On the other hand, maybe you use a very broad
definition of
"notability" which encompasses all my subjective balances. In which
case, we're making the same arguments just calling them by different
names :-)
That could well be the case.
Censorship is
clearly subjective and avoidable, so should be avoided.
This is a fairly nonsensical point; its use in this argument is to
assert "what they want is tantamount to censorship and censorship is a
bad thing therefore we don't do what they want".
But, imagine a demand that we don't include hardcore pornography -
certainly a form of "censorship", albeit one you and I (probably)
agree with. It doesn't mean that we should, or that by not doing so we
have somehow "given in" to the demand and are morally tainted by it.
We don't include it because *our editorial judgement* says not to, and
if it happens to coincide with what some external group desire? Well,
good for them.
I wouldn't agree with that demand. I can imagine our article on
Hardcore pornography being improved by the inclusion of images of it.
They would need to actually add to the encyclopaedic content and not
just be decorative, which might be a difficult barrier to overcome (I
think you can adequately describe most sexual acts in words, so the
picture would be redundant - which probably falls under "not notable"
given an appropriate definition of notability), but I certainly don't
object to such images on principle.
I think it's a perfectly reasonable principle to avoid making
subjective decisions where possible. It's not always possible, but in
the case of this kind of censorship, it is.