Re: Bug#138541: ITP: debian-sanitize (was Re: inappropriate racist and other offensive material)
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 17:15, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > But I can see one useful advantage of your scheme, people who are
> > searching for material that is deprecated because it offends some
> > feeble-minded people will have a good list to choose from! ;)
>
> Heh. True enough. Like the people who crack censorware just to get the
> good list of porn sites.
>
> There is a serious side to this, though. Imagine categories of
> "religion:christian" and "religion:subgenius", for example. People of
> an atheistic turn can remove the former, while people with a sense of
> humor can install the latter.
People who aren't total butt-heads won't ban either. I know many people who
own copies of religious texts that they don't believe in. It's useful to
know what other people believe.
> People running government-owned computers
> that have to worry about appearing to sponsor religion can block the
> entire "religion" category.
"Not sponsoring religion" does not imply banning anything that is related to
religion. Every government run university will have a huge amount of
religious books in their history, archaeology, and literature departments.
But as no government is officially running a Debian mirror that is not
relevant anyway.
> The list doesn't have to all be about smut, you know.
No. It just has to be about people who want to impose their own stupid
morals on other people.
If there is a commercial need for a sub-set of Debian with some packages
removed then someone should go and start a business to provide it!
If someone feels an overwhealming moral need to do something then they can
get their local church, temple, or other similar organization to pay for it
to be done.
It does not have to involve us.
--
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: