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

[Tom Chance]

I am actually from England, read Chomsky myself and
think the US one-party democracy is a joke. But that's
not too relevant. If GNE was run by a group of people
representative of the World, then a voting system
would be ok. But as it is, the majority of people
running it and looking at it will be from the US, and
will have similar ideas as has been seen with things
like holocuast-revisionism etc.
Views of a nation have changed all the time, generally
becoming more liberal. We all now regret the
censorship imposed on the original encyclopedia made
by the French, we all now regret the way libraries
were destroyed in the interests of "democracy". I
think on GNE we should go beyond democratic and be
truly liberal. Allow everything, and allow all of
mankind's views and ideas finally be properly
documented, and not be controlled by the views of the
people of the period.

Tom Chance


--- Jean-Daniel Fekete <address@hidden>
wrote: > Voting system is not going to be blocked by
one
> party.  This is very US
> centric (I don't know were you are from though).
> I don't care about instructions given by US
> democrats or republicans
> here in France.  You don't care about french
> socialists in the US, and
> they won't ever ask for any vote on GNE anyway.
> People are free to vote and you should believe in
> democracy -- I mean
> real democracy, direct democracy.
> 
> Talking about the foreign politics of US, I think
> Noam Chomsky has been
> writing a lot on this issue and, if he is willing to
> contribute to GNU,
> I think nobody would object -- even if his writings
> are controversial.
> If somebody else wants to write his view on foreign
> politics in the US
> and he is knowledgeable, he'll get a "yes".
> 
> Articles on revisionism are more a problem. 
> Revisionists have
> developped techniques to reference books and
> articles from their closed
> world.  Analysing their writings, they always write
> the same and
> reference the same books.  You could challenge them,
> but it would take a
> serious historian a lot of time, just because their
> internal litterature
> is hard to find and accurate sources are hard to
> consult.  On this
> issue, you need to rely on a voting system and hope
> for a rejection.
> 
> I think it would make sense to allow for
> re-consideration of articles.
> Some may pass at first and contain too many errors
> to be kept.  Probably
> each article could be asked for re-consideration
> once a year.
> 
> As for issue 7 "full acceptance of local/national
> laws where GNE is", I
> don't agree.
> You wouldn't be allowed to talk about the
> extermination of Armenians in
> Turkey, not allowed to talk about early versions of
> the Coran in most
> Islamic countries, etc.
> I would be in favor of net democracy to decide.
> 
> Tom Chance wrote:
> 
> > In your (clear!) explanation, yeah Level I we have
> > decided we will need, that's good.
> > Level II is one we'll have to think about quite
> > carefully, it'd be good if we could get in contact
> > with somebody who knows international laws well to
> > help us out there.
> > Level III is a damn tricky one. Because pictures
> of
> > child rape, or stories about it, aren't in the
> least
> > bit informative and you really can't learn from
> them
> > at all, unless you're sick in the head. I would
> say we
> > do need to do something about blocking those.
> > Level IV, as you said, we cannot do. Let Nupedia
> do
> > it, and let them do it well, but we shouldn't
> impose
> > our political ideas (no matter how (in)sensitive
> they
> > be.
> >
> > To get around this, I propose we don't have a
> voting
> > system, but more of a one-way voting system. If we
> > allow "no" votes, then if there are enough people
> of
> > one political stance on at one time, they could
> start
> > blocking stuff, and that is bad. What if every
> article
> > just needed a couple of yes votes to get in. The
> > people who could vote would be us (the list) and
> > people who have submitted a couple of articles (to
> > ensure they will be fairly committed to the
> project).
> >
> > Tom Chance
> >
> > --- Bob Dodd <address@hidden> wrote: > I
> > think what we need to face is that even GNE
> > > requires a philosophy of
> > > right and wrong, however we define that.
> > >
> > > The lowest common denominator would seem to be
> > > 1) content format
> > > 2) spam control
> > > 3) external links
> > > 4) submission routes into GNE
> > > 5) supported written languages
> > >
> > > and we can probably get some basic agreement on
> what
> > > is acceptable in
> > > those areas. In doing that we _already_ have
> > > established some form of
> > > censorship/editorial contol.
> > >
> > > If we call everything above "Level I", then I
> guess
> > > "Level II" goes
> > > something like:
> > >
> > > 6) full acceptance of local/national laws where
> GNE
> > > is physically
> > > running. E.g. no storing of hate propoganda on
> > > German mirrors...
> > >
> > > 7) full acceptance of local/national laws where
> GNE
> > > is
> > > developed/maintained from. E.g. no active
> > > development/maintenance of
> > > GNE in contries where distribution of GNE
> content
> > > would be illegal.
> > >
> > > Level II is because we're law-abiding folks, not
> > > because we necessarily
> > > agree with those laws.
> > >
> > > Level III is where it gets (even) more ethical.
> > > Having applied our
> > > basic rules, and by a mixture of design and
> policy,
> > > have also complied
> > > will all local/national laws, we still need to
> be
> > > very sure in our own
> > > minds what is acceptable for us to publish on
> our
> > > servers.
> > >
> > > The only way I can see to deal with level III is
> to
