[WikiEN-l] Peodophiles and wikipedia

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 08:19 PM 12/24/2007, Tony Sidaway wrote:
>On 24/12/2007, Steven Walling <steven.walling at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Bottom line is wikipedia isn't a free speech zone. It is a project to
> > write an encyclopedia.
>
>Amen.

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition?

Yes, it's a project to write an encyclopedia. However, an 
encyclopedia is a compendium of human knowledge, and essential to 
knowledge is freedom of judgement; the principle of the independence 
of the judiciary is actually rooted in freedom from prior restraint 
and opinion. Judgement is, essentially, knowlege.

Speech which is relevant to writing the encyclopedia clearly must be 
free from artificial constraint; however, that is not the only speech 
which should be *relatively* free: speech involved in building the 
community of editors likewise may not function effectively if subject 
to prior restraint.

However, the issue here is speech as conduct. The classic example is, 
of course, yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. Now, the issue with 
pedophilia is complicated by, as others have noted, the near-hysteria 
that accompanies public reaction to it. What is, effectively, an 
offensive advertisement, the userbox in question, is no better than 
any other kind of trolling for outraged response, and it is properly 
banned on that basis. I'm troubled, though, by a suggestion that 
pedophiles are banned, per se. How do we know? Do we ask their 
therapist or lawyer or their parole officer? Do we search lists of 
sexual offenders?

Do we attempt to infer pedophilia from opinions expressed? Charges of 
pedophilia against the Prophet Muhammad are common among certain 
critics of Islam. If a Muslim or other writer defends the Prophet 
against those charges, is he or she in danger of being identified as 
a pedophile or sympathizer?

And, by the way, what about terrorism? If someone defends or 
justifies the actions of a terrorist, can that person be blocked or 
banned on that basis? Perhaps someone who defends Menachem Begin 
should be blocked, after all.... If anyone is outraged reading this, 
please understand that I'm not accusing anyone of terrorism or 
sympathy with terrorism, only noting that there is no end to the 
possible witch-hunts.

No, someone who clearly trolls for outrage, or who offends public 
decency, without necessity, or who solicits illegal activity, for any 
of these things, a user can be blocked. Focusing on pedophilia simply 
confuses the issue.

"users should refrain from creating user pages likely to bring the 
project into disrepute. The pedophile userbox (and the like) falls 
into this category." This, quoted from the ANI on this, is correct. 
Userboxes are not a critical part of anyone's participation in the project.

In order to write articles about pedophilia, I'd certainly hope that 
the POV of pedophiles would not be excluded. However, they need not 
be personally identified as such, and the personal identification of 
editors is actually irrelevant. If it's likely to generate outrage, 
it's disruptive unless it is necessary.