On Feb 4, 2008 10:05 AM, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 4, 2008 10:53 AM, Ben Yates
<ben.louis.yates(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We should provide an alternate
"Mohammad" page without any images on
it. Telling people to edit their javascript is silly; most people
aren't nearly tech savvy enough to understand what that even means
(for example, they have to first understand that a web page can be
displayed differently for different users).
There is a rather fundamental flaw in this proposal (actually, in
both): They don't want a page where they can look at without having to
see an image that is said to be that of its founder, they want the
picture removed completely. The javascript/css-option is only meant as
an alibi, without any chance to actually appease those who prefer
censorship over content they don't agree with. The more complicated
the option is, the longer it might serve as a diversion. A better
choice would be a patch the firefox sources that disables rendering of
images that contain "muhammad" (in different spellings) that needs
recompilation of firefox.
I read a few of the comments, and one of them actually has a point:
There are apparently no "real" images of Mohammad, only phantasy
drawings of what he might have looked like.
I have little sympathy for /any/ religion which claims to be offended
by the truth (that is, all religions;-) but in this case, we already
have
[[Depictions of Muhammad]]
So, IMHO a compromise could be to move all the depictions there. I
realize that's not what the petitioners want, which is to ban /all/
these images from wikipedia, but, well, tough luck. Don't want to see
depictions of Muhammad? Don't go to [[Depictions of Muhammad]]!
I think this is as far as we can go, but no further.
Cheers,
Magnus