--- Vicki Rosenzweig <vr(a)redbird.org> wrote:
At 03:14 PM 6/11/03 -0700, Ray wrote:
To be effective any kind of flagging system must
avoid subjective
determinations. Words like "explicit"
and "mature"
can lead to some
serious disagreements that can't easily be
resolved. The following
spectrum can be more objectively determined for
photographs.
1. Contains images of sex acts
2. Contains close-up images of genitals
3. Contains whole-body nudity
4. Contains partial nudity
5. Shows people in underclothes
6. Shows suggestive photos of fully clad people
I'm not convinced that this doesn't just move the
subjectivity. Even
"sex acts" is open to argument--is one woman licking
another's
breast a sex act, for example? (I assume we agree
that a photo of
a nursing infant does not contain a sex act.)
Personal memories of what "explicit" might be.
I breastfed for months when living in the US.
In public places, I have been told several times what
I was doing was "indecent", and "could you just not go
please to the restrooms to do 'that'".
I assume we agree that nursing a baby while sitting on
the toilet seat is certainly not a pleasant picture.
Do we ? Yet, it was suggested, when I answered there
was no chair in the restrooms.
I was not spreading my nudity. However I was not
hiding under a huge shawl, as if I was doing a
shameful act (and removing air from the baby). I was
discreet and it was nobody's business.
But, yes, I was told *I* could be responsible of
giving "bad" thoughts (sexual thoughts) to some
people.
There are no limits to what we can assume people might
label "to be censored". Which is why I am against *us*
defining what could be censored.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com