Re: Bug#138541: ITP: debian-sanitize (was Re: inappropriate racist and other offensive material)
On Sun, 2002-03-17 at 01:31, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Jeff" == Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org> writes:
>
> Jeff> There are some things that can be classified as universally
> Jeff> abhorrent. Advocating the murder of innocents would hold up
> Jeff> anywhere, I would imagine.
>
> So i guess the bible, with the genocide of the people of
> Caanan, is out.
I wasn't aware that the Bible advocated the genocide of Canaan.
(And I don't plan to conduct a theological discussion of God's
condemnation of the Canaanites in the Mosaic Texts; suffice it to say
that I'm pretty sure I have more training in the subject. If you're so
inclined, private mail is OK.)
> More to the point, software and ideas about
> genocide, and past practices of the same, are critical to education
> of the next generation.
I wasn't aware that having an idea about genocide necessarily caused one
to advocate the same.
> Jeff> I'm not looking for a package that will make Jerry Falwell happy. I'm
> Jeff> looking for something that will allow people to weed out the most
> Jeff> egregious stuff, like the famous BitchX taglines.
>
> There is no distinction. You are proposing that you do not
> want one persons opinion (based closely on a consensus opinion of a
> segment of US population), and yet you substitute another majority
> opinion as the basis for this censorship. Same difference.
Sure there is. No one likes nuclear war, but the question of abortion
is hotly disputed. That's a distinction of degree.
Even moral relativism acknowledges the possibility of things being
considered wrong (although moral relativists would want to be sure that
the list of wrongs is constantly reevaluated).
> >> You are free to do as you please, of course, but I would
> >> object to any GR that tries to implement this censorship by majority.
>
> Jeff> I think that the point here is that we're avoiding censorship by
> Jeff> providing a way for people to evaluate what they want on their own.
>
> No, you are not: You are taking upon yourself to tell people
> what is not good, for the sake of the children. People do not need
> this package to make their own evaluations.
I am? Where am I making any value judgments myself? I believe I even
exempted myself from the whole procedure, denying myself the right to
vote my own prejudices into the program.
And even supposing that I were saying any such thing, remember that I am
not advocating removing a single word from any Debian package. I am
merely adding a package. Tell me how speaking my mind is censorship.
Put another way: censorship is the *removal* of information. I wish to
*add* information, specifically a list of packages some reasonable
people might not like. You would rather we *remove* information, by
popular pressure, and in secret, and have even advocated censoring *me*
by attempting to subvert the package.
At least, that's how you're sounding right now.
Reply to: