[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor

On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 01:30:48AM -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.
> > We have no need to.  We can collectively make reasonable decisions
> > without having to set up a constitional authority to do so.
> 	At this point, there is no mechanism by which we can try and
>  exclude packages out of debian which offend one (believe me on
>  this. vi would have been long gone otherwise). The only thing you can
>  do is either convince all the ftp-masters not to process it, or get a

Well that's a mechanism, the ftp masters frequently reject things.

> 	A lot of people find various things in debian
>  objectionable. Others do not.  And people finding this package
>  illegal -- I'm sorry, I do not see a clearcut argument that has so
>  convinced me.  Indeed, I am pretty sure that the images in this
>  package are not illegal to distribute, either on a website (I have
>  seen several urls posted), not as a package.  Feel free to proce (not
>  just offer opinions that I might be) wrong.

But your argument was not limited to this particular package.  You also
argued that we should not be limiting ourselves by things that some find
objectionable, and extended the question into other nude images.  I am
simply saying that these things can be illegal indeed.

And if you think that we are safe in this instance because it looks fine
to us, think again.  All it takes is one Southern prosecutor up for
re-election to go after all the vile scum porn perpetrators on the
Internet for us to be in what is sure to be a draining legal fight, even
if we do wind up victorious.  That, or one offended parent.

Don't forget that people can sue us -- and force us to mount a costly
defence -- even if the law is on our side.

> > 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.

And yet, at the same time, were you not saying we couldn't do that
because parochial laws differ?  In this instance, by whose laws are we
determining that it's legal?

> > remember that the organization that holds Debian's legal assets,
> > SPI, is incorporated in the United States and is subjected to United
> > States laws.
> 	SPI does not govern Debian's behaviour.

True enough, but the fact that it's incorporated in the United States
makes it subject to US law.  That makes it easy to be sued, assets
(read: machines) siezed, etc.

> 	Have you any proof the content is illegal to distribute?
>  Seems like it has been up and around for a while.  Indeed, material
>  even worse than that is present on web sitres situated in the
>  US. Seems to me that this is mere FUD, trying to prevent expression
>  of artistry you are offended by.

I am only objecting to it being included in Debian.

It is extremely difficult to prove whether or not such a thing is
illegal in the U.S. because: 1) laws differ based on location, and 2)
it's a subjective question a judge has to answer, and 3) judges have
different subjective taste.

When it comes down to it, though, neither of us are lawyers and thus are
not really qualified to speak about it.

What I am saying is that there is no reason to take the risk.

> > If you claim there is no line we can draw, then if we agree with
> > you, there is no reason to keep child porn out of main either.  Can
> > we please use some common sense?
> 	When you stop creating paper tigers to atrtack, we can talk,

Perhaps you should stop asserting that it is impossible to reject these
things then, or that it is impossible to set a line.

-- John

Reply to: