Hi Chris,
It's worth a look, and I hope it's reasonably clear.
You asked why I felt sexual content is more likely to cause harm than other situations, or the Saudi example - I don't think I did say that? What I was trying to say anywhoo is simply that sexual content carries a fairly high risk of causing harm if published without consent. I gather OTRS volunteers confirm that the people who get in touch upset about sexual images of themselves published on commons are often distraught - I'd like us to avoid this, and I don't really feel it's helpful to obfuscate the issue with other matters of potential concern - that's just my thoughts.
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Chris McKenna
<cmckenna@sucs.org> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, private musings wrote:
> You might consider sexual content as material which has a fairly high risk
> of causing harm if published without consent, I guess.
Why do you think "sexual content" (however that vauge term is defined)
more likely to cause harm if published than any other situation?
What "harm" is done surely depends on a combination of the individual
depicted, their attitude they have to whatever it was they were
doing, the laws of the country that person resides in, the laws of the
country the photograph was taken in, the attitude of the law enforcement
of both places, the attitude of the media in both those places, the
attitude of the general public in both those places.
For example a photograph of a high-profile Saudi Arabian woman wearing a
very conservative one-piece swimsuit has the potential to cause more harm
than a photograph of the genitals of an adult French man with no high
publuc profile while he is having vanilla sex with an adult French woman
with an equally low public profile.
>
> Further, I think that we currently only require consent of privately taken
> photos if the person is identifiable - so for example if someone were to
> upload an image of them have sex with their ex-boyfriend, and perhaps only
> his genitals are visible, then under current practice, commons would not
> require his consent to publish this picture - I'm suggesting that it's
> probably best if we do require consent from all parties, for all sexual
> content (see the proposal page for specific definitions) - really because I
> do tend to think it's a higher risk for causing harm.
Why would an image of an unidentifiable man's genitals cause more harm
than an image of an identifable man shoplifiting for example?
----
Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org
www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes,
but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery