On 4/7/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
It's not even that the public would perceive that image to be child porn. It is child porn. It's an image of a child created for the sole purpose of producing pleasurable sexual excitation in the viewer. Child + porn = child porn. Process isn't relevant when it comes to stuff like this. Whether we should host child porn on WMF servers is not something that is up for a vote.
Depends what you mean, "up for a vote". To me, Wikipedia *could* take the line that hosting images such as the one that sparked this discussion is acceptable, or justified for whatever reason. But I doubt that the Foundation would be silly enough to let that happen.
In other words, I'm not certain, but I suspect that that image would be legal in many parts of the world. But there are all sorts of good reasons for not including it, that have nothing to do with legality.
Steve