The Internet Link Exchange Boycott - E-mails regadring censorship

The following correspondence between Right on the Web (ROTW) and Internet Link Exchange was given to me by the owner of Right on the Web, with permission to post on this web site. The purpose of these letters is to show that Internet Link Exchange, despite their spokesman's claim, did censor Right on the Web's banner.
Following are the three letters in the order which the events took place. Pay close attention to the third letter. Read it carefully then compare it to the first one and witness the backpeddling. Actually, it makes the point. Right on the Web's banner was accepted but:
They first denied it's publication
They published it without notifying ROTW that they changed their mind.
When confronted with this fact (the second letter), they backpeddled and lied about sending ROTW notification (third letter)
Here are the letters:
================================
Letter 1: Letter from ILE denying ROTW's banner:
================================

Date:	Wed, 2 Apr 1997 14:54:51 -0800 (PST)
From:	LinkExchange 
To:	www@rightweb.com
Subject: X044324

Hi,

	We are writing to let you know that we will not be able to 
advertise your newest banner.  In general, the LinkExchange does not 
advertise banners with a negative or adversarial tone.

	As such we can not run your "Impeach Clinton" banner, just as 
we would not run an "Impeach Gingrich" banner.

        We have to be strict on the content of the banners, because they
have the potential to appear on the upwards of 50,000 web sites, some of
whom may not agree with the content of the banner.  It is very important
to maintain the distinction between advertisement and editorial content.
For that reason we insist the banners be, in colloquial terms, as bland as
milquetoast. 

	We value your continued membership in LinkExchange, and look 
forward to advertising your site again when we have a blander banner.  
I think if you were to remove the "call to action" it would be fine.

	If you have any questions or comments, please let me know.
	
Thanks,
Jason

------------------------------------------------------
LinkExchange
Questions/comments  ---->       admin@linkexchange.com
Sponsorship info    ---->    sponsors@linkexchange.com
Web Site URL        ---->  http://www.linkexchange.com

=====================================================
Letter 2.  From ROTW to ILE about the banner running without notification
=====================================================

Dear Sirs,

My account is X044324

I fail to understand why, in your last letter to me, that Right On The
Web's Impeach Clinton '97 banner was supposedly improper, but it is
showing up as my current banner when I check it.

You letter to us read as follows:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hi,

	We are writing to let you know that we will not be able to 
advertise your newest banner.  In general, the LinkExchange does not 
advertise banners with a negative or adversarial tone.

	As such we can not run your "Impeach Clinton" banner, just as 
we would not run an "Impeach Gingrich" banner.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Why then is it running?  Is this simply a letter criticizing me because my
banner and my site stand against Bill Clinton, or did you change your
mind?
 Perhaps you noticed that our home page receives 50,000+ hits per month
and you decided to keep Right On The Web around for the traffic.  Perhaps
you noticed that Right On The Web has been around for three years and is
one of the largest anti-Clinton and pro-freedom sites on the Net?  I don't
know.   

I do know one thing....Several other anti-Clinton sites had banners banned
by ILE which were far less adversarial than Right On The Web's.  If our
banner can run, why not their's?  True Right On The Web is a large web
site with an extensive following, but did this factor into your decision
not to ban my far more adversarial banner?  If so, your timing was less
than perfect by sending us that letter, don't you agree?

Right On The Web maintains a certain standard and does not wish to be a
part of any politically correct organization.  If our colleagues cannot
participate in your program, then it would not be fair that we should
either---And we do not wish to. 

At our last staff meeting, we resolved to remove the Link Exchange from
Right On The Web until such time as ILE decides to include those banned
and future anti-Clinton sites.  If you wish to keep Right On The Web as a
member of ILE then please allow these other anti-Clinton sites, which are
clearly less objectionable (in your terms) than Right On The Web, back
into your service.  If not, then please remove our banner immediately and
cancel our account immediately.

Account: X044324

We await your reply regarding this matter.

Regards,

Ellis Winningham
Owner: Right On The Web

====================================
Letter 3.  Backpeddle letter from ILE
====================================


Date:	Wed, 7 May 1997 16:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
From:	LinkExchange 
To:	Right On The Web 
Subject: Re: My Banner

Hi Ellis,

	Your account has been fully active since April 1st.  No, we did
not  activate it as an April Fool's joke.  You should have been notified; 
apparently you were not.

	Your banner, when it originally was submitted to our network, was 
an extremely borderline case.  We had already refused to advertise 
several banners (not sites - banners) which were inflammatory.  While 
your banner could have been viewed as inflammatory, it also lacked the 
call to action (and potentially libelous and scandelous speach) which 
some of the other banners featured.  Given the viscous and abusive 
letters we had recieved from other "impeach Clinton" sites whose banners 
we had rejected, we decided to err on the side of caution.

