Hoi,
What is obvious to you is not obvious at all. To me, if a person wants to be
nude on a beach, it is a choice that is up to him or her. Good looks are not
needed because this is none of anyone else's business. The parameters of
what somebody looks like are dependent on gender, age and well being. There
are people who are sexually stimulated by any demography therefore it cannot
be a consideration as it would inhibit the freedom to savour the pleasures
of the beach, the sun, the surf.
The notion of what is acceptable or not is very much based on culture,
within our projects we have people from many backgrounds and cultures who
have many different points of view. In this my POV is good and valid as any
other. I object however to the notion that "far left" can be associated with
paedophiles. This attitude makes people that have an other opinion enemies
and it prevents any possibility of a neutral point of view or a more common
understanding.
What is relevant is that the cover of this album was created in a different
time when different morales prevailed. People object to what happened in the
past, they want to remove this from the present and in effect create a
history of the world in their image. Sadly perfection is not had in this way
because the freedom of others who do not share this POV is forcefully
denied.
Thanks,
GerardM
2008/12/8 DESLIPPE, MICHAEL CIV DCMA CIV DFAS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> You can't censor what you don't know about. This picture got attention
> because it was noticed. When someone notices the other stuff, they'll
> make an issue of that. The picture is obviously of questionable taste,
> where and how people draw lines seems to be very arbitrary. I am a far
> right wing conservative. To me, a picture that exposes anything above a
> woman's knee, elbow, lower then her neck, etc. is pornography. On the
> far left side we have active pedophiles that see nothing wrong with
> using a child for any purpose that brings them sexual stimulus. Then you
> have the middle people who seem to change every day and every year. They
> don't have values and they follow the Supreme Court Justice remarks who
> sad, "I can't define pornography with words, but I know it when I see
> it."
>
> Certainly someone should have objected to the photo when it was first
> placed on the album cover; questioned the photographer, printer, music
> label and girl's parents. Apparently that didn't happen, so now they
> resort to this.
>
> ---Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Isabell
> Long
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 12:56 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] UK Censorship
>
> I do see why they have censored it, it could have been offensive in
> some way to certain people, but I think that there are many more
> potentially offensive things on en.wikipedia than that. Fair enough, I
> possibly shouldn't argue this because I haven't heard the full story,
> but that is just my view.
>
> Isabell.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Isabell Long. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> OpenPGP Key ID: C395CE07
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
