On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 16:20, Kim Bruning <kim(a)bruning.xs4all.nl> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 06:03:24PM +0200, Kim Bruning
To wit, the proposed implementation of a category
controversial content (required for many plausible implementations
of this point) is exploitable by 3rd parties and/or can lead to
in-community conflicts; depending on the exact chosen
I would like to expand on this point.
Apparently, the generation of such categorisation schemes has
previously been discussed by the American Library Association as far
back as 1951.
A relevant paragraph from their conclusion (last amended Jan 19, 2005):
"Labels on library materials may be viewpoint-neutral directional aids
that save the time of users, or they may be attempts to prejudice or
discourage users or restrict their access to materials. When labeling is
an attempt to prejudice attitudes, it is a censor's tool. The American
Library Association opposes labeling as a means of predisposing people's
attitudes toward library materials." 
I assume that the board was previously not aware of the central role such a
categorisation scheme would take in any form of practicable image
Board was aware of that, as the first Robert Harris' report included
very similar text from Canadian librarian association.