In a message dated 12/22/2008 6:27:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com writes:
I think we disagree over whether or not including indecent images in an encyclopedia constitutes good scholarship. (Yes, I do think the image is obscene, but that is irrelevant.)>>
-------------------------------------- I have to say that you thinking the image is "obscene" is quite possibly the sole relevant point.
You start from this basis, and proceed forward with it. We all start from some point-of-view. If our article on "vagina" shows a "vagina" would that be obscene? or educational? I personally find it highly commendable that WP has taken the high road on this issue. Hopefully the age of book-burning is far behind us, and we can define "obscene" the same way the (US) Supreme Court does, i.e. based on the community.
Our community has said that this image is not obscene. Personally I see nothing obscene in it. Why do you?
WIll Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolc...)
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 6:32 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Our community has said that this image is not obscene. Personally I see nothing obscene in it. Why do you?
Obscenity lacks a good societally shared connotation or denotation in the US, much less worldwide. There's nothing wrong with someone who does see the Virgin Killer cover as obscene - it's a question of personal judgement, to a large degree.
Community enforcement of community decisions on those personal judgements, however, is preferred.
I know of people who fetishize feet and are truly offended and shocked by the public display of bare toes. I would prefer that they not be allowed to unilaterally ban sandals...