[Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

[Geoffrey Plourde]

Wouldn't regulating content mean abdicating the role of webhost, which would call Section 230 into question? 




________________________________
From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
To: susanpgardner at gmail.com; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sun, May 9, 2010 4:21:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

On 10 May 2010 00:04, Sue Gardner <susanpgardner at gmail.com> wrote:

> My view is that Jimmy and others have brought closure to the "scope of Jimmy's authority" question. In saying that, I don't mean to diminish the importance of that question -- I realize that many people are angry about what's happened over the past week, and it will take time for them to be less angry.


Ting's statements on the role of the Board (that it should regulate
project content) will also take some digesting. I doubt chapters
outside the US put people forward for the Board thinking this would
mean the Board supporting content removal to appease Fox News.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l