On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
2008/12/9 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Thomas Dalton
other hand, accepting absolutely anything would quickly get
Of course, but part of being neutral is that we can't decide what is
and isn't acceptable.
I absolutely disagree with that. Like I said, neutrality does not equal
moral relativism. An encyclopedia *must* decide what is and isn't
acceptable. There is no choice *except* to decide that.
Why not? What happens if we choose not to decide that?
"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." Seriously,
though, if you don't decide what to include and what not to include, then
you haven't created an encyclopedia, you've created a blob of random bits of
We use the law
What law? The law of Florida? What's neutral about that? Clearly
law, and all US law for that matter, allows for
speech which is directly
contradictory to the goals of the foundation. Content which is legal
Florida law is at best a superset of acceptable
content (I say "at best"
because there are probably instances of acceptable content which is
nonetheless illegal). On the other hand, content which is legal under
laws of all states in the world is clearly a
subset of acceptable
Yes, Florida law (although I think UK law is pretty similar in this
regard). It's not neutral, it's arbitrary, but we have no choice in
That's exactly the point I made above, though. You have to choose. Why
What legal content under Florida law isn't
The beheading of Nick Berg seems to be legal under Florida law. But I don't
find it acceptable, and neither do a majority of Wikipedians. That's just
one example though. There are an infinite number of them.
The fact that
has ever been charged with any offence regarding
this image that was
been around for 32 years is pretty strong evidence that is isn't
I disagree with that, but moreover, the fact that the UK police were
consulted about this very image, directly leading to the decision to ban
page, surely is greater evidence of the opposite
"Consulted" doesn't mean much, we have no idea what they said, just
that they were asked about it. The fact that they didn't, as soon as
they saw the article, start arresting record shop owners suggests they
didn't think it was particularly illegal.
There's clearly no mens rea on the part of record shop owners at this point.
don't see how you can state unequivocally
that "no-one has ever been
with any offence regarding this image". The
image clearly is illegal in
certain middle-eastern countries, isn't it?
I'll concede that point and withdraw the overly generalised remark.
No-one has been charged in either the US or the UK, which are the two
jurisdictions relevant to this discussion.
Why are those the only jurisdictions relevant? I thought the only relevant
jurisdiction was Florida.