Re: Bug#138541: ITP: debian-sanitize (was Re: inappropriate racist and other offensive material)
On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 06:53, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 02:10, mdanish@andrew.cmu.edu wrote:
> > The point of the system I proposed is to provide an _objective_ framework
> > for people to base their own moral decisions on. That means to reduce
>
> Morals are inherantly subjective when it comes to the type of things we are
> discussing.
However, morals don't necessarily have to enter into the picture with a
scheme like this.
> > Saying that something has pictures of naked women in it is something
> > that can be demonstrated with your favorite image viewing program.
>
> Then you need separate classifications for naked women, bikini-shot pictures
> as published in mens magazines, vogue pictures, and womens clothing adverts
> (the best source of pr0n for young boys).
>
> Then there's the issue of age, are the women <16? <17? <18? <21?
>
> Which is worse, a picture of a naked 21yo or a 16yo wearing transperant
> clothes in an issue of vogue?
>
> Which is worse, two 21yo women having sex or a 18yo masterbating?
The difference: a package like this doesn't say things like "worse". It
simply reports on content.
There is the issue of generating a category list for content. That's
much easier than generating a list of "bad" packages; come up with a
first approximation of categories and let people request new ones if
they aren't satisfied.
> What about references to "intercourse", "coitus", or "doing it"? Are you
> going to take all the slang terms for sex?
The idea is to avoid taking anything out at all. People will be less
likely to call for taking things out if they can be given the tools to
help them avoid objectionable content.
Reply to: