At 08:19 PM 12/24/2007, Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 24/12/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Bottom line is wikipedia isn't a free speech zone. It is a project to write an encyclopedia.
Amen.
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition?
Yes, it's a project to write an encyclopedia. However, an encyclopedia is a compendium of human knowledge, and essential to knowledge is freedom of judgement; the principle of the independence of the judiciary is actually rooted in freedom from prior restraint and opinion. Judgement is, essentially, knowlege.
Speech which is relevant to writing the encyclopedia clearly must be free from artificial constraint; however, that is not the only speech which should be *relatively* free: speech involved in building the community of editors likewise may not function effectively if subject to prior restraint.
However, the issue here is speech as conduct. The classic example is, of course, yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. Now, the issue with pedophilia is complicated by, as others have noted, the near-hysteria that accompanies public reaction to it. What is, effectively, an offensive advertisement, the userbox in question, is no better than any other kind of trolling for outraged response, and it is properly banned on that basis. I'm troubled, though, by a suggestion that pedophiles are banned, per se. How do we know? Do we ask their therapist or lawyer or their parole officer? Do we search lists of sexual offenders?
Do we attempt to infer pedophilia from opinions expressed? Charges of pedophilia against the Prophet Muhammad are common among certain critics of Islam. If a Muslim or other writer defends the Prophet against those charges, is he or she in danger of being identified as a pedophile or sympathizer?
And, by the way, what about terrorism? If someone defends or justifies the actions of a terrorist, can that person be blocked or banned on that basis? Perhaps someone who defends Menachem Begin should be blocked, after all.... If anyone is outraged reading this, please understand that I'm not accusing anyone of terrorism or sympathy with terrorism, only noting that there is no end to the possible witch-hunts.
No, someone who clearly trolls for outrage, or who offends public decency, without necessity, or who solicits illegal activity, for any of these things, a user can be blocked. Focusing on pedophilia simply confuses the issue.
"users should refrain from creating user pages likely to bring the project into disrepute. The pedophile userbox (and the like) falls into this category." This, quoted from the ANI on this, is correct. Userboxes are not a critical part of anyone's participation in the project.
In order to write articles about pedophilia, I'd certainly hope that the POV of pedophiles would not be excluded. However, they need not be personally identified as such, and the personal identification of editors is actually irrelevant. If it's likely to generate outrage, it's disruptive unless it is necessary.