Ryan Delaney wrote:
On 4/7/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Some of us feel that even if the image had been free, it still should never have been included in Wikipedia. Concentrating on its copyright status is ignoring the real debate, rather than deciding once and for all how to deal with images that would be perceived by the public to be child porn.
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.
There's no child, only a drawing. No child + porn = no child porn.