« Back to story "Wikipedia Refuses to Be Censored"

Story Comments

Posted by: engineer 1 year, 8 months ago

This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.

All Comments Share Story Report

Neutral
engineer1 year, 8 months ago

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

Good for Wikipedia

(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
Reply
4 Replies

loading ...
- Neutral
  Dionys1 year, 8 months ago
  
  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
  
  Really? Because you could use the exact same arguments they're using to *not* censor child pornography.
  
  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
  Reply
  3 Replies
  
  loading ...
  - Neutral
    earthlingerer1 year, 8 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    Making or disseminating child pornography is a crime. Doing such with pictures of muhummad, drawn by faithful muslims, or anyone else is not.
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
    Reply
    2 Replies
    
    loading ...
    - Neutral
      Dionys1 year, 8 months ago
      
      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
      
      "Making or disseminating child pornography is a crime." I agree that it should be, but it's not in every country.
      "Doing such with pictures of muhummad, drawn by faithful muslims, or anyone else is not." Unfortunately it *is* a crime in many countries.
      What it comes down to is that both are highly offensive acts to groups of people.
      
      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply
      1 Reply
      
      loading ...
      - Neutral
        wyrdotter1 year, 8 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        The problem is that whether something is "offensive" or not should not be a publication criteria. If something "offends" you, put on your Big Girl Panties and accept that not everyone shares your tastes, values or standards. "What it comes down to" is that child pornography injures and exploits living children; Muhammad's been dead for several hundred years and isn't being harmed in any way by artwork depicting his image, nor are his followers being harmed in any measurable way, merely annoyed.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        0 Replies
        
        loading ...