-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Steve Bennett stated for the record:
Hi all,
Just a thought in the wake of the pedophile thing. Could we agree
not to ever again block people for what they are? No matter how
disgusting, unpleasant, immoral etc. Such things always being at least
somewhat objective, we should stick instead to only blocking people
for actions.
In other words: If someone says, "I'm a pedophile", then by policy
this should not be a reason to block them. If, on the other hand, they
are trolling, and it works, then that becomes a blockable action -
trolling.
I worry that there is a genuine slippery slope where "I am a
pedophile" gets confused with "I am a terrorist", then "I am a
member
of Hamas" then "I support Eta" and so on and so forth. Is it not
better to simply say "We do not block people for statements of who
they are or what they believe"?
Steve
Don't forget, Steve, to consider all aspects of a policy, including the
public relations concerns. As a top-ten Web site with some minor
oopsies already on our record, we need to be careful about how eagerly
we hand the media any sort of "haven for pedophiles"-shaped club to beat
us with.
With that caveat, you will see a related statement come from our ArbComm
ruling.
- --
Sean Barrett | She had lost the art of conversation,
sean(a)epoptic.org | but not, unfortunately, the power
| of speech. --George Bernard Shaw
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFD6UBNMAt1wyd9d+URAi3HAJ0R2+Y129Bp96qnjG8/Aykqe7lBggCfWyQr
/W+omqBq4dQxtM3HFLrCjLI=
=MSBh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----