On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster(a)davidarussell.co.uk> wrote: Without wishing to be querulous, we then need to define "sexually suggestive poses". -- Sam

Minors engaged in sexually suggestive poses is too broad Too many movie posters and CD (album) covers would be eliminated. Key to this is age appropriate sexual activity. Depictions of teens or pre-teens acting sexually suggestive towards each other is okay. Sydney Sam Korn wrote: -- Sydney Poore Go Bengals!

You are pointing to an important problem, mildly suggestive images are used by the mainstream media to say nothing of the obvious fact that it is normal for children to engage in innocent sexual behavior. I think what we are after is those images (and sites) that cross over a poorly defined line into sexual exploitation of children. I would say that if some of our readers find an image or link objectionable, we should not include it. "Some" being a substantial fraction. We should not be mislead by our own reactions to an image. Having viewed goatse, our perspective is a bit warped. Fred On Apr 8, 2006, at 8:07 AM, Sydney Poore wrote:

On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster(a)davidarussell.co.uk> wrote: No. That would give the campaigners and trolls a target to try to game.

On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster(a)davidarussell.co.uk> wrote: Apart from people finding an image of child pornography that doesn't fit into the narrow bands. It needs to be generally worded, but explicit inclusions are possible. For example: "Any image of child pornography, whether photography, drawing or computer-generated, including but not limited to any image depicting children engaged in sexual intercourse or posing with sex toys." And people wonder why I don't write articles... (they don't, actually, but it suits my rhetorical point to say they do) -- Sam

The image boards with lolicon have images that are clearly inappropriate for display on Wikipedia. Many of them fall outside of that definition. For example, very young children masturbating for sexual gratification. I think Tony is right. If the description is too specific then people will try to game it. Some of the images are too disgusting to describe here. That is the reason that I don't think we should have external links to them. I don't have a problem with naming the image boards in the article and even giving the site http. But I don't think we should have active links to them. There is a low grade edit dispute about this at Lolicon article now. Sydney David Alexander Russell wrote: -- Sydney Poore Go Bengals!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Alexander Russell stated for the record: A pair of one-inch diameter metal balls. Sex toy, or parts of a bearing? - -- Sean Barrett | We completely deny the allegations, and sean(a)epoptic.org | we're trying to identify the alligators.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Alexander Russell stated for the record: An article on "Magz," which is a toy based on magnetic sticks and steel balls. The balls are smaller than an inch, but my point is that someone out to game the system can game any standard you set up. - -- Sean Barrett | We completely deny the allegations, and sean(a)epoptic.org | we're trying to identify the alligators.

David Alexander Russell wrote: When it comes to that disputed lolicon picture I would not independently have noticed that the teddy bear had an erection. It only became apparent when I was told. How many of us noticed that without being told. The Danish cartoons that caused the fuss among Muslims could not have been obvious representations of the prophet until somebody said so. Nobody knows what Mohammed really looked like because there were no cameras in the 7th century. A picture of a child holding a big cigar is not implicitly a representation the child's erotic fantasies about his or her father until somebody says so. As Freud said :"Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar" A good writer or artist can bring out the erotic in situations where you would never imagine it possible. Companies spend enormous amounts of money trying to achieve software security, but the hackers still find their way around the protection. Ec

On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster(a)davidarussell.co.uk> wrote: Let's be stronger: Any image containing: - elements of erotica, - and depictions of people, real or fictitious, apparently under 18. I don't really see the argument for being inclusionist. Keeping borderline cases causes us problems, and causes us to have to justify those inclusions. Steve

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Steve Bennett wrote: Your criteria are ridiculous. You know how much perfectly legal anime (which airs on Cartoon Network, among other things) you just made "illegal" with your broad brush stroke? Am I the only one who finds it ludicrous to talk about whether a drawn image on a piece of paper looks like it is depicting someone over the age of 18?! - -- Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys") ~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~

On 4/8/06, Ben McIlwain <cydeweys(a)gmail.com> wrote: Don't forget, I'm not trying to draw a moral or legal line here. I'm trying to draw a line for what material we can comfortably defend our inclusion. Obviously 18 is a ludicrous hard limit, but that's the one that most (Americans) believe in. Steve

On 4/9/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hmm, good points. I think in that example, the "level" of erotica is much lower, and such an image would be offensive to many less people. Context would probably play a part too. Steve

On Apr 8, 2006, at 1:12 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: We don't need to make a policy because of this single specific case, because we're not deluged by child pornography. If this case recurs, then we can deal with it the same way we dealt with this one. When mass uploads of child porn take place, then and only then should we develop policy. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

G'day Steve, Hmm. Where does a screenshot from /Lolita/ stand under this criteria? (Having neither read the book nor seen the movies, I apologise if this question is irrelevant.) -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/305 - Release Date: 8/04/2006

On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 14:47:57 +0100, you wrote: Alternatively we could ask ourselves who would argue to keep an image which is construed by multiple experienced editors as, in context, apparent paedophile pornography. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG