Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Jay,
[Context restored, for what little good it does]
On 4/7/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
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.
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.
Three minutes' research shows me that you're committing that cardinal sin of assuming everybody else is American. Why should David --- or anybody else here --- give a flying fuck *what* the PROTECT Act says? Are you incapable of interpreting country codes, or just persistently unobservant?
For that matter, what the flying fuck *is* the PROTECT act?
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...
Well, good for you. Hopefully you've thought that one through a bit further than "titties and explosions good, children and sensitive women bad".
(Does "censorship is morally wrong" count as an argument in favour of keeping kiddie porn on the servers?)
Morally wrong or not, the image was a copyright violation.
BTW, would you like to have goatse/tubgirl/autofellatio/(insert random Last Measure image here) on the servers?