Once again controversy has been stirred up by our inclusion of a certain Palm OS software developer in the pages of PalmPower. Jump back into the fray in this edition of Letters to the Editor, and for a previous discussion on this topic, check out the article, "That old time religion," by David Gewirtz in the September 2000 issue of PalmPower at http://www.palmpower.com/issues/issue200009/religion001.html.

Uncomfortable ads
I first want to tell that I have generally enjoyed this publication. Having been a Palm application developer for a very large company and a strong advocate of using handhelds for corporate applications since 1999, I have picked up quite a few valuable tips and garnered some good information sources. I have recommended your newsletter to many others in our company.

However, your last publication left me very uncomfortable, and I will no longer recommend your site or newsletter. In fact, if you continue to advocate sites and/or products that produce or sell porn or adult material, I will remove myself from your distribution. I receive your letter via my company email, and we have strict (appropriately so) guidelines on employees accessing questionable material via their company-owned PCs or handhelds.

If your organization is trying to offer itself as an aid for large organizations to implement and foster the use of handheld technology, which has been the subject of many of your previous articles, then I believe it to be irresponsible of you to recommend such material.

Mark Stephens
Boeing

Editor-in-Chief David Gewirtz responds
To be fair, we expected responses like this when we accepted the advertisement from RadicalTek. That said, we did have a meeting about this particular advertiser before we accepted his ads. We gave our employees (who are more than 2/3 women) the opportunity to decide whether we'd let the ad run or whether we'd refuse to do so. The result was a unanimous decision to allow the ad. The thing is, we're big proponents of free speech and don't believe we have the right to deny any relevant advertiser the opportunity to promote their product. After all, just because we have a certain set of values, that doesn't necessarily mean our readers share them.

The neat thing is that it is all working out. You're voting as well, by writing in and discussing the issue, and by choosing to patronize or not patronize this particular advertiser.

Reader's response to the response
While I'm not sure I know what you mean by it all working out... it's not working out for me... I will remove myself from your distribution. All it would take for someone in my company to be subject of disciplinary action (and possibly dismissal) is to click on the link of the questionable site. Nor do I agree that by your company electing to not accept their ads does that mean you don't believe in free speech. It only means that you don't believe in offering that sort of material to your readers. Which is apparently not the case. I think your staff probably agreed to accept the advertiser based on financial reasons, but I can only speculate. Good Luck in your future endeavors.

Mark Stephens

Response to the response's response
Well, of course we accepted the advertiser for financial reasons. That's what we do. We sell ads. I think this is a question of taking personal responsibility for your actions. If you could get dismissed for clicking a link, don't click the link. It's also interesting that you're writing this because of your company's policy, given that Boeing derives a considerable portion of its income from making bombers that kill people in particularly violent ways... and this is the same company that sent bomber metal fabrication equipment to a Chinese Silkworm missile factory in 1994--even while China was severely violating human rights standards. We both live in glass houses.