[Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

[Thomas Morton]

>
> Okay, We do not censor, because censorship is prior referral to a body
> to approve publication. We edit live, so a priori we don't censor.


Ouch, no it isn't. It's just suppression of material. That we edit publicly
and in real time is just a product of advancing technology :)


> Very clear to anybody of a legal mind.


Like me? *waves* No it isn't clear.  Our office lawyer is amused as well.

We don't as a community
> suppress material, there have been attempts to do so, but they have all
> failed.


RevDel, Oversight, Normal deletion, reversion, flagged revisions*


> We excercise editorial judgement where needed. Which is as
> it should be.


You understand this is the absolute definition of censorship?

If someone puts a penis image on a page as an act of vandalism we consider
this not in keeping with our goal of education (rather than shock, or
entertainment, or political pressure) and so we suppress it, censoring the
addition of the vandal.

The vandal will call this censorship; and he is right.

I think we are right to do that act, and so do you, so do all of us here.
Still censorship.

Censorship, as anyone with a legal mind will tell you, is not a black and
white act. There are degrees and varieties; from self-censorship to
government suppression  and everything between.

This is why I cannot buy the argument that a filter which hides an image on
initial page load (with a description and an unhide button) is a higher form
of censorship (if at all!) than removing vandal pics which offend or confuse
people.


Tom

* I know flagged rev's petered out and is in limbo at the moment - but
opposition to it was not really built on the issue of censorship.