[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: INFO : Artificial Justification for Info Group
In article <ghenDvHME3.C4n@netcom.com>,
Giri <gmadras@pinto.engr.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>>since that time, so it appears that sexually explicit web sites are
>>OK, but any post which mentions sex is not. Don't you see why it's
>>important to clarify such matters? If the goal of this newsgroup is to
>
> I agree that a policy regarding this is important. But you should
>also be aware a moderator is not capable of visiting each site advertised
>and reading it thoroughly to find there is any tantric material on the
I've never suggested that such a policy be implemented. In fact, my
views lean toward the opposite end. Right now, we _don't_ have a clear
policy on what gets banned for being "sexually explicit," and we have
a loophole where the same information which gets banned can appear on
web sites and be advertised on the group that way.
So, at this point, it's reasonable to ask why the guidelines are so
different, and if the ban on newsgroup postings is appropriate _in its
current form_. I'm not advocating posts which use profanity or
graphically describe things, but surely there cannot be unilateral
objection to some of the material which has been disallowed because of
the ban?
So, here's what I propose - clarify the rules regarding what is and
isn't allowed on SRH in a specific manner. Right now, the wording of
the policy and the enforcement are so vague that it does not help
posters reformulate their ideas in such a way as to make them
acceptable for SRH, and I would argue that goal of such rules should
be to encourage discussion in a way that it is acceptable to the SRH
readership, not stifle it.
-Vivek
