[WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

[SPUI]

Sam Korn wrote:
> On 4/7/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> 
>>So it's not whether the *public* would perceive it to be child porn--
>>it's whether *Ryan Delaney* would perceive it to be child porn.
> 
> Please give a definition under which it is *not* child porn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#Definitions

The definition of "child pornography" differs from country to country. 
Most prohibit visual depictions of sexual activities involving actual 
children under a specified age. Some countries go further and prohibit 
all depictions of nudity of minors, whether or not the minor is depicted 
in an erotic pose or as engaging in a sex act. The broader prohibitions 
have led to controversy over pictures that are considered to have 
artistic merit; works by several prominent photographers, including 
Sally Mann and Jock Sturges, have been challenged as child pornography 
and sometimes banned. Still, in some countries, naturist magazines with 
depictions of nude children do not fall under the definition of child 
pornography, and are easily available.

Some countries prohibit visual depictions even when no actual children 
were involved in the making of the image. Such depictions may including 
paintings, drawings, or computer-generated images. (See "Simulated child 
pornography" below.) In some countries, not only visual depictions but, 
also, written works may fall within the definition of child pornography.

The minimum legal age for a depicted person varies from country to 
country. Some countries set one age for "hardcore" pornography and 
another for "softcore" pornography.

Most countries' laws provide an exception for materials that have 
artistic merit. Some prominent examples of this principle are Romeo and 
Juliet (the play and films), and Lolita (the novel and films). 
Subsequently, "lolita" has become a common codeword for child 
pornography, legal or not.