On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 08:31:24PM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote: > Thibaut Paumard wrote... > > > IANAL, but this discussion has got me wondering were we should draw the > > line. Summary: in my opinion, if you intend on uploading a package which > > as fair chances of being classified as pornography *somewhere*, please > > don't. Argumentation follows (Nils, obviously I'm not meaning you by "you"): > > There was a discussion about "hotbabe" some years ago ...
(not speaking as ftpteam, we've not considered this yet, and the decision will come from an ftp-master, not a lowly minion such as myself) Be careful here; in most Jurisdictions child porn is treated very differently then normal porn (and rightly so). That is, if you consider this porn (I've not seen this game yet, I'll have to grab some facts about it before I voice an opinion on that) - but from what I read so far, it's not looking great - this is *not* the same as hotbabe, this pushes a lot more laws. > Globally thinking, since there's a wide span of what "pornography" > contitutes, I was careful with your approach. Some corners in the > world might consider that term applies to bible-kjv-text. It has some > parts they carefully avoided in sunday school. > > Christoph Sure; but the question of intent is valid -- is the intent to 'excite' the consumer or is it a work on it's own? Usually there's some test like that in most places; but I've not researched this at all. Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> | Proud Debian Developer : :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