> > > look at extremes...
> > > The most extreme thing I can think of would be
> child
> > > pornography, and
> > > there was a case of people being jailed in the
> UK
> > > this week for
> > > disributing over the internet pictures of the
> rape
> > > of a 3 month old
> > > baby. Would we accept those pictures if they
> were
> > > accompanied by a
> > > reasoned article on the horrors of pornography?
> Even
> > > if we could find a
> > > country where distribution of such pictures was
> > > legal, I shudder at the
> > > thought of holding it on any part of the GNE
> > > network, or having GNE's
> > > (and hence though guilt-by-association my) name
> > > associated with it. So,
> > > level III must include:
> > >
> > > 8) rules on picture content, wherever we set the
> > > limits...
> > >
> > > Of course child pornography comes in many forms.
> > > Would we hold a
> > > detailed textual description of the rape of that
> > > baby? Or fantasies
> > > based upon it? If we are to be consistent, then
> we
> > > have to say that we
> > > need:
> > >
> > > 9) rules on explicit/graphic textual content,
> > > wherever we set the
> > > limits...
> > >
> > > I don't say it's easy to choose these limits
> e.g.
> > > when does a child
> > > become an adult? All we can do is to apply our
> very
> > > western ethics/bias
> > > and choose something that most of us can live
> with.
> > > But we first have
> > > to cross the philosophical bridge of admiting
> there
> > > _is_ right and
> > > wrong, and just because we can find a legal
> loophole
> > > in some country
> > > somewhere, that doesn't mean we should use it to
> > > store highly
> > > objectionable content.
> > >
> > > So, in summary
> > >
> > > ## Level I is about making the repository
> function
> > > ## Level II is about keeping Hector (and the
> rest of
> > > us) out of jail
> > > ## Level III is about dealing with (at least)
> > > extreme ethical points
> > >
> > > We need all 3 levels. How we police and enforce
> them
> > > is something else,
> > > but it's important not to confuse the need for
> the
> > > levels with those
> > > enforcement issues.
> > >
> > > I can also see a Level IV which would cover
> rules on
> > > promotion of
> > > political ideas, philosophies, and theologies
> which
> > > would cover some of
> > > the ground that jimbo is concerned with.
> > > Unfortunately I can see so
> > > many practical problems, and dangers of
> overbearing
> > > censorship and
> > > interference, that I feel this area is best left
> to
> > > the classifiers to
> > > handle. I don't particularly want to give a
> platform
> > > to nazis, but at
> > > least by the end of level III editing control,
> we
> > > will have removed the
> > > most offensive images and text, and the
> classifiers
> > > will ensure that
> > > the rest of the material is presented in
> context, if
> > > at all.
> > >
> > > /Bob Dodd
> > >
> > > --- Jimmy Wales <address@hidden>
> wrote:
> > > > Mike Warren wrote:
> > > > > Why would you have personal guilt because of
> > > someone else's essay?
> > > >
> > > > Mike,
> > > >
> > > > I think that the point you are missing is that
> > > there is a big
> > > > difference
> > > > between _censoring something_ and _refusing to
> > > support it_.
> > > >
> > > > I support -- strongly -- the right of anyone
> to
> > > espouse their
> > > > political theories or historical theories or
> > > anything else.  But I do
> > > > not choose to support their doing it, not with
> my
> > > time, my hard work,
> > > > my money, my machines.  I think that many
> people
> > > feel this way, and
> > > > quite justifiably so.
> > > >
> > > > I think it would be a terrible mistake for GNU
> to
> > > lend immediate and
> > > > direct support to evil ideas.  This is not
> about
> > > censorship.  If
> > > > holocaust deniers wish to espouse their
> theories,
> > > we will do nothing
> > > > to stop them -- they can do it on their own
> time,
> > > with their own hard
> > > > work, using their own money, on their own
> > > machines.
> > > >
> > > > But GNU should not serve articles advocating
> > > racism from GNU
> > > > machines.
> > > >
> > > > I think that the naive dogma that editorial
> > > oversight is censorship
> > > > really misses the point.
> > > >
> > > > --Jimbo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> *************************************************
> > > > *            http://www.nupedia.com/          
>  *
> > > > *      The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia   
>  *
> > > >
> *************************************************
> > > >
> > > >
> _______________________________________________
> > > > Bug-gne mailing list
> > > > address@hidden
> > > > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gne
> > >
> > >
> > >
> __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo!
> Mail -
> > > only $35
> > > a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Bug-gne mailing list
> > > address@hidden
> > > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gne
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
> - only $35
> > a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bug-gne mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gne
> 
> --
>   Jean-Daniel Fekete
>   Ecole des Mines de Nantes, 4 rue Alfred Kastler,
> La Chantrerie,
>   BP 20722, 44307 Nantes Cedex 03, France
>   Voice: +33-2-51-85-82-08  | Fax: +33-2-51-85-82-49
>   address@hidden |
> http://www.emn.fr/fekete/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gne mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gne


=====
"True security is to be found in social solidarity rather than in isolated 
individual effort - Fyodor Dostoyevsky"

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/