Phil Sandifer wrote:
On May 2, 2007, at 11:49 AM, Andrew Lih wrote:
That's not Wikipedia's battle to fight. It seems that Digg will be the pioneer in that realm.
And here I agree with you. But the issue is NOT one of "blatant illegality." It's one of legal risk, but we wade into that every time we use a fair use image. The issues here are editorial, not legal.
The problem with an expression like "blatant illegality" is that it is on the same POV footing as the word "obvious". It as though arguing from one's conviction about the truth of the issue will somehow convince others of its truth. But one's own convictions are anything but neutral. It is easy to agree that clearly illegal material should be removed. What is not easy is establishing that the material is in fact illegal. It doesn't take a lot of research to come to the conclusion that the legalities of reproducing encryption keys are far from settled. There is nothing blatant about either extreme position.
Ec