Verizon Reverses Itself on Abortion Messages

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

Source: NYT

Saying it had the right to block “controversial or unsavory” text messages, Verizon Wireless last week rejected a request from Naral Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group, to make Verizon’s mobile network available for a text-message program.

But the company reversed course this morning, saying it had made a mistake.

“The decision to not allow text messaging on an important, though sensitive, public policy issue was incorrect, and we have fixed the process that led to this isolated incident,” Jeffrey Nelson, a company spokesman, said in a statement.

“It was an incorrect interpretation of a dusty internal policy,” Mr. Nelson said. “That policy, developed before text messaging protections such as spam filters adequately protected customers from unwanted messages, was designed to ward against communications such as anonymous hate messaging and adult materials sent to children.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/business/27cnd-verizon.html?ei=5088&en=be862e29bc5b54e9&ex=1348545600&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1190912715-mEaSahLWgJXiLq0FOR/rsw

---

Bans pro-choice SMS list -- gets burned in the ass -- retracts.

[Orrex]

1. Geez--no spin in that headline

"Abortion Messages" really gets to the crux of the issue.

:sarcasm:

on edit: that's a criticism of the NYT and not the OP

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

2. My comment at the bottom should have been the title, don't you think? -nt

[Orrex]

4. LOL! That would be a headline worth reading!

:hi:

[Demit]

6. Well, the word itself merely describes a process, and in that sense is neutral.

Just think, how well the heavy opprobrium against abortion has worked over the years! You automatically thought of it as a bad word, a political word. Spin would have been if they had said either 'babykilling messages' or 'pro-choice messages'. The headline is fine.

[Orrex]

7. I respectfully disagree

Whatever the objective meaning of the word, "abortion" automatically entails a shitload of baggage that can't be overlooked simply by deferring to the dictionary. Even if it's not technically a "bad" word or a "political" word, it is insufficiently specific to the story at hand to justify its use in the headline as anything other than sensationalism.

[Demit]

9. So write the right headline for me. Seriously, how would you have worded it?

Of course the word has acquired baggage, that's exactly my point. The heavy unrelenting opposition to abortion being legal has, over the years, made you cringe to hear it. Similar to what has happened with the word liberal—we tense our shoulders and look to see if the person using it is intending to be pejorative in some way.

But—and this is another serious question—how do you suggest discussing abortion without using the word? When NARAL, and Hillary Clinton and others say, "I want to keep abortion safe, legal, and rare", do you feel they are being sensationalistic? If you honestly answer No, of course not, then it sounds to me as if you have already made the judgment that the NYT is intending to be pejorative, and I'm not seeing that in this case.

[Orrex]

10. How about "Verizon Reverses Itself on NARAL Messages"

It seems to me that this would be more specific and accurate to the situation at hand.

To answer your other question, I'm all for calling abortion "abortion" when discussing it--dancing around it would be as juvenile as referring to a penis as a wee-wee. I don't even object when "abortion" appears in headlines, as long as its use there is clear and sensible.

In this case I feel that a different headline would have been more specific and a better summary of what Verizon has done. But to summarize this example of attempted corporate censorship with the word "abortion," rather than a representative description, strikes me as sensationalist.

It would be equivalent IMO to a headline like "World Cycling Federation Reverses Itself on Doping" if the story were actually "World Cycling Federatinon Reverses Ruling on Landis."

Not sure what the "World Cycling Federation" is actually called, and too lazy to google at the moment, but QED.

[Demit]

15. Okay, I can see that. I agree that 'NARAL Messages' would've been better.

You persuaded me. :)

[Orrex]

17. Whoa! A peaceful resolution to a disagreement on DU?!? Amazing!

:hi:

It must be said that you make a great point--opponents of choice have largely succeeded in demonizing even the term "abortion," ensuring that any mention of the word will automatically entail sufficient baggage to weigh down any discussion of the subject, thereby skewing it by default in favor of the anti-choice position.

I'm very interested in the politics of language, specifically the abuses and misappropriations of it so favored by Conservatives.

[panzerfaust]

14. Verizon reverses censorship decision, since they were caught.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

18. I don't want ANY SPAM on my telephone

It's bad enough that I get the occasional crap from my cell phone provider!

[damntexdem]

3. Good, I won't have to change my landline provider from Verizon.

I don't fall for the text-messaging scam -- I mean indulge in text-messaging services.

[JerseygirlCT]

5. Well, good for them. nt

[aquart]

8. LOL! "Dusty internal policy"!

[xxqqqzme]

11. quaint....

at least they didn't blame it on some 'over zealous staffer'.

[sarcasmo]

12. A view of Corporate America in ten to twenty years. To much POWER.

[gateley]

13. Must have received feedback that would have affected their bottom line $$$ nt

[PlanetBev]

16. Gee, it wouldn't have anything to do with those 20,000 e-mails they got, would it?

Yeah, this morning we sent a mass e-mail to Jeffrey Nelson, CEO at Verizon, and explained things to him. I got a return e-mail from Verizon, announcing they had reversed themselves.

I told them my Verizon contract is expiring in November and I need a new cell phone anyway. I mentioned that I was looking forward to working with AT&T.

All you have to do is threaten to go elsewhere.