Re: [Bug-gne]the problem of illegal content vs. freedom

[Christopher Mahan]

Ethic problem, perhaps. We may all have our own views, hangups, and agendas. 
This is why there should be no editorial content, because we could easily, 
as a group, bias the entire project.

As far as people getting hurt, it is my opinion, and I am sure that of many 
people, that the lack of information is more dangerous than the 
overabundance of it.

I mean, all those helper NGOs all complain that the population in third 
world countries need to be better educated. For example, there is a 
misplaced belief in some african countries than having sex with a virgin 
will cure you of AIDS. Well, this means that girls as young as 4 years old 
are not only getting raped, but also infected with AIDS. (I may be wrong 
about 4, it could be a lot younger).

Also, didn't they say that the best defense against the spread of AIDS in 
the US was a better informed population? "Don't have sex, and if you do, use 
a condom."

People have argued that teaching safe sex will "encourage" some teens to 
have sex (like they need any encouragement anyway). So what if 30,000 more 
teens have sex every year, as long as overall, less people get pregnant, 
contract AIDS, give their babies AIDS.

Reading any old day of the Los Angeles Times can give anyone an "idea" about 
car-jacking, drive-by shooting, gang violence, murder, arson, robbery, 
sexual assault, even pedophilia.

I would rather children knew that it is an existing problem, that it is a 
threat to their person, both physically and emotionally, and that they can 
take steps to avoid potentially dangerous situations. Children also need to 
know what constitutes abuse, both sexual and non-sexual, that they can 
report the abuse, that they can trust the authorities in protecting their 
safety during investigation and conviction, that there is recovery 
available, that it is not something society accepts just because it is 
happening in their lives.

As far as people getting hurt, that will always happen. Do you think car 
makers feel guilty when people die in car accidents? Maybe they do, maybe 
they don't. They keep making cars safer, for sure, but they do keep making 
cars. So just because something kills doesn't mean it's bad for society.

Heck, people die of electocution. Do we ban electricity. People drown. Do we 
ban water? People choke on food. Do we ban food? Information is the same 
way. A few people get hurt directly because of information, but the majority 
is bettered by it.
A lot more people would die if we had no electricity, no water, and no food.

Chris

> From: Jean-Daniel Fekete <address@hidden>
>
> I think there is an ethic problem here.  There are good social reasons to 
> forbid some articles.
> Think about children reading articles on necrophilia or negationism.  They 
> can be hurt or "inspired".
> Think about "unabomber" reading an article on creating small bombs easy to 
> stuff in an envelope.  People can be hurt
> or killed.
>
> There is a true responsibility in publishing "dangerous" material.  I don't 
> mean GNE should not do it but I wonder who
> will bear the responsibility when somebody gets hurt.  Probably RMS will, 
> since he inspired the project.
>
> I believe there are enough important and interesting subjects that can be 
> accepted to feel forced to accept all the
> arguable articles.  However, there should be some selection and this is a 
> position in favor of an editorial policy.
>
> The legality issue is different.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com