Re: Bug#138541: ITP: debian-sanitize (was Re: inappropriate racist and other offensive material)
On Sun, 2002-03-17 at 15:18, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 02:26:46PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > On Sun, 2002-03-17 at 04:37, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > >
> > > You can say whatever you want to say, but don't expect Debian to be your
> > > pulpit. Debian is a *LINUX DISTRIBUTION*, not a vehicle for any person or
> > > group of persons to spread their opinions on what might be offensive to them
> > > or to some other person or group. If you want to distribute that type of
> > > information, you are more than welcome to use your own website, disk space
> > > and bandwidth to do it.
> > >
> > > What you are proposing will waste the time of volunteers, and that is
> > > unacceptable. A volunteer should spend his time maintaining his packages and
> > > fixing bugs, not censoring upstream or responding to accusations of
> > > "objectionable material", lest his packages fall into some sort of blacklist
> > > maintained by christian-coalition types.
> >
> > Censoring upstream already happens. Responding to accusations of
> > objectionable material already happens. Or haven't you been paying
> > attention?
>
> Yes, and the fact that I've only heard about it *once* in the several years
> I've been reading this list, which makes me think that the status quo is
> working fine.
>
> Maybe the reason we haven't gotten a release out in 2 years is because there
> are more policy freaks who are just interested in making volunteers'
> lives harder than people actually interested in putting out a quality
> software distribution.
>
> > Had you read the proposal, you'd know that I'm trying to reduce the
> > amount of censorship going on.
>
> Yeah, through some bullshit "voting system" which will waste everyone's
> (including the DPL's, if I understood you correctly) time. What a joke.
>
> > > The bottom line is that if you or anyone else tries to put some sort of
> > > censorware into Debian that is at all subjective, I will make sure that all
> > > of my packages conflict with it, and I hope that others do the same.
> >
> > Hmm. Censorship for the sake of freedom of expression. I see.
>
> Yeah, you already tried this argument. Sorry, but it doesn't hold water.
I've yet to see a rebuttal (besides "nyah nyah, you stink, asshole").
> > It would seem that at least some people in the project only believe in
> > freedom of *popular* speech. Hopefully, that's a minority.
>
> If you had made a proposal which was technical and objective, I would have no
> problem with it. But it doesn't seem like you're interested in doing that,
> (or maybe you just don't have a clue how it could be done).
Yeah. I made the mistake of thinking out loud, engaging the community,
and asking for feedback. I suppose you'd rather I just upload whatever
comes to mind and deal with the fallout later.
Reply to: