On 05-Dec-04, 09:07 (CST), Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 08:45:56AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > On 05-Dec-04, 04:55 (CST), James Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > There's no excuse for censorship, ever.
> > >
> >
> > Okay everybody, repeat after me: Choosing not to distribute a given
> > package is NOT censorship.
>
> And telling somebody else that they can't distribute a given package
> IS censorship.
I haven't told anyone that they can't distribute it. We, Debian, can
choose not to distribute certain materials w/o it being censorship.
My local library does not buy and circulate every single book that comes
on the market. That's not censorship. They have limited resources,
and thus must make choices. Making those choices probably includes
questions like "Is circulating work 'X' likely to cause so much uproar
and distraction that it actually detracts from acheiving our overall
goals?"
> You evidently have chosen not to do it. That's not censorship. You're
> presumably also trying to tell somebody else not to do it. That's
> censorship.
Actually, I've been arguing in favor of including hot-babe. However, I'd
like to be able to have this debate w/o abusing words like "censorship"
and "pornography", neither of which apply to this situation.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
