[WikiEN-l] No more blocking people for who they *are*?

[W. Guy Finley]

> From: Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.dunkerson at worldnet.att.net>
> Reply-To: <conrad.dunkerson at worldnet.att.net>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:29:33 -0500
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] No more blocking people for who they *are*?
> 
> W. Guy Finley wrote:
>> Umm, no.  Some things just aren't funny -- try going into an airport and
>> joking about having a bomb and see how far your "I was just joking!" excuse
>> gets while you're being cuffed and hauled to jail.  "Joking" that you are a
>> pedophile is no different in my mind.
> 
> Joking about having a bomb in an airport or actually having one is
> illegal. Joking about being a pedophile or actually being one is not.
> 
> Still no difference in your mind?

No.  Molesting children is a crime.  Let me guess, the next splitting hair
argument of "well he's a child so being attracted to children is okay".
"Pedophile" in common usage is a pejorative term.

> 
> Bomb 'jokes' are illegal because they create a risk of panic which could
> lead to injuries. Ditto shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater unless it
> actually is on fire. Likewise verbal plans or exhortations to commit
> criminal acts. Everything else is 'free speech' and allowed in most
> countries.

That's right, and I'm certain having people who claim to be pedophiles as
contributors isn't going to cause any panic on the part of people or fear of
risk of exposure to an environment where molesting children is condoned, and
people are encouraged to put such ridiculous statements on their user pages.
Lovely.

> 
> If we want to be TECHNICAL then Wikipedia allowing people to say 'I am a
> heterosexual' but not 'I am a pedophile' (or 'I am a homosexual'... as
> some of the anti-pedophile crowd were also advocating banning) is
> discriminatory under US law. Ditto allowing 'I am a Christian' but not
> 'I am a Satanist'. Since we aren't getting government funding or paying
> people to work on the encyclopedia we're actually allowed to
> discriminate, but don't expect it to be universally popular.

Hence my statement that this whole userbox fiasco continues to spin out of
control where no common sense can be used or a line drawn because removing
blatantly obvious and ridiculous boxes like these and blocking those who
create or use them is seen as somehow clamping down on free speech.
Wonderful.  Can't wait for "This user rapes women" and "This user bombs
Israeli markets" to make their appearance.  Those will certainly be good for
a chuckle and good guffaw and a group of folks who will snicker at just how
unbelievably clever they are while this project continues to be sullied with
their nonsense. 

--Guy (User:Wgfinley)