discuss: Inappropriate contents
Subject:
Re: [discuss] Inappropriate contents
From:
Robert ####@####.####
Date:
17 Nov 2009 03:31:40 +0000
Message-Id: <4B02190D.4050903@portbridge.com>
Look I think we all can agree that a classy picture of a nude person is
also considered pornography in the U.S. Perhaps in other countries this
isn't an issue, but it seems to be here in the U.S.
If you ask me, just a simple naked picture is nothing more than that, we
all have the same parts and by nature we are all turned on by them. If
the subjects are having intercourse or doing anything beyond just
showcasing their body I would imagine that everyone throughout the world
would consider thatn pornography.
Just like Wal Mart, Target and all other major chain retailers use
"Happy Holidays" over "Merry Christmas" to be neutral I believe we
should all remain neutral and agree that if there is a body part exposed
to consider this pornography. It keeps everyone happy and isn't that the
goal?
Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Charles Curley ####@####.####
>
>
>> Can LDP restrict the use of the LDP material in this way under the terms
>> of the various licenses LDP contributors have used?
>>
>
> I'm unclear on why you're asking, since Jean-Daniel was not proposing to
> deny anyone the right to host copies, but rather suggesting LDP's
> non-cooperation with (what amount to) porn hosting sites.
>
>
>> I also think you have a problem that the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't yet
>> solved: please define pornography.
>>
>
> I also note that Jean-Daniel wasn't proposing to define pornography,
> and doesn't need to. (He's not putting anyone on trial.)
>
> The real world has nuance in it. Deal.
>
>
