Re: Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 08:50:25PM -0600, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
> Be real, man. Steve Greenland said it perfectly: "Choosing not
> to distribute a given package is NOT censorship. ... This is not
> a subtle difference."
Allowing the package with the provision it doesn't contain the original
so-called pornographic (make me laugh) drawings would be censorship.
Allowing the package with the provision it does provide some random
pictures instead of the so-called pornographic (make me laugh again)
drawings would be stupid.
Allowing the package with the provision it does provide the so-called
pornographic drawings plus some others of a man, for equality purpose
would be hypocrisy.
On the other hand, not allowing the package would definitely not be the
former of the three, but could be considered to be stupid and/or
hypocrisy.
Mike
Reply to: