Peter Ansell wrote:
I apologised, but as yet the entire incident has
turned into a
firestorm I have only ever heard about in american politics. Poor
Aussie isn't used to being attacked. Still not taking back the
essential comment about GFDL childrens pictures posted on the net.
Laura made a good observation over on the AN/I thread that purveyors of
child pornography are unlikely to be concerned about whether the
pictures they're using are properly licensed. The issue of whether the
photos are under the GFDL seems like another irrelevant tangent.
I
am passionate about keeping all possible avenues for exploiting
children closed. It is illegal to post pictures of someone elses child
on the net in Australia, and I naturally assumed that they saw the
risks I guess, mostly because of the emphasis on bathrobes I think.
Wikimedia falls under a different jurisdiction, fortunately, or
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Children would be a lot more
sparsely populated. And those photos are of their own kids so that law
wouldn't apply here anyway.
I would appreciate even simple comments about how
badly things could
be taken, as I had not noticed the veracity of the statement until I
was brought back to it again. The crux of the statement shouldn't be
attacked though even if I expressed it in a bad way.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here.