Public barred from "public" meeting


Redefining the word and summoning the spirit of Orwell's 1984
I'm concerned.

This is the United States and the internet we're talking about here. Transparency and the free flow of information should be the priority.

Instead, well...

But Danny Weitzner, one of the W3C's policy directors and event co-chair, repeatedly claimed in a followup telephone conversation that, by "public," the W3C actually means "closed to the public." Weitzner was the person who personally barred my colleague from entering the conference.

"There was clearly some ambiguity," Weitzner said. "We recognize that the (call for participation) could have been more clear." He said that News.com was not being singled out and another reporter who telephoned was also rejected.

Weitzner, a lawyer and Washington insider before moving to the W3C, said making an event discussing government transparency less transparent was necessary because government officials could then speak more freely "without wondering how the press would interpret what they have to say."

"There are times when in order to have an open exchange of ideas, you need to provide an off-the-record environment, which is what we did," Weitzner said. He was, however, unable to identify any government officials who attended the event who might feel stifled.

Seems that some government officials don't like the idea of you peaking over their shoulder.

What does that tell you?

— NeoWayland

Posted: Tue - June 19, 2007 at 03:04 PM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved