[WikiEN-l] Illegal sources

Fri Apr 7 12:52:31 UTC 2006

On 7 Apr 2006 at 11:45, Mikkerpikker <mikkerpikker at gmail.com> wrote:

> Excellent idea! I have just looked at the protocol, and can see no
> reason why Wikipedia can't adopt it for this specific (and very
> serious and potentially damaging) issue of child porn.

But would the picture under recent debate count as "child porn" under 
that protocol?  The definition there is:

  (c) Child pornography means any representation, by whatever means,  
  of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities  
  or any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily  
  sexual purposes.

The picture was a cartoon.  This was clearly not "real".  Maybe it 
can be argued to be "simulated", but only in a cartoony manner, not 
anything approximating a realistic simulation.  The girl in question 
was pulling down her pants, but no "explicit sexual activities" were 
actually shown.  Is her bare (cartoon) butt a "sexual part"?

In the trailer for the SpongeBob SquarePants movie (approved for 
general audiences by the MPAA), SpongeBob drops his SquarePants, and 
you see a brief image of his cartoon butt.  Is that pornographic?

If you start defining things based on what the viewers of the picture 
think about (are they sexually aroused, or do they just find it 
humorous?) then you get in the territory of "Thought Crime".  If 
enough people get aroused by the Sears lingerie catalog, should that 
be classified as pornographic too?

-- 
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/