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

Tue Feb 15 11:11:01 UTC 2005

Christiaan Briggs wrote:

> Nicholas Knight wrote:
>
>> I understand it, what I don't understand is why you feel sufficiently 
>> strongly about it to feel offended.
>
>
> Because I'm sick and tired of corporations and other people attempting 
> to control how I see the world and attempting to replace it with some 
> kind of Disney World. Much the same practice is taking place on our 
> televisions screens with regard to war. People have no idea about the 
> realities of war because unfathomable efforts are made to ensure they 
> get a Disneyfied version of events.
>
> I don't want to live in Disney World, I want to live on Earth with all 
> the pain and diversity that entails. I don't see the human body as a 
> vessel of sin and shame. I don't have issues with the human body and 
> what it is capable of. Treating this image differently by in-lining by 
> default is a statement in itself along these lines. Creating a 
> solution that caters to individuals and institutions skirts around 
> this issue by leaving it up to the user to decide.
>
>> The solution has been "created" already. It has not been implemented, 
>> which will require someone with PHP skills. You may have them. I do not.
>
>
> What solution is that?
>
> Christiaan

The majority of users don't want to have decide. It's one of the reasons 
why software like Firefox came about - to remove bloat and give users 
what they want. Interface bloat gives users extreme control over the 
software, but at the cost of confusing people and irritating them. You 
are still given a choice of clicking on the link (which should 
appropriately describe what you're in for and what the image is about) 
or not, and if my suggestion(s) in one of the other emails I sent to the 
list are implemented, you will have the choice of viewing the image 
inline as well.

I agree a technical solution is required, but until we have one, linking 
is better than offending a substantial number of our readers. It's the 
psychology of the thing - if people don't have full-blown images thrust 
in their face, they naturally assume it's safe. It doesn't make sense, 
but from my experience, the appearance of being clean is the best middle 
ground between having no potentially offensive images at all and shoving 
it in readers' faces.

Until we can have an option of viewing the same document with or without 
potentially offensive images, we *must* err on the side of caution and 
provide a link. It's the same as not directly linking to Goatse but 
giving users' an option to visit the site if they *really* want to. Why 
should this be any different? Is not directly linking to Goatse 
attempting to control how you see the world?

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])