Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 02:44:22 -0600, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> said:
> On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 01:30 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> [snip]
>> > 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.
> Yes, it is.
Rubbish. Goes to show a little knowledge is dangerous.
> http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/o002.htm
> http://www.moralityinmedia.org/index.htm?obscenityEnforcement/obscporn.htm
> "lewd exhibition of the genitals"
And quoting out of context as well.
For something to be "obscene" it must be shown that the average person,
applying contemporary community standards and viewing the material as a
whole, would find (1) that the work appeals predominantly to "prurient"
interest; (2) that it depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently
offensive way; and (3) that it lacks serious literary, artistic, political
or scientific value.
Hmm. ok.
The first test to be applied, therefore, in determining whether
given material is obscene, is whether the predominant theme or
purpose of the material, when viewed as a whole and not part by
part, and when considered in relation to the intended and probable
recipients, is an appeal to the prurient interest of the average
person of the community as a whole, or the prurient interest of
members of a deviant sexual group, as the case might be.
The "predominant theme or purpose of the material, when viewed as
a whole," means the main or principal thrust of the material when
assessed in its entirety and on the basis of its total effect, and
not on the basis of incidental themes or isolated passages or
sequences.
The principla thrust seems to be to tell me if the CPU is
loaded or not -- and, incidentally, show me a cartoon figure in a way
which is demeaning to women. I really did not find the work erotic.
The second test to be applied in determining whether given
material is obscene is whether it depicts or describes, in a
patently offensive way, sexual conduct such as ultimate sexual
acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated; masturbation;
excretory functions; or lewd exhibition of the genitals measured
against whether the material is patently offensive by contemporary
community standards; that is, whether it so exceeds the generally
accepted limits of candor as to be clearly offensive.
Umm. exceeds the generally accepted limits of candor as to be
clearly offensive? In this day and age, considering the stuff I can
see on prime time television? I think this is highly debatable.
Contemporary community standards, as stated before, are those
established by what is generally accepted in the community as a
whole;
The internet community that Debian is apart of would consider this
fairly tame, considering what a mistyped search engine address seems
to pop up on the screen.
The third test to be applied in determining whether given material
is obscene is whether the material, taken as a whole, lacks
serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. An item
may have serious value in one or more of these areas even though
it portrays explicit sexual conduct.
Hmm. Does it lack artistic value? I dummo. The artist seems to have a
lot of material that is deemed art. I am not sure the current image
is absolutely without merit when it comes to artistic value -- there
are things in the MOMA that have deserved the lable less, in my
opinion.
> See above.
Yup. Goes a long way to convince me that I can't trust your
judgement.
manoj
--
I owe, I owe, It's off to work I go...
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: