Hoi, What is obvious to you is not obvious at all. To me, if a person wants to be nude on a beach, it is a choice that is up to him or her. Good looks are not needed because this is none of anyone else's business. The parameters of what somebody looks like are dependent on gender, age and well being. There are people who are sexually stimulated by any demography therefore it cannot be a consideration as it would inhibit the freedom to savour the pleasures of the beach, the sun, the surf.
The notion of what is acceptable or not is very much based on culture, within our projects we have people from many backgrounds and cultures who have many different points of view. In this my POV is good and valid as any other. I object however to the notion that "far left" can be associated with paedophiles. This attitude makes people that have an other opinion enemies and it prevents any possibility of a neutral point of view or a more common understanding.
What is relevant is that the cover of this album was created in a different time when different morales prevailed. People object to what happened in the past, they want to remove this from the present and in effect create a history of the world in their image. Sadly perfection is not had in this way because the freedom of others who do not share this POV is forcefully denied. Thanks, GerardM
2008/12/8 DESLIPPE, MICHAEL CIV DCMA CIV DFAS MICHAEL.DESLIPPE@dfas.mil
You can't censor what you don't know about. This picture got attention because it was noticed. When someone notices the other stuff, they'll make an issue of that. The picture is obviously of questionable taste, where and how people draw lines seems to be very arbitrary. I am a far right wing conservative. To me, a picture that exposes anything above a woman's knee, elbow, lower then her neck, etc. is pornography. On the far left side we have active pedophiles that see nothing wrong with using a child for any purpose that brings them sexual stimulus. Then you have the middle people who seem to change every day and every year. They don't have values and they follow the Supreme Court Justice remarks who sad, "I can't define pornography with words, but I know it when I see it."
Certainly someone should have objected to the photo when it was first placed on the album cover; questioned the photographer, printer, music label and girl's parents. Apparently that didn't happen, so now they resort to this.
---Mike
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Isabell Long Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 12:56 PM To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] UK Censorship
I do see why they have censored it, it could have been offensive in some way to certain people, but I think that there are many more potentially offensive things on en.wikipedia than that. Fair enough, I possibly shouldn't argue this because I haven't heard the full story, but that is just my view.
Isabell.
-- Regards, Isabell Long. isabell121@gmail.com OpenPGP Key ID: C395CE07
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l