Re: Bug#138541: ITP: debian-sanitize (was Re: inappropriate racist and other offensive material)
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 02:10, mdanish@andrew.cmu.edu wrote:
> The point of the system I proposed is to provide an _objective_ framework
> for people to base their own moral decisions on. That means to reduce
Morals are inherantly subjective when it comes to the type of things we are
discussing.
> Saying that something has pictures of naked women in it is something
> that can be demonstrated with your favorite image viewing program.
Then you need separate classifications for naked women, bikini-shot pictures
as published in mens magazines, vogue pictures, and womens clothing adverts
(the best source of pr0n for young boys).
Then there's the issue of age, are the women <16? <17? <18? <21?
Which is worse, a picture of a naked 21yo or a 16yo wearing transperant
clothes in an issue of vogue?
Which is worse, two 21yo women having sex or a 18yo masterbating?
Where different countries and states have tried to legislate the above issues
they have done quite badly...
> Whether you choose to elide pictures of naked women from your system
> or not is a decision left to the individual user. The main point is
> that it can be done on an _individual_ basis within the provided
> framework, and that the framework is based on _objective_ criteria.
Which still doesn't have to involve us.
One of my clients provides a commercial service of blocking pr0n web sites
for Christian schools. I'm sure that if someone paid them suitable amounts
of money then they would be happy to review Debian packages and burn CDs of
Debian without bitchx etc.
> So every user needs to setup their own little archive for their own
> personal moral decisions?
No, people who are so anal can go find someone who's willing to offer a
commercial service if they want.
> This is a more bothersome system than I proposed because it requires
> every single group to rate every single package. My proposal is to
> pick criteria that cannot be disputed (such as the existence of "fuck"
> in the program's output) and let people choose which criteria are
What about references to "intercourse", "coitus", or "doing it"? Are you
going to take all the slang terms for sex?
--
If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines
of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do
whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by
posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void.
Reply to: