[Clipart] Nazi flag

Thu Aug 4 03:28:04 PDT 2005

Hi,
I don't think there is much controversy about 'child pornography' images
should not be allowed. That said we do try to keep an open policy for
images, and we will not let such a ban be abused. There are some sad
people who have come to believe that all images of naked children are by
definition 'child pornography'. Heard one silly story for instance some
years ago about a french wine bottle which got banned from sale in the
US due to an a very low detail sketch illustration of a naked child on
the emblem. So contributed images of for instance the famous Belgian
pissing boy, some of the naked child angels from the vatican walls and
ceilings, Norways famous angry boy and so on would and should be
included even if I am sure there are people who will make a stink about
it in the same way they do about the Nazi flag.

Christian

On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 03:58 -0400, Kevin Wixson wrote:
> I hate the use of the word censorship. The word is almost always used 
> incorrectly. OCAL is a product, albeit a non-commercial one. As a 
> product we, as the product's creators/managers/developers, have a 
> legitimate right to set certain quality and other standards, including 
> those that impact the image of the product, and the image of the 
> community. Think of "community" as a stand-in for the word "company" and 
> you see my meaning more clearly.
> 
> Now, I don't want to download anything with child porn in it. Not just 
> not see it, but not have it on my computer, period. I have a right to 
> protect myself from legal prosecution for possession of child porn, in 
> addition to not wanting to see it. If I can't be assured that child porn 
> will not be in what I'm downloading, then I'm not going to download it. 
> The guy who wrote the message about the Nazi flag isn't going to 
> download the library if it has the Nazi flag in it. If he's in France, 
> he has a legal concern. We are not alone, and I would even go so far as 
> to say that if it became known that there was child porn  in the 
> library, who do you think is going to download it? It's not censorship 
> to protect the legal interests of the community. There is NOT any child 
> porn in there now, I know, but people's concern about keeping that clear 
> is telling. If you're afraid of saying it, you're REALLY going to hate 
> defending it if it happens.
> 
> As a contributor (however minor,) don't I have some say into whether or 
> not the project is poisoned, such that nobody will dare download it and 
> use it for fear of what it might contain? I certainly think so. I want 
> people to use my contributions. I want OCAL to succeed, and not become 
> an irrelevant vanity project with exactly five contributors.
> 
> Where do we draw the line? We draw the line where we, as a community, 
> decide to draw it. We weigh the appeal, importance and usefulness of the 
> image (categorically) against the potential hit to downloads and 
> usefulness of the library -- we ask, how does this affect our market? 
> Just because there's no charge, shouldn't mean we aren't concerned about 
> marketability.
> 
> As a place to start, a minimum standard should be that the images 
> included in the library should be generally legal and won't get me 
> arrested for having it on my hard drive or distributing it. Why is that 
> so much to ask?
> 
> -Kevin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nicu Buculei (OCAL) wrote:
> 
> >
> > I am definitely against this, because it would allow a vocal minority 
> > to impose censorship. A few users voting are not representative for 
> > the entire audience.
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] mostly the relevant threads are:
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/clipart/2005-July/003662.html
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/clipart/2005-August/003743.html
> >
> _______________________________________________
> clipart mailing list
> clipart at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/clipart