I can't follow your reasoning there. Ensuring that Commons can be safely
viewed by minors is not censorship, in my opinion. I am actually fine with
uncensored pornographic content for adults, but I think we will end up
cutting ourselves off from the younger generation if we don't cooperate
with filtering systems.
Commons content is dynamic and comprises 6.5 million media files. How
would a library or school filter that content? And if it is not feasible
for them to do so, the easiest way out for them, in order to avoid
controversy, is to not allow access to the site at all, which is our loss.
Andreas
The only existing US law that I think Commons might
possibly not be
complying with is the requirement to ensure that the models of some
pictures are not minors; to what extent these provisions might be
retroactive, IANAL, much less a specialist in these matters, is
something that I do not know.
But I do know about matters pertaining to libraries,
and the
responsibility for filtering is on them, not the information
providers, or the sites which post the information. Most libraries
deal with this by outsourcing, and relying on the standards of the
providers of the filters. I see no reason why we should cooperate
with censorship, however well intentioned. We should, however,
maintain our own standards. (Because it is appropriate to provide some
guides about our content to users generally, maintaining certain
images in a collection labelled BDSM, and ensuring they have clearly
descriptive titles--which remains incomplete in Commons more generally
than just these images-- would seem to me quite adequate information
about their likely nature. )