[Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

[Tim Starling]

On 11/05/10 23:06, Anthony wrote:
> I assume here you're talking about choosing what images to allow on the
> websites.  I wouldn't call that "making a decision on behalf of another",
> but I assume that's what you're referring to.  If I'm wrong, please correct
> me.

I'm including:

Solution 1: Exercise editorial control to remove particularly
offensive images from the site.

Standard answer 1: Some people may wish to see that content, it would
be wrong for us to stop them.

Solution 2: Tag images with an audience-specific rating system, like
movie classifications. Then enable client-side filtering.

Standard answer 2: This could potentially enable censorship which is
wrong as per answer 1. Also, we cannot determine what set of content
is right for a given audience. By encouraging people to filter, say,
R-rated content, we risk inadvertently witholding information that
they would have consented to see, had they been fully informed about
its nature.

Solution 3: Tag images with objective descriptors, chosen to be useful
for the purposes of determining offensive character by the reader. The
reader may then choose a policy for what kinds of images they wish to
filter.

Standard answer 3: This also enables censorship, which is wrong as per
answer 1. Also, tagging images with morally-relevant descriptors
involves a value judgement by us, when we determine which descriptors
to use. It is wrong for us to impose our moral values on readers in
this way.

The fundamental principle of libertarianism is that the individual
should have freedom of thought and action, and that it is wrong for
some other party to infringe that freedom. I've attempted to structure
the standard answers above in a way that shows how they are connected
to this principle.

> Religious conservatives think that seeing certain images, or reading
>> certain text, is morally dangerous. Seeing these images, they believe,
>> may lead the person into sin, and thus jeopardise their eternal soul.
>>
> 
> I think you've overstated that position.  Would you include Larry Sanger in
> this category?  He doesn't seem to be in either of the other two.

I think it's difficult to distinguish Larry's own views from the show
he puts on for the media.

But more generally, yes I suppose I may be overstating. Studying
religious views on sex and pornography is interesting, because those
views align closely with the laws and norms of wider society. Unlike
wider society, religious conservatives can give a detailed, consistent
and complete justification for their views.

In terms of history and influence, the religious connection is plain.
But I'll admit that not every anti-pornography campaigner today is a
religious conservative.

[...]
> I wouldn't call them moderates.  They are most certainly not moral
> relativist, and they have no desire to find compromises between the other
> two/three terrible positions.  Let's add a fourth faction, the "educators".

Suit yourself. But I think it's more worthwhile to classify the
ideologues than it is to classify the pragmatists.

-- Tim Starling