Tim Starling wrote: > > Libertarians want all information to be available to everyone. Some > say all adults, some say children too should be included. Their > principles allow for individuals to choose for themselves to avoid > seeing that which offends them, which leaves the problem of how the > reader is meant to tell in advance whether a given picture might > offend them, before they have actually seen it. > > Their ideology does not allow them to consider any solution which > involves one person making a decision on behalf of another, and all > the reasonable solutions seem to involve some element of this. So they > are left with no option but to downplay the impact of seeing offensive > content. > > >
Plainly put, my view is this. An individual should be able to make this choice. An individuals proxy should be able to make this choice for them. I may have different ideas about when in a natural justice sense such proxying of choice should happen, but in law parents often do, and some places schools do (in loco parentis), and there are other special cases. What I do object to is any solution that facilitates one person or a group of persons for making that choice for another group, without them being their proxies. That is to say, parents or schools making those choices, I find defensible, though not ideal (I do think those choises often have unintended consequences, including the retardation of their pupils education and developement as human beings). However, whatever gloss you put on it, I am not comfortable with the state, or a religious community doing it, or helping the state or religious community do it. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
