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?
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?)