On Sat, December 6, 2008 22:47, geni wrote:
> 2008/12/6 Alison Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> The bigger issue at this exact moment *is* this exact moment. It is late
>> on a Saturday night and realistically the next news cycle that we could
>> get in to is not until Monday. As such it may be premature to announce
>> anything further at this present moment whilst further investigation is
>> carried out. eg. why this particular album cover but not Houses of the
>> Holy? What other pages are blocked? Indeed, why is not just the image
>> blocked but the whole page as it would be as easy to block the image
>> only?
>> etc.
> Stop thinking you are looking to talk to a bunch of free speech nuts.
> You are not. We are considering the UK media. Ideally they won't pick
> it up. If they do the story will be "wikipedia hosting child porn".
> Trying to tackle that head on is suicidally stupid. Their readers
> either won't care or won't understand the case that the images are not
> indecent. The same applies to the free speech argument.
> I hope you are an Eric Clapton fan because about the only defense line
> we have that might just might reduce the damage is comparing the thing
> to the  [[Blind Faith (album)]]. Sure we still get hammered but may be
> slightly reduced.
> --
> geni

Wikimedia UK mailing list

Reply via email to