On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > On the other hand, accepting absolutely anything would quickly get > Wikipedia > > blocked everywhere. > > Of course, but part of being neutral is that we can't decide what is > and isn't acceptable. I absolutely disagree with that. Like I said, neutrality does not equal moral relativism. An encyclopedia *must* decide what is and isn't acceptable. There is no choice *except* to decide that. > We use the law for that. What law? The law of Florida? What's neutral about that? Clearly Florida law, and all US law for that matter, allows for speech which is directly contradictory to the goals of the foundation. Content which is legal under Florida law is at best a superset of acceptable content (I say "at best" because there are probably instances of acceptable content which is nonetheless illegal). On the other hand, content which is legal under the laws of all states in the world is clearly a subset of acceptable content. The fact that no-one > has ever been charged with any offence regarding this image that was > been around for 32 years is pretty strong evidence that is isn't > illegal. I disagree with that, but moreover, the fact that the UK police were consulted about this very image, directly leading to the decision to ban the page, surely is greater evidence of the opposite conclusion. Furthermore, I don't see how you can state unequivocally that "no-one has ever been charged with any offence regarding this image". The image clearly is illegal in certain middle-eastern countries, isn't it? _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
