On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> 2008/12/9 Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > 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. > > Why not? What happens if we choose not to decide that? > "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." Seriously, though, if you don't decide what to include and what not to include, then you haven't created an encyclopedia, you've created a blob of random bits of content. >> 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. > > Yes, Florida law (although I think UK law is pretty similar in this > regard). It's not neutral, it's arbitrary, but we have no choice in > the matter. That's exactly the point I made above, though. You have to choose. Why choose arbitrarily? > What legal content under Florida law isn't acceptable? And > says who? > The beheading of Nick Berg seems to be legal under Florida law. But I don't find it acceptable, and neither do a majority of Wikipedians. That's just one example though. There are an infinite number of them. > > 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. > > "Consulted" doesn't mean much, we have no idea what they said, just > that they were asked about it. The fact that they didn't, as soon as > they saw the article, start arresting record shop owners suggests they > didn't think it was particularly illegal. > There's clearly no mens rea on the part of record shop owners at this point. > 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? > > I'll concede that point and withdraw the overly generalised remark. > No-one has been charged in either the US or the UK, which are the two > jurisdictions relevant to this discussion. Why are those the only jurisdictions relevant? I thought the only relevant jurisdiction was Florida. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
