Re: [Bug-gne]the problem of illegal content vs. freedom

[Jean-Daniel Fekete]

Christopher,

I understand your points and agree on freedom and everything.  Just consider the
responsibility point of view.
If you were personnaly the founder of a traditional newspaper, would you accept
to publish everything?
If so, you would end-up in jail or feel very guilty if somebody get killed
because somebody asked to kill him in your newspaper.
GNE is disembodied so nobody feels the responsability.  My point of view is to
consider everyone is personnaly responsible for the contents of GNE.  So think
of it as yourself publishing information and being responsible!

Now, if everybody does that, the level of shininess/rudeness/acceptance will
vary.  Still, most people will feel very bad if GNE contains articles on how to
kill, rape, manipulate, etc.  Even if you personnaly don't care.

I don't know where the acceptable line is, but I am sure GNE will be very
unpopular if it accepts these articles.

Christopher Mahan wrote:

> Ethic problem, perhaps. We may all have our own views, hangups, and agendas.
> This is why there should be no editorial content, because we could easily,
> as a group, bias the entire project.
>
> As far as people getting hurt, it is my opinion, and I am sure that of many
> people, that the lack of information is more dangerous than the
> overabundance of it.
>
> I mean, all those helper NGOs all complain that the population in third
> world countries need to be better educated. For example, there is a
> misplaced belief in some african countries than having sex with a virgin
> will cure you of AIDS. Well, this means that girls as young as 4 years old
> are not only getting raped, but also infected with AIDS. (I may be wrong
> about 4, it could be a lot younger).
>
> Also, didn't they say that the best defense against the spread of AIDS in
> the US was a better informed population? "Don't have sex, and if you do, use
> a condom."
>
> People have argued that teaching safe sex will "encourage" some teens to
> have sex (like they need any encouragement anyway). So what if 30,000 more
> teens have sex every year, as long as overall, less people get pregnant,
> contract AIDS, give their babies AIDS.
>
> Reading any old day of the Los Angeles Times can give anyone an "idea" about
> car-jacking, drive-by shooting, gang violence, murder, arson, robbery,
> sexual assault, even pedophilia.
>
> I would rather children knew that it is an existing problem, that it is a
> threat to their person, both physically and emotionally, and that they can
> take steps to avoid potentially dangerous situations. Children also need to
> know what constitutes abuse, both sexual and non-sexual, that they can
> report the abuse, that they can trust the authorities in protecting their
> safety during investigation and conviction, that there is recovery
> available, that it is not something society accepts just because it is
> happening in their lives.
>
> As far as people getting hurt, that will always happen. Do you think car
> makers feel guilty when people die in car accidents? Maybe they do, maybe
> they don't. They keep making cars safer, for sure, but they do keep making
> cars. So just because something kills doesn't mean it's bad for society.
>
> Heck, people die of electocution. Do we ban electricity. People drown. Do we
> ban water? People choke on food. Do we ban food? Information is the same
> way. A few people get hurt directly because of information, but the majority
> is bettered by it.
> A lot more people would die if we had no electricity, no water, and no food.
>
> Chris
>
> >From: Jean-Daniel Fekete <address@hidden>
> >
> >I think there is an ethic problem here.  There are good social reasons to
> >forbid some articles.
> >Think about children reading articles on necrophilia or negationism.  They
> >can be hurt or "inspired".
> >Think about "unabomber" reading an article on creating small bombs easy to
> >stuff in an envelope.  People can be hurt
> >or killed.
> >
> >There is a true responsibility in publishing "dangerous" material.  I don't
> >mean GNE should not do it but I wonder who
> >will bear the responsibility when somebody gets hurt.  Probably RMS will,
> >since he inspired the project.
> >
> >I believe there are enough important and interesting subjects that can be
> >accepted to feel forced to accept all the
> >arguable articles.  However, there should be some selection and this is a
> >position in favor of an editorial policy.
> >
> >The legality issue is different.
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gne mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gne

--
  Jean-Daniel Fekete
  Ecole des Mines de Nantes, 4 rue Alfred Kastler, La Chantrerie,
  BP 20722, 44307 Nantes Cedex 03, France
  Voice: +33-2-51-85-82-08  | Fax: +33-2-51-85-82-49
  address@hidden | http://www.emn.fr/fekete/