Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 19:34:06 -0600, John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> said:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 05:53:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:32:18 +0000, Will Newton
>> <will@misconception.org.uk> said: And we have no time to set up i
>> judgement over content -- there is a clear criteria for inclusion
>> of packages in Debian already.
> We have no need to. We can collectively make reasonable decisions
> without having to set up a constitional authority to do so.
At this point, there is no mechanism by which we can try and
exclude packages out of debian which offend one (believe me on
this. vi would have been long gone otherwise). The only thing you can
do is either convince all the ftp-masters not to process it, or get a
GR going.
Or convince every DD not to upload the package in question.
> On this particular question, you are right that we cannot set up a
> purley objective mechanism to decide a subjective question. What
> you are missing is that we don't have to.
> What you are also missing is that we jeopardize our stated goal --
> making a quality Free operating system -- by trying to push into it
> something that so many people find objectionable, exploitative, and
> illegal.
A lot of people find various things in debian
objectionable. Others do not. And people finding this package
illegal -- I'm sorry, I do not see a clearcut argument that has so
convinced me. Indeed, I am pretty sure that the images in this
package are not illegal to distribute, either on a website (I have
seen several urls posted), not as a package. Feel free to proce (not
just offer opinions that I might be) wrong.
> Perhaps you believe that there is no content that should be illegal.
Heck, no. Some content, like kiddie porn, is indeed illegal. I
have seen no evidence that the content in question is.
> That is, however, not the case in much of the world. Child
> pornography is illegal in much of the world, and I might add rightly
> so, especially it is so often associated with abuse, exploitation,
> and even slavery.
Wonderful paper tiger you attacked -- and well executed too.
> If not, then your arguments about it being impossible to set a line
> are moot.
Rubbish. We set the line at illegal content, and by that
criteria, this is not illegal to distribute, and hence hot-babe is
in.
> While we are also discussing legality, before advocating the
> inclusion of pornography in Debian -- which is distributed to adults
> and minors by all manner of organizations worldwide -- please
> remember that the organization that holds Debian's legal assets,
> SPI, is incorporated in the United States and is subjected to United
> States laws.
SPI does not govern Debian's behaviour.
> I for one do not think that the cause of including porn in Debian is
> worth it. How many people here are willing to go to jail so that we
> can include porn in main?
Oh, yes, the sky is falling.
> Are you? Why?
Have you any proof the content is illegal to distribute?
Seems like it has been up and around for a while. Indeed, material
even worse than that is present on web sitres situated in the
US. Seems to me that this is mere FUD, trying to prevent expression
of artistry you are offended by.
> If you claim there is no line we can draw, then if we agree with
> you, there is no reason to keep child porn out of main either. Can
> we please use some common sense?
When you stop creating paper tigers to atrtack, we can talk,
manoj
--
"It's morally wrong to let a sucker keep his money." Canada Bill Jones
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: