Charlotte, you present a well-researched and compelling point. There have been efforts to inject some rationality into the curation of images on Commons; I&#39;m hoping that some of those who&#39;ve been involved with that will comment here. It seems that your research could pretty easily be compiled into a policy or set of guidelines, and be put to use without a great deal of effort.<div>

<br></div><div>Fred, while that&#39;s an interesting debate, I&#39;m not sure how it relates to Charlotte&#39;s point? Charlotte&#39;s point turns on &quot;sexually explicit conduct&quot; as defined in a specific piece of the U.S. code. I don&#39;t think the images you reference could possibly be covered by that definition. Is there some connection I&#39;m missing?</div>

<div><br></div><div>Can anybody speak to how this part of the law is reflected in policies on Commons, and whether there have been recent efforts to reconcile the two? My sense is that Charlotte is probably right, and that posting the argument she makes on the appropriate page in Commons could support the images&#39; removal without a whole lot of room for argument. I know these things can be contentious, but I don&#39;t see much wiggle room on this one. </div>

<div><br></div><div>-Pete</div>