On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Chris McKenna <cmckenna(a)sucs.org> wrote:
I don't know where you get the impression that
anyone here is promoting
any sort of lackadaiscial attitude?
As far as I read the arguments we have two groups of people, those who
want to censor images that they do not like or that they think other
people will not like; and those that want to actively stand up for the
rights to an uncensored collection of free media.
Commons is not censored, if you want a collection of free media that does
not offend you or someone else then you are in the wrong place.
Someone reading this conversation might almost think that "uncensored
images" is the defining core value of Commons. If that's actually the
case, some rebranding is necessary. I imagine you could certainly
attract an audience with a site advertised as being uncensored, but I
was always under the impression that Commons and Wikimedia were out
for a broader, more fully clothed audience.
What's funny is that you actually think you are arguing against
attempts at censorship; what this demonstrates more than anything else
is that you have deeply misunderstood censorship and what it means.
Unfortunately, you are obviously not nearly open minded enough to
learn from any explanation.
I will try to make one point: You are not in any sense the proprietor,
gatekeeper, authority or representative of Commons the project or its
community. You have no right to tell people "If you don't like it, get
out" as you have done several times. They are as free to express their
opinion as you are, and many (as you've no doubt noticed) disagree
with you. So why not take a break from telling people to go away?