Re: [rain1 at airmail dot cc] Delete abortion joke

[Zach van Rijn <me at zv dot io>]

On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 17:11 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  3, 2018, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> 
> > In most cultures, government restrictions on access to information
> > which is specifically designed to enable people to commit illegal
> > acts are not considered censorship.  I don't think you can list
> > abortion in this context without taking sides.
> 
> There's law in the US that makes it a crime to publish information on
> how to circumvent digital handcuffs, you know.  Even if you rationalize
> it and frame it with another term to make it more palatable, it's still
> censorship of information for practical use.
> 
> GNU is the software development branch of the Free Software social and
> political movement.  We don't mind taking sides; in fact, if we didn't,
> it wouldn't be a social and political movement.  Our raison d'être are
> the essential freedoms over information for practical use.
> 

I agree with Florian's latter point: "I don't think you can list abortion
in this context without taking sides."

If it is appropriate for a "freedom fighter" to demand that a joke
supporting abortion be included in the manual, then it is appropriate for
a "freedom fighter" on the other "side" to demand that SIGCHLD be
relabeled "terminate an unwanted child process ignoring its silent
scream" --

Or perhaps, as I've stated previously, and numerous others have
expressed: the glibc manual is not the appropriate forum for a public
statement by either side of [the topic of human abortion]. Humor in
general? Censorship? As appropriate.

One proposed solution was to move specifically any discussion of
censorship to the Introductory section, as censorship appears to be the
core issue.

Your response was [00061]:
> Moving it elsewhere, where it's less effective, and removing the humor,
> that's one of the most effective ways to convey criticism and bypass
> learned rejections to such criticism, is just a softer form of
> censorship.  To me it comes across as "ok, you want to speak, go ahead
> and do so, but speak from this corner where pretty much nobody can see
> you, without a microphone, and don't make any effective criticism."
...
> A vague statement against censorship in general is nowhere as
> effective, and I don't assume you or anyone else here to be naîve
> enough to think it is.

I'll agree with you that this is absolutely true. So, as Zack [Weinberg]
proposed [00048]:

> Perhaps those that feel strongly that the FSF should be taking a
> position on this -- which I can sympathize with -- should write up an
> editorial to be published on fsf.org or gnu.org, instead.

It's clear, I feel, that if a polarizing "joke" is to be included, then
the organization must either:

(a) Permit such jokes on both "sides"; such as SIGCHLD 
    being redocumented to mention silent screams, or

(b) The organization as a whole needs to take a position on specific
    issues, and should do so definitively on their official website

> 
> I'm very disappointed and baffled that an allusion to a taboo topic
> that's two-levels removed, in a context in which the taboo topic is
> already established and unavoidable, is enough for people to gang up
> against not only the founder and leader of the movement, but also its
> most fundamental value, and to take the opposite side, practicing
> censorship and, by removing the criticism, taking the side of the
> censors that established the denounced censorship law.

Alexandre, you're minimizing the concerns of those who have already
clearly expressed dislike for the joke's existence, and conflating the
two issues that are (1) abortion and (2) censorship.

When you use the term "gang up" what you're saying is, that you notice
how (many) others have been vocal about keeping this particular joke out
of the documentation, a viewpoint you seem to oppose.

If I may quote RMS directly [00017]:
> A GNU manual, like a course in history, is not meant to be a "safe
> space".  It is meant to address a subject.  It must cover the function
> "abort", just as a course in Renaissance history must cover witch
> trials and the inquisition.

Perhaps the commit history of the manual would be a more instructive
course in history. No one has suggested removal of the library function
'abort()' as far as I'm aware. If a statement is to be made about this
particular law, a clear and direct statement in a more prominent location
(e.g., FSF or GNU main site). The joke is, again, unnecessarily confusing
and the manual is not an appropriate venue for it.

Quoting RMS directly again [00014]:
> We would not want to make a statement in a manual that would drive away
> a large fraction of our community.  However, we know from observation
> that it doesn't do that.  You're worried about hypothetical people
> that seem to be very rare.

Which is precisely your own argument for its inclusion (that only a small
fraction of the community seems to mind). This is a two-way street. I
would argue that only a small fraction of the community opposes its
removal, and that the overwhelming majority would not miss it.

Quoting you again [00052]:
> Please stop pretending the subject of the snippet is abortion.  The
> topic is censorship, and the irony of a group censoring a denouncement
> of censorship would be delicious if it weren't so tragic.

Likewise, please stop pretending it's not a sensitive topic and that
nobody cares about whether it's a direct joke or a "two-levels removed"
allusion. Your point is clear. If it weren't a tool to further your
political movement, you wouldn't be "freedom fighting" those who wish it
removed.

> 
> I'd have thought essential core values and the project leader's request
> would trample aesthetic reasons, personal preferences and even the
> discomfort of extending the coverage of a taboo topic.  But no, the
> project has been taken out of the hands of its founder, and most of the
> appointed stewards seem to think it's reasonable to disregard it, to
> betray the core values, to practice the opposite of what we should
> stand for, so that we can have bland, pasteurized, neutral purely
> technical documentation that won't bring anyone any moral
> discomfort.  Way to go to open sores hell: losing the moral backbone,
> standing for nothing, giving up and betraying the essential 
> freedoms.  What a shame!
> 

Now, as far as FSF vs. GNU is concerned, if GNU is going to "take a side"
which "side" will it be? What gives you the right to assume that it won't
be the other wide which also views itself as "freedom fighter"?

I look forward to reading an official statement or editorial on the
matter.

Respectfully,

ZV