[Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

[wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk]

Excirial wrote:
>  *If I were to make an account with the user name CumInYourCornflakes or
> HitlerMyHero there'd be someone all over the account within minutes,
> blocking banning, and deleting.*
> 
> Hem, is that "information"? I would have trouble calling that "Raw data",
> let alone information. Keep in mind that there are other rules as well -
> wp:notcensored is not the only reason why certain actions are taken :).
> 

Are there? The stated reason is " ... that offend other contributors, 
making harmonious editing difficult or impossible." If one objects to 
images of of some prophet how can one participate in editing an article 
on the subject if one has to see the images in order to do so?

I suspect that if I made a username "TheProphetMohammed" it would get 
kicked, if I posted a picture of myself labeled "TheProphetMohammed" it 
wouldn't.


> *No it is NOT. It is not censorship if I choose not to see X, that is my
> choice. So long as YOU have the choice to see X if you want to then we can
> both live in harmony. The conflict arises when you say that I must see X, or
> if I say you must not see X. Where X is some broadly recognized category of
> offensive material.*
> 
> Agreed. As our own "Censorship" article states "*Censorship* is the suppression
> of speech <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech> or deletion of
> communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful,
> sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as
> determined by a censor.". if someone simply doesn't wish to see content it
> is not censorship, since it affects only them. The difficulty doesn't arise
> unless ones actions make content available, or remove the availability of
> content, for other people. The entire issue we have is "What takes
> precedence? The right to view, or the right to not view content".
> 

Neither takes precedence only the right to chose what to see. I may want 
to read about the Rwandan genocide, it doesn't naturally follow that I 
also want to see images of mutilated bodies at the same time. I may be 
reading about BDSM doesn't mean I want to see someone's cock nailed to 
the table. Reading about the Jyllands-Posten cartoons doesn't imply that 
I also want to see the cartoons. With traditional media the decision to 
publish or not to publish, has to be made by someone else, but there is 
absolutely no reason why that has to be the case with online media. It 
ought to be possible to have the choice page by page, situation by 
situation. Forcing it to be all or nothing seems to be rather a Luddite 
approach.