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.
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...
Jay
On 4/7/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
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.
Cynical
Philip Welch wrote:
On Apr 7, 2006, at 5:40 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
I'm not convinced there's much reason to include *any* images of *any* sex acts, involving children or otherwise. Does Britannica?
We're not just trying to replace Britannica; we're trying to replace specialized encyclopedias as well. I'm sure that an encyclopedia of sexual behavior would include sketches of varying sexual positions much like our own.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFENt3Ig8fvtQYQevcRAnatAJ43HQBncdoAz7JKBoyh3JsY0sILlgCffOwo 9WJLsFIDsFl9n1a6HaFGyjg= =ebNJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l