[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 05/05/12 22:25, paul sutton wrote: > > I suppose the word Naked springs to mind in terms of safety, such as Do > not use naked flames near > flammable liquids, if that was blocked it would be interesting from a > safety point of view I think there are a lot more, and the slang varies with context. Remember "rubbers" are "erasers" in US English. Indeed one of the CDs I have in the car has a load of lyrics based on similar double entendres, and any rudeness is entirely in the listeners head I'm sure. I'm not sure such errors are the major problem. However the point is that such lists have errors, or misclassifications, whatever the cause of those errors (and I don't rule out malice on the part of the list compiler. Think website of political party the list compositor doesn't like just before the general election. These errors are of both types - sites missing (inevitable as the web grows and changes), and sites added in error. Whilst people opt into a provider of censorship, then the errors are the fault of the supplier. I think opting out does change the legal argument around such errors, if only because of the numbers involved, but whether it does so sufficiently to change how courts view it is another question. Often the main victim will be the difficult edge cases, especially if classification is done mechanically; Rape victim support, sex education, safe sex advice - pick one you want to block that you think might be less important than preventing your kid seeing porn. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq