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

[Jimmy Wales]

Mike Warren wrote:
> I think the classifier systems will largely make this irrelevant; very
> few (if any) would include such articles, and the ones which did would
> likely include meta-comments indicating the lunacy of the article.

But this doesn't address my point.  Richard Stallman has stated that
he doesn't want, for example, holocaust denying articles to be served
from his machines.  So you shouldn't even include them to start with.

Perhaps the solution is to come up with a simple system (XML, RDF?)
whereby the Ku Klux Klan can place articles _on their own servers_,
indicating to passing searchbots that they have GNE-format articles
available.

> > I think that the naive dogma that editorial oversight is censorship
> > really misses the point.
> 
> Of course it's censorship; whether it's justified or not is the
> question.

I think this is a very terrible abuse of language.  If you equate
editorial oversight with censorship, you destroy any real meaning
for both concepts.  This is _precisely_ what the real forces of
censorship would like to see.

If you can't tell the difference between censorship (i.e. the use
of force to suppress some view) and editorship (i.e. a voluntary
process of quality control), then you are totally intellectually
disarmed against those who seek real censorship.

One time, Richard Stallman removed a list of naughty words from
GNU-Emacs, as a protest against an attempt at passing a censorship
law in the U.S.  The law would have provided, at least hypothetically,
penalties for Stallman distributing his software with a list of dirty
words.  That law was the _use of force_ to suppress certain words.
THAT is censorship.

But Richard Stallman would not object at all, I'm sure, if someone
wanted to take his software, modify it to remove the bad words,
and redistribute it.  The difference is one of _consent_.  RMS
consents (via the GPL) to let people do that sort of thing with his
code.  I can change emacs and redistribute it, but I am not _censoring_
it, but _editing_ it, for my own purposes.

You absolutely need both concepts.  Please don't dilute the meaning
of censorship by incorrectly (and incoherently) applying it.  Reserve
it for _real_ censorship, for people actually trying to _suppress_
things, or you will never be able to explain the difference to anyone.

Natural language provides us with many fine distinctions, to which we
ought to pay serious attention.  Hammering away at language in the
crude service of raw ideology is not helpful.

--Jimbo

-- 
*************************************************
*            http://www.nupedia.com/            *
*      The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia     *
*************************************************