	However, upon further reflection we realized that your banner is 
perfectly and totally appropriate, and is a perfect example of how to 
handle a potentially inflammatory subject in a responsible manner.  It 
does not, as I previously wrote, have an "adversarial" tone.

	Had the other banners we seen been more like yours, we would
gladly have advertised them.  I have personally communicated, again and
again, that it is only the content of the banner and not the content of
the site which is at issue.  We didn't think it was unusual that your
banner and my letter started appearing on protest pages - in fact, many of
those who end up on the protest pages are members in good standing.  And
I would like to point out that their advertising is unaffected by this.

> Why then is it running?  Is this simply a letter criticizing me because
> my banner and my site stand against Bill Clinton, or did you change your
> mind?

	The original letter had nothing to do with the politics of your 
site, meerly your banner.  After reviewing our decision again we decided 
that we had made a mistake and activated your banner.  You were notified 
but apparently did not receive our letter.

>  Perhaps you noticed that our home page receives 50,000+ hits per month
> and you decided to keep Right On The Web around for the traffic. 

	Actually, according to our stats we are counting less than 15,000
hits a month from Right on the Web.  A fair size site but not the biggest
in LinkExchange by far.  Of the 150 million hits LinkExchange counted last
month, your site accounted for .001% of the traffic. 

	I'm sure your site gets many more hits than what we counted -
after  all, we can only count the hits on pages with LinkExchange banners.

	Regardless of the size of your site, we value your membership - 
which I believe is something I tried to get across in my first letter to 
you.  Wheather you have a large or small traffic site we will give you 
the same service and the same features.
	
> Perhaps you
> noticed that Right On The Web has been around for three years and is one
>of  the largest anti-Clinton and pro-freedom sites on the Net?  I don't
>know.   

	I did not know that. Congratulations! But to be honest, the
anti-clinton  nature of your site doesn't really matter.

> I do know one thing....Several other anti-Clinton sites had banners
>banned by ILE which were far less adversarial than Right On The Web's.

	To this I would disagree.  The other banners that were banned were 
far worse than yours.

>  If our
> banner can run, why not their's? 

	I think the other banners were of a different type - definitely 
imflammatory and potentially offensive.  We would not have allowed your 
banner had it said "first felons".

> True Right On The Web is a large web site
> with an extensive following, but did this factor into your decision not
> to ban my far more adversarial banner?

	The decision was made slowly on the content of the banner and not
on  the relative status of the site.  I disagree that your banner is far
more  adversarial.  On the contrary, I think your banner is factualy and 
informative and very hard to take umbrage with.

> If so, your timing was less than
> perfect by sending us that letter, don't you agree?

	I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I hope I explained it
above.
 
> Right On The Web maintains a certain standard and does not wish to be a
> part of any politically correct organization.  If our colleagues cannot
> participate in your program, then it would not be fair that we should
> either---And we do not wish to. 

	As is perfectly your right.  However, your colleagues are free to 
join - as we have told them many times - if they submit suitable 
banners.  And submitting a suitable banner is something you apparently 
were able to do.  I appreciate your desire to stand on principle here, 
but please give us the benefit of the doubt that this is not some sort of 
conspiracy against anti-clinton pages.  The "other sites" you are talking 
about have been uniformly deplorable and unreasonable in their conduct.  
They have cheated and defrauded the LinkExchange and its members several 
times.  If you would like me to forward you some of the email they have 
sent, I would be happy to.

> At our last staff meeting, we resolved to remove the Link Exchange from
> Right On The Web until such time as ILE decides to include those banned
> and future anti-Clinton sites.

	We will be happy to advertise those sites provided they submit 
appropriate banners.

> If you wish to keep Right On The Web as a
> member of ILE then please allow these other anti-Clinton sites, which
> are clearly less objectionable (in your terms) than Right On The Web,
> back into your service. 
	
	Their sites are perfectly acceptable, as is yours. However, the 
banners they wished to have advertised were not.

> If not, then please remove our banner immediately and cancel
> our account immediately.

	Ellis, you can effectively cancel your account at any time by
removing  the LinkExchange code from your page.  We would hate to lose you
as a  member but understand you must do what you think is right.

Thanks,
Jason

------------------------------------------------------
LinkExchange
Questions/comments  ---->       admin@linkexchange.com
Sponsorship info    ---->    sponsors@linkexchange.com
Web Site URL        ---->  http://www.linkexchange.com

-- LE TIP OF THE DAY ------------------------------------------------
Visit the Friends of LinkExchange - they help keep our service free!
http://www.linkexchange.com/members/friends.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------

===============================
End of letters: ROTW
===============================