[Foundation-l] On problems in commons

[Mikemoral]

Well, the point is we should keep our content US-legal.

>From the project scope of Commons, "Commons is not censored, and does quite
legitimately include content which some users may consider objectionable or
offensive. The policy of *"Commons is not censored"* means that a
lawfully-hosted file, which falls within Commons' definitions of scope, will
not be deleted solely on the grounds that it may not be "child-friendly" or
that it may cause offense to you or others, for moral, personal, religious,
social, or other reasons."

Clearly the policy says that media should not be remove unless it meets
deletion criteria is illegal, etc.

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mikemoral wrote:
> > But Muhammad's image is not illegal in the US, so why remove them? That
> has
> > no point. Why do we have to remove content perfectly legal under US law?
> > Please educate me why.
>
> Who said that the images Jimmy deleted (and which started all this
> debate) were illegal in the US?
> If they were, we would all agree that kind of images should be deleted.
> The problem are borderline, legal images, with a bit of enciclopedical
> value, and that nevertheless many people find objectionable.




-- 
Regards,

Mike
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:Mikemoral
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mikemoral