Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit/Archive 2

message: Its a very loaded word. Who gets to define it? Christians? Homophobes? horseboy 13:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that Redrup from which that phrase wqas quoted, was overruled later, and the Miller test is now the key legal standard, and is tracked in the Florida law. Note also that the legal definitions are of "obscene" works. "Indecent", and a legal category, is no longer used. "Obscene" works (in the U.S.) are works which are not afforded first admendment protection, and which a govt is free to simply ban if it so chooses. DES (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Note also the description of the judgements under that standard, while it was in effect, (in The Bretheren by Woodward among other places). The 9 Justices could not generally agree on what was and was not "obscene" under that standard -- each had a personal standard, a PoV, and no two standards quite agreed. DES (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is decency 

message: I just read through the Florida decency law linked to on this page ().  Here are the two relevant definitions:
:(6) "Harmful to minors" means any reproduction, imitation, characterization, description, exhibition, presentation, or representation, of whatever kind or form, depicting nudity, sexual conduct, or sexual excitement when it: 
::(a) Predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of minors; 
::(b) Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and 
::(c) Taken as a whole, is without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
:[...]
:(10) "Obscene" means the status of material which:
::(a) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
 
::(b) Depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct as specifically defined herein; and 
::(c) Taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
The argument then becomes whether or not a certain article or piece of media "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."  I think it's interesting that "academic" and "informational" are left out here, but I think we can make a good argument that most of what you'll see on Wikipedia--including pictures of a man autofellating--have legitimate scientific value.  If attempting to document the whole of human knowledge isn't a scientific pursuit, I don't know what is. - Haunti 13:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Another question is whether or not the image, etc. is needed to explain or demonstrate the concept in question. Is is absolutely neccessary to show some of these items to explain what it is? How did people know about it prior to images being taken of it? -Visorstuff 15:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A valid question for Wikipedia overall. However, if that criterion is only going to be applied to so-called "offensive" images, I would be tempted to say that it is POV. - Haunti 17:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you will find that, from a legal PoV, an image does not need to be needed to be protected. An image may have "value" if it helps make the meaning or content of the work clearer or more vivid, whether it is needed or not. Note also that the other key words are Taken as a whole. The case law on this is clear -- this means the whole work, not a single image or passage of text. In the Miller case, this meant that the entire book had to be judged as "without value" to be held as obscene. I strongly suspect (although I am not a lawyer, and there has never been a case quite like this as far as I know) that this would mean a judge would need to find that all of wikipedia lacked value before it could be held either obscene or "harmful to minors". At worst, it would mean an entire article including its images. DES (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Florida Law

message: * Hipocrite 17:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing users from this project, for any reason, is wrong 

message: *Hipocrite 17:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing any non-sockpuppet from this project, for any reason, is wrong 

message: *Hipocrite 17:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing any user from this project is fine, but reinserting oneself into the project should be definitive and final 

message: ::I will never join a consensus with this result. It is DOA. Hipocrite 12:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing any obvious troll from this project is fine 

message: #Radiant_>|< 09:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
# ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 10:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[m:polls are evil]]

message: If selected as the project adminstrator, I would use my powers of user removal to delete users who I believed were not serious. I would not delete a user who then reinserted themselves, regardles of provocation. Hipocrite 18:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project "Adminstrator"