Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 10:07:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> writes:
>
> > It shows that sexual harassment in the workplace is one of their big
> > concerns. And rightly so. Awards have been as large as $30
> > Million. And it embarasses the institution, which creates all sorts of
> > havoc by driving people and even financial donors away.
>
> Yes, but the question is what is the *environment*; it is not clear
> that idle bits on a disk change the *environment*.
>
> Good grief, this is one of the murkiest areas of American law, and you
> think that anyone should be convinced of your FUD this way?
>
> I'm hardly impressed. If you really believe this is a concern, or
> others do, you are welcome to get competent legal advice, though at
> this point I would be inclined to doubt any advice from a lawyer you
> selected. Still, your amateur's guess at what would or would not run
> afoul of this extremely complex area of law is no help whatsoever.
>
> > The U. would err on the side of caution given the potential danger.
>
> This is hardly true; most American universities (lamentably not all)
> for example have decided that censoring students is not in their job
> description, and that university employees cannot claim a hostile
> working environment on the basis of what students have said or done.
>
> Likewise, if a given image, residing in the Debian archive, is nearly
> unknown to members of the university, and the only people who know
> about it have deliberately sought it out, then it is extremely
> unlikely that anyone would find it to be creating a hostile
> environment. It is analogous to a copy of Playboy hidden in a drawer
> somewhere, which is not actionable in the least. Oh, except that
> Playboy contains actual photographs, which hot-babe does not.
Hi all,
from another mailing list, someone noted that playboy.com mirrors some
FLOSS as they use it. They would have no problem hosting
debian.playboy.com. And why not see if they could assist us in our quest
to determine what legal issues are involved? If they have no stake in
'debian (now with porn)' (just joking!--really), who would?
=Kev
>
> And this isn't even Debian's concern; each mirror must decide its own
> policies, and we cannot hope to decide that Debian must conform to
> whatever self-censorship private entities choose to apply to
> themselves.
>
> Nor is *any* of this relevant to debian-devel. Please take it to an
> appropriate forum.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
- --
counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted!
(__)
(oo)
/------\/
/ | ||
* /\---/\
~~ ~~
...."Have you mooed today?"...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBtAJ8Rp+kG4Nu//URApvRAJ9Uk0Bt4rzwqlTn8WN4GdIoqbKMmACdFelG
QAkdj7SginGGF4tI7ap2RgM=
=+OFA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: