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

[Nathan]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:36 AM, MZMcBride <z at mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> 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
>


Your examples are not similar to an image filter. No current core
principles are at stake, no major legal threats to the projects, etc.
More importantly, your "board resolutions need to be enforceable"
principle is not at odds with my suggestion: the board can state a
desire for, and an intention to work towards, an image filter while at
the same time directly disclaiming the intention to unilaterally
impose one.

Nathan