[WikiEN-l] Illegal sources

Fri Apr 7 13:53:40 UTC 2006

The exact language in the protocol is that the following activities  
ought to be prohibited:

(c) Producing, distributing, disseminating, importing, exporting,  
offering, selling or possessing for the above purposes child  
pornography as defined in article 2.

Article 2:

(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 claim that one is just researching pornography can only go so  
far, but viewing is not listed. I think the duty of the viewer is to  
recognize it "when they see it" and then refrain from doing such bad  
things as publishing it, disseminating it or downloading it.

Fred

On Apr 7, 2006, at 3:34 AM, Keith Old wrote:

> I think that content that cannot be verified other than by  
> accessing illegal
> materials is unverifiable. As well, our policy on sourcing requires  
> reliable
> third-party sources. Thus a Reuters report for example on the raids  
> would be
> deemed to be a reliable source. A cached copy of the material is not a
> reliable third party source quite apart from its illegality.
>
> Of course, there are materials that are illegal to view in one  
> country that
> are perfectly legal in another. It is probably illegal to view neutral
> accounts of the Tianenmen Square protests in 1989. It is not in  
> most other
> countries and would obviously considered as verifiable material.
>
> However, I understand that there is an Optional Protocol to the
> International Convention on the Rights of the Child see (
> http://www.law-ref.org/CHILDPROTOCOL2/index.html ).
>
> Perhaps it should be considered a banning offence to provide links to
> materials that contravene this protocol or to upload images that  
> contravene
> it. As it is an international agreement, it might be considered as  
> more of
> an international standard. Such materials should certainly not be  
> considered
> to be verifiable and editors should be encouraged to remove it on  
> sight.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Keith Old