On 4/4/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/3/06, Sydney Poore poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
I wasn't surprised that the images were there. I was disgusted that an editor added the links. There is a difference I think. :-)
Recently, another editor emailed me to ask me to check out 5 external links on an article. He was at work and couldn't safely pull them up. Some of the images there were horrible. I don't think merely looking at this type of material causes some one to fall into moral decay. Personally it saddens me to see images of young children being sexually exploited. These images are being promoted on these sites. Very different than showing them for educational purposes.
Children involved in sexually explicit acts is illegal in all the ways that come to mind. Most picture gallery links are non-encyclopedic spam. I don't see why we would need new policies to cover this.
The link in question is to a lolicon (ie. cartoon porn) site. It's legal in the US and Japan, and probably a number of other parts of the world.
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]