[Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

[MZMcBride]

Nathan wrote:
> Erik, if you really want to change the focus of the debate, suggest to
> Sue and the board that they make a commitment: that an image filter
> won't be imposed on the projects against strong majority opposition in
> the contributing community. Then you can move on to the hard work of
> convincing us of its merits, and we can set arguments over authority
> and roles aside.

While this seems like a nice idea on the surface, I think it sets a rather
dangerous precedent. Would a majority of a contributing community be able to
set aside the NPOV policy? What about fair use requirements? The requirement
that people be over 18 to obtain private info? Provisions of the privacy
policy?

Board resolutions, to have any legitimacy, need to be enforceable. The
solution to a bad Board resolution isn't to make a statement saying that it
can be ignored if enough people want to. If that's the case, why have a
Board at all? It seems to me that the solution is for the Board to clean up
its own mess (and resolve to not make future ones).

As I posted earlier, the Board went into this knowing that it was putting
forward a divisive, empty gesture. This resolution was an act in bad faith.

MZMcBride