On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
You know, I think the precise details of child
exploitation law is a
topic best discussed elsewhere. This discussion has gone way past
anything that is actually relevant to Wikipedia.
This discussion is quite obviously relevant to Wikipedia. I personally
don't think the precise details of child exploitation law aren't
particularly relevant, but that's because I think Wikipedia's principles
should be based on ethics and not on the law. However, I believe you were
the one who suggested that Wikipedia's inclusion standards should be based
solely on the law, so rather than simply dismiss this idea I thought we
should examine the law. I also think there are a number of things we can
learn from the law. The law isn't perfect, but I think most of us can agree
that child pornography is something that should be restricted. Maybe I'm
wrong about this, though. There certainly seems to be a lot of confusion
over what child pornography is, and why it is illegal.