G'day Jay,
[Context restored, for what little good it does]
On 4/7/06, David Alexander Russell
<webmaster(a)davidarussell.co.uk>
wrote:
Exactly. Child porn images shouldn't be
included for moral and
legal reasons but ordinary sexual images (where they are relevant
to the article of course) are perfectly fine. WP:NOT censored for
minors.
That's ridiculous. Ten minutes of research, even, will clarify to
anyone who viewed the image that it is _not_ legally child
pornography, no matter how you interpret the PROTECT Act's
constitutionality. There's no legal reason to remove a completely
legal image.
Three minutes' research shows me that you're committing that cardinal
sin of assuming everybody else is American. Why should David --- or
anybody else here --- give a flying fuck *what* the PROTECT Act says?
Are you incapable of interpreting country codes, or just persistently
unobservant?
And morality is entirely subjective. Arguing that a
certain image is
"immoral" is *not* a valid argument in the context of Wikipedia,
because we have to adhere to WP:NPOV. You, personally, see this
drawing as morally wrong. I do not.
I *do* think censorship is morally wrong, though...
Well, good for you. Hopefully you've thought that one through a bit
further than "titties and explosions good, children and sensitive women
bad".
(Does "censorship is morally wrong" count as an argument in favour of
keeping kiddie porn on the servers?)
--
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: 268.4.0/306 - Release Date: 9/04/2006