I wonder how many people objected to obscenity in for
example, the old Sears catalogs, or ads showing
mini-skirts, etc. It seems difficult enough to assert
free use by limiting fair use. But add to that a value
judgement based on taste seems a bit out of character
of maximizing free use. Either its open or its not,
either its free or not, seemed to have been the
standard directions on the compass.
Granted, some images are controversial, but that
likewise makes them either or both newsworthy and
encyclopedic. [[Virgin Killer]] or [[Houses of the
Holy]] (what happened to the real controversial
Zeppelin one?) might be objected to for inclusion on
WP, but only on the basis of the same puritanical (ie.
"moral") grounds which made it controversial or
noteworthy to begin with. Paraphrasing H.L. Mencken,
"The great encyclopedists of the world are never
Puritans, and seldom respectable. No virtuous man
--that is, virtuous in the Y.M.C.A. sense --has ever
written an encyclopedia worth reading..."
But not to come across as being too libertine, I
strongly agree with those who wish to immediately
remove all facials images from Wikipedia --though even
such agreeable censorship might contradict the goal of
documenting and representing a rather climactic aspect
of commercialized human sexuality, and not to mention
the seeding interest for establishing the internet in
the first place.
SV
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs