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

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

On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 08:52:59AM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
> > I find the notion of introducing censorship in order to not 'hurt
> > their feelings' to be morally repugnant.
> Yes yes, I understand why you don't like it.  What I wanted was an
> explanation of why objecting to this package was probably _more_
> offensive than proposing it.

"Oh no, there's the possibility that somebody else might look at some
low quality porn" versus "Other people are actively forcing their
beliefs onto us". Isn't it obvious?

> (Bearing in mind that in this context, "censorship" simply means not
> shipping with debian, as opposed to attempting to deny access altogether.)

That's what "censorship" means in every context, under any practical
definition. It's impossible to deny access altogether to anything.

> > It has been proven endless times that once you start doing this, you
> > can't stop. For any package, there is going to be some minority group
> > that is offended by it.
> Sounds to me like your problem is not so much with the objection, but with
> its expected implementation.

There's only one way this ever goes. Any student of history should be
familiar with how this plays out.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: