Yep.
Bands get to name themselves how they like. Concert venues get to decide whether they care about the name.
"Loli" is a reference to underage girls, usually in a sexual context. Some people will be offended by this, and it's up to any organisation whether they want to be associated with this.
Similarly, if you tell someone "smhost" is offensive, and describe _why_ and _how_ it's offensive, it's up to them to decide whether they want to continue to be associated with it, or if they want to change.
If someone gets offended, you look and say "Why were they offended". Ask yourself if it's reasonable, if the case is that the name is referencing trafficking underage girls then you might think, OK, maybe this is a joke, but it is something that a reasonable person might get offended by and if you want to foster a professional atmosphere then you would change it.
I think if you went to the the arch maintainers and asked them to change the name pacman because you were traumatised by nightmares of the game pacman as a child they would tell you to get lost. However, that isn't really what is happening here.
Because they choose not to. Each venue, organisation, or city which lawfully has influence over such events has the right to refuse. Neither case is "banning".
2001: "Rammstein were unable to play their show yesterday at the Astoria in London due to significant restrictions to their stageshow and pyrotechnics. The band feel it would be unfair to their fans, to see a show that would have become highly compromised. If these issues can be resolved the band promises to return to the UK later in the year for live shows. Rammstein apologize for letting their fans down due to a problem which was out of their hands"
At least in my original post, a key part of my argument is that no-one is requiring alucard to change the name of the mirror. The only question is whether the mirror will be listed. Thus, I think it is analogous to asking whether I would remove a link to ycombinator.com from a page I controlled if I were offended by the URL, or if I might try to hide posts from smhost if I were offended by his or her handle; and either of those seems like a reasonable response (even if taking offense itself would clearly be unreasonable).
Let me reword this then. Why should an entity remove something from their listings when the offended entity can remove it from the local listing on its machine? The thing is - in the first case we are talking about public lists available for everybody. Why should the majority of users be left without and additional source of distribution (for example)?
But yes, obviously it's up to Arch maintainers wether they want this to be there or not.
> But it would be a bit distasteful to use it as a new name. Especially if you use it intentionally with the intent of causing offence.
I think that your second sentence is an important qualification. I almost wished that they'd stuck with the name, just to emphasise that a bunch of terrorist asshats don't get to dictate what words others can use; I think that such a useage would have been (very mildly) heroic rather than offensive.
(I like to imagine all the children telling their parents they were going to London to "study with ISIS" causing huge parental conniptions until the penny dropped.)
