[Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

[Tim Starling]

On 11/05/10 05:34, Mike Godwin wrote:
> I just had a thought -- what if it were possible for a user to categorically
> block views of any images that are not linked to in any project's article
> pages?  Presumably, those Commons images that are found in articles are
> relevant and appropriately encyclopedic (speaking generally -- I also assume
> there are some exceptions). Images that were just "dumped" to Commons
> without being associated with any particular article would still be
> available to those who were looking for them -- perhaps to complement a
> particular article that needs illustration -- but the umpteenth superfluous
> porn shot (or unconnected Muhammed image) would be invisible to those who
> chose this option.
> 
> Obviously, this notion is too cute to actually be helpful, but I thought I'd
> share it.

It's a proposal which only really makes sense when analysed from the
libertarian end of this debate. It's not a compromise with the rest of
the spectrum.

The debate on this issue has been organised along predictable lines,
dividing neatly into libertarians, moderates and conservatives. I'm
not sure if I'm using the word "libertarian" accurately, but it will
do as a label.

To summarise:

Libertarians want all information to be available to everyone. Some
say all adults, some say children too should be included. Their
principles allow for individuals to choose for themselves to avoid
seeing that which offends them, which leaves the problem of how the
reader is meant to tell in advance whether a given picture might
offend them, before they have actually seen it.

Their ideology does not allow them to consider any solution which
involves one person making a decision on behalf of another, and all
the reasonable solutions seem to involve some element of this. So they
are left with no option but to downplay the impact of seeing offensive
content.

Religious conservatives think that seeing certain images, or reading
certain text, is morally dangerous. Seeing these images, they believe,
may lead the person into sin, and thus jeopardise their eternal soul.
Whereas the libertarian finds it difficult to classify and rank
different moral hazards, the religious conservative can simply cite an
authority. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, gives us this handy list,
from most to least grievous:

1. Bestiality
2. Sodomy
3. Incest
4. Rape of a virgin
5. Rape of a wife
6. Adultery
7. Seduction
8. Simple fornication
9. "Uncleanness" (presumably masturbation)

(Summarised from <http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article12>.
The ranking of adultery and rape is unclear, but I think I have them
right way around.)

Thus, religious conservatives can pick a point on that list where
they'd like to draw the line, and demand that any material that
encourages behaviour higher up the list be suppressed, on the basis
that to allow this material to be distributed jeopardises the soul of
the recipient, regardless of their consent.

(Fox News appears to put the line at the bottom, but I find it
interesting that putting the line between 5 and 6 almost exactly
matches Australia's "RC" category and proposed internet censorship
regime, especially if you count BDSM as wife-rape, and indeed
Australian law seems to characterise it as such.)

Moderates tolerate both views. They may have a moral relativist
outlook, or they may simply wish to avoid or defuse conflict. Thus
they are in the unenviable position of trying to find compromises
between two radically different ideologies, which have almost no
common ground.

On foundation-l we are divided between moderates and libertarians. The
libertarians are more strident in their views, so the debate can seem
one-sided at times, but there is a substantial moderate contingent,
and I count myself among them. Conservatives have no direct voice
here, but they are conceptually represented by Fox News and its audience.

So to return to Mike's proposal: it's only the libertarians who value
educational value above moral hazard, and they're not the ones you've
got to compromise with. To a conservative, a claim of educational
value does not negate a risk of moral turpitude. By optionally hiding
images which have a claim of educational value, however dubious the
claim, you please nobody.

-- Tim Starling