[WikiEN-l] Writing about sexual topics responsibly is not censorship

Sun Feb 13 22:44:04 UTC 2005

Robert wrote:

> I just checked for myself - there are millions of explicit sex images 
> available on the web, easily found on images.google.com.  No 
> censorship is occuring.

Well no one is seriously suggesting that censorship of that other 
Wikipedia is occurring here.

> Christiaan writes:
>> this is essentially what the argument boils down to. To treat such 
>> pictures differently is a cultural
>> statement in itself about that picture. This debate is not so much 
>> about what constitutes an appropriate image but which cultural point 
>> of view will prevail on Wikipedia. It's one of those issues where
>
> True, but is our task to show pornography in the name of freedom of 
> speech or open culture?

I think our task is to spread and promote knowledge within the realms 
of the law. If we can promote and spread knowledge about a sexually 
explicit act and tell a thousand words with a picture then we should.

>> To hide or remove such an image is a statement. To keep such an image 
>> inline or linked is a statement.
>
> Yes - and our statement is "This is an encyclopedia, not Hustler 
> magazine."

But this is hyperbole. We're talking about autofellatio here, not the 
implementation of a Wikipedia centerfold.

How about "This is an encyclopedia and we don't see the human body as a 
vessel of sin and shame, we don't have issues with the human body and 
what it is capable of, and we don't intend to promote the concept of 
bodily shame and sin through censorship. If other institutions want to 
censor content down stream that is their prerogative."

> If someone wants to view explicit images and videos of sexual acts ... 
> there are thousands of outlets for just such things. But presumably 
> people come to Wikipedia to read a professional academic article.

So what is it that makes an image of a sexually explicit act in an 
article about a sexually explicit act unprofessional? Why send a person 
who has come to educate themselves about autofellatio away from the 
site to view an image when we could show it to them ourselves. We might 
as well send them away to read about it too.

> In any case, our encyclopedia is useless if people refuse to read 
> it...and thousands of schools will ban its use if it continues to 
> offer pornographic images (and eventually, videos.)  What good is our 
> work if few people can access it?  Even if it is not officially banned 
> by entire schools, many teachers will tell their students that 
> Wikipedia is not reliable or professional if we continue this course 
> of extreme sexual explicitness.

But there are technical solutions to these minor problems.

> Do not get me wrong: We need not censor ourselves by adopting the 
> least offensive text and images - that would be impossible.  Somebody 
> will find everything about sex offensive.  But we also do not have to 
> go to the other extreme by shoving in what is essentially pornography.

The problem is defining pornography, and this has much to do with 
context. Many people find any image of sex pornographic. I certainly 
don't find the controversial image pornographic in the context that it 
is in.

> An educated adult should be able to professionally write about human 
> sexual practices without being coarse, and without showing photographs 
> of men sucking themselves off.

But this exactly what we are trying to describe and an image, as they 
say, tells a thousand words. To tell you the truth I think a better 
image in this case would be one where the man gets much of his penis in 
his mouth.

Christiaan