bug-gne
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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


From: Tom Chance
Subject: Re: [Bug-gne]the problem of illegal content vs. freedom
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:24:52 -0800 (PST)

In your (clear!) explanation, yeah Level I we have
decided we will need, that's good.
Level II is one we'll have to think about quite
carefully, it'd be good if we could get in contact
with somebody who knows international laws well to
help us out there.
Level III is a damn tricky one. Because pictures of
child rape, or stories about it, aren't in the least
bit informative and you really can't learn from them
at all, unless you're sick in the head. I would say we
do need to do something about blocking those.
Level IV, as you said, we cannot do. Let Nupedia do
it, and let them do it well, but we shouldn't impose
our political ideas (no matter how (in)sensitive they
be. 

To get around this, I propose we don't have a voting
system, but more of a one-way voting system. If we
allow "no" votes, then if there are enough people of
one political stance on at one time, they could start
blocking stuff, and that is bad. What if every article
just needed a couple of yes votes to get in. The
people who could vote would be us (the list) and
people who have submitted a couple of articles (to
ensure they will be fairly committed to the project). 

Tom Chance

--- Bob Dodd <address@hidden> wrote: > I
think what we need to face is that even GNE
> requires a philosophy of
> right and wrong, however we define that.
> 
> The lowest common denominator would seem to be
> 1) content format
> 2) spam control
> 3) external links
> 4) submission routes into GNE
> 5) supported written languages
> 
> and we can probably get some basic agreement on what
> is acceptable in
> those areas. In doing that we _already_ have
> established some form of
> censorship/editorial contol.
> 
> If we call everything above "Level I", then I guess
> "Level II" goes
> something like:
> 
> 6) full acceptance of local/national laws where GNE
> is physically
> running. E.g. no storing of hate propoganda on
> German mirrors...
> 
> 7) full acceptance of local/national laws where GNE
> is
> developed/maintained from. E.g. no active
> development/maintenance of
> GNE in contries where distribution of GNE content
> would be illegal.
> 
> Level II is because we're law-abiding folks, not
> because we necessarily
> agree with those laws.
> 
> Level III is where it gets (even) more ethical.
> Having applied our
> basic rules, and by a mixture of design and policy,
> have also complied
> will all local/national laws, we still need to be
> very sure in our own
> minds what is acceptable for us to publish on our
> servers.
> 
> The only way I can see to deal with level III is to
> look at extremes...
> The most extreme thing I can think of would be child
> pornography, and
> there was a case of people being jailed in the UK
> this week for
> disributing over the internet pictures of the rape
> of a 3 month old
> baby. Would we accept those pictures if they were
> accompanied by a
> reasoned article on the horrors of pornography? Even
> if we could find a
> country where distribution of such pictures was
> legal, I shudder at the
> thought of holding it on any part of the GNE
> network, or having GNE's
> (and hence though guilt-by-association my) name
> associated with it. So,
> level III must include: 
> 
> 8) rules on picture content, wherever we set the
> limits...
> 
> Of course child pornography comes in many forms.
> Would we hold a
> detailed textual description of the rape of that
> baby? Or fantasies
> based upon it? If we are to be consistent, then we
> have to say that we
> need:
> 
> 9) rules on explicit/graphic textual content,
> wherever we set the
> limits...
> 
> I don't say it's easy to choose these limits e.g.
> when does a child
> become an adult? All we can do is to apply our very
> western ethics/bias
> and choose something that most of us can live with.
> But we first have
> to cross the philosophical bridge of admiting there
> _is_ right and
> wrong, and just because we can find a legal loophole
> in some country
> somewhere, that doesn't mean we should use it to
> store highly
> objectionable content.
> 
> So, in summary
> 
> ## Level I is about making the repository function
> ## Level II is about keeping Hector (and the rest of
> us) out of jail
> ## Level III is about dealing with (at least)
> extreme ethical points
> 
> We need all 3 levels. How we police and enforce them
> is something else,
> but it's important not to confuse the need for the
> levels with those
> enforcement issues. 
> 
> I can also see a Level IV which would cover rules on
> promotion of
> political ideas, philosophies, and theologies which
> would cover some of
> the ground that jimbo is concerned with.
> Unfortunately I can see so
> many practical problems, and dangers of overbearing
> censorship and
> interference, that I feel this area is best left to
> the classifiers to
> handle. I don't particularly want to give a platform
> to nazis, but at
> least by the end of level III editing control, we
> will have removed the
> most offensive images and text, and the classifiers
> will ensure that
> the rest of the material is presented in context, if
> at all.
> 
> /Bob Dodd
> 
> --- Jimmy Wales <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Mike Warren wrote:
> > > Why would you have personal guilt because of
> someone else's essay?
> > 
> > Mike,
> > 
> > I think that the point you are missing is that
> there is a big
> > difference
> > between _censoring something_ and _refusing to
> support it_.
> > 
> > I support -- strongly -- the right of anyone to
> espouse their
> > political theories or historical theories or
> anything else.  But I do
> > not choose to support their doing it, not with my
> time, my hard work,
> > my money, my machines.  I think that many people
> feel this way, and
> > quite justifiably so.
> > 
> > I think it would be a terrible mistake for GNU to
> lend immediate and
> > direct support to evil ideas.  This is not about
> censorship.  If 
> > holocaust deniers wish to espouse their theories,
> we will do nothing
> > to stop them -- they can do it on their own time,
> with their own hard
> > work, using their own money, on their own
> machines.
> > 
> > But GNU should not serve articles advocating
> racism from GNU
> > machines.
> > 
> > I think that the naive dogma that editorial
> oversight is censorship
> > really misses the point.
> > 
> > --Jimbo
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > *************************************************
> > *            http://www.nupedia.com/            *
> > *      The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia     *
> > *************************************************
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bug-gne mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gne
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail -
> only $35 
> a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gne mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gne


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]