I just mention the 160 meters band and the agreement to a band plan. And how we MUST comply with that band plan in 160 meters. Anyway is late for more comments about that posting, but I need to say that I never, bashed any fellow ham radio operator, and is not my style.



Sorry for the missunderstanding and the next time as you said , I will post news here and not news in the forums.



Is good to know your position about censorhip and how we must play the rules. And thanks for the note with your point. I understand the rules and trust me, I never ever, will waste my time bashing people.




73s de Lionel, KC4CLD

 

...that I find a little annoying are <A HREF="http://www.qrz.com/comments.pl?sid=01/12/18/1910200&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=flat&pid=0">
articles that get dumped even after being posted.</A> I think they have every right to reject articles for any reason, but why pull ones with 40+ posts?? I also think it would be cool if they would use the moderation feature as Slashcode intended.

 

QRZ does not censor anything. They have the absolute right to accept or reject anything they want. This is not a free bulletin board it is privately owned and you are allowed to use it at the owners discretion.

Just because it is on the internet doesn't make it a free domain. People have to be responsible for it's content. As to the article writer who was rejected, don't feel too bad, one of mine was rejected and rightly so. As suggested, it would have been better to post it on the forum page. I accepted that. I think you may have tried to post your 160 meter article on the topband reflector and it was rejected there also.


Therefore, Lionel, if you want or have a need to express your opinions, maybe you should start your own website so your opinion can be heard or try Eham.com. God, I hate whiners.

 

Of course QRZ.COM would NEVER consor anything! They just won't POST anything that might conceivably offend the FCC, Riley Hollingsworth, its advertisers, or any other identifiable individual or entity. Wouldn't be prudent! It might endanger Fred's livelihood! Bill Crowell, N6AYJ

 

If I'm not mistaken, the first ammendment gives you the right to freedom of speech from the government. Thus, the government itself cannot keep you from expressing your opinion (though obviously things like obscenity and all aren't covered). This does *not* guarantee freedom of speech from private entities.



I think QRZ.com does a fine job with articles. You guys keep up the good work.

 

I have seen some of the pending articles and even had one rejected myself as probably being inappropriate. But I am glad that some of the imcomprehensible drivel gets deleted. And most have no excuse of having another language as their mother tongue. They just can't communicate in their own language of birth. With some I wonder how they passed the test to get a license and how they can communicate on the radio.

The sad state of education in this country is partly to blame but also education doesn't have to stop when you leave school. Local libraries have books to help improve verbal and written communications skills and many colleges offer short term adult education night classes.

This forum and ham radio are about communication and unlike foreign languages, drivel can't be translated. So while I don't mean to hurt anyones feelings, I can't read what doesn't make sense and the editors have to cut what can't be used, no matter the subject or content or who wrote it. And I for one think they do a darn good job weeding the input.

Before anyone thinks I am "putting on airs" I have a high school education in a small country school.
73, KD5KUF Joe

 

I also hate whiners.


But that is not the situation here. If you have a site in the Internet OPEN to opinions, you better POST ALL opinions or close that site or do not allow postings and keep it for yourself.

I have a web site. In spanish . And is an informative site BUT, I do not invite people to write . I do not have forums. And that make my site a " private" one. But if you want to be a " public" site where people come and write articles or post in forums, you need to be open to THAT public you are inviting



This is a privately owned forum with a "public" mentality and I repeat " inviting" people or readers to " Write Articles" ( see at your left the link inviting you!!)



And I was NOT posting opinions. I was talking about the 160 meters bad plan, the Gentlemans Agreement and how we must respect that when ARRL defined that "band plan". That IS NOT my opinion.



CW users are sometimes over the 1,842 " window" and I was talking about that. And that, IS NOT opinion, is a matter of fact and is there and has been published by ARRL and many websites and magazines.



I'm responsible for my content. I know how to write and speak in 3 different languages and education has nothing to do with languages.

And in reference to what somebody said here in this same topic...I don't care if other can't express even in his native tongue. I can express myself very clear , I know what I write , when I write it and how I'm writing.



The famous excuse " this is not a public domain or this is not public or this is a private property, etc " is the one used by censors all over the world to stop the freedom of speech, tha same one protected here by the Constitution and the First Ammendement. And that's why many people hate us Americans, precisely for our FREEDOMS and the way we enjoy that FREEDOM.



Again....many "private" places like this one, must stop inviting people to " write articles" if they intend to use censorhip . If they do that( stop inviting people to write and post), this never will happen again. But if you are extending an " open invitation to write" you must accept opionions, take the risks, and publish what people write to help and make a better site for the Ham Radio community all over the world.

And..I'm not a whiner....

Lionel, KC4CLD

 

A tremendous number of people are seriously mis-interpreting the constitution. This is not a freedom of speech issue at all. As someone else pointed out, the freedom of speech issue only prohibits the government from interfering with freedom of speech. Specifically, the first amendment was intended to guarantee freedom of the press, and secondarily, freedom of anybody to express his/her opinions.

In this case, Fred is effectively operating a media outlet - QRZ.COM. As such, Fred is fully within his rights to choose his editorial standards, including what can or cannot be posted. You're all familiar with this. Surely you can name some newspapers or magazines which only publish articles which support their political views, be them liberal, conservative, or something else. That's perfectly legal, and it is not censorship, it is editorial discretion.

Believe me, fully unmoderated media outlets are not interesting.

If you really want to express a view, and it somehow does not fit within the QRZ editorial guidelines, then there are gobs of other websites where you can do it. In this case, the message would have been heard by a more important audience by posting it to the topband reflector on contesting.com. There's also a 160 meter group on qth.net.

It is up to us to intelligently select the venues where we strive to express our views so that the correct audience reads them.

Doc

 

And I was NOT posting opinions. I was talking about the 160 meters bad plan, the Gentlemans Agreement
and how we must respect that when ARRL defined that "band plan". That IS NOT my opinion.


CW users are sometimes over the 1,842 "window" and I was talking about that. And that, IS NOT opinion, is
a matter of fact and is there and has been published by ARRL and many websites and magazines.


It's my understanding that you can use CW on any part of the band you like, so long as it does not cause interference. The CW "window" does not allow PHONE to operate there. Phone is what is restricted, not CW. Sounds like the reason your article was not posted was your argument is incorrect.


As an unrelated note, reviewing the ARRL's Online Band Plan Chart, it has not been updated. There is no restriction on phone located there.

 

Great post Doc. The way I explain it to people that don't understand what free speech is, you have the right to say what you like, but you do not have the right to be heard.

 

Frankly, QRZ.com doesn't exercise enough editorial control over the postings. Comments that contain personal attacks on others should be pulled, no questions asked. A certain level of civility should be maintained.

Mark K5MAR

 

WHO ever said you DID "bash" anyone, Lionel? A bit gratuitous on your part, don't you think?