On Apr 7, 2006, at 2:43 PM, David Alexander Russell wrote:
I think the point that he was making is that perceptions are not the main problem in a case such as this - many child porn laws make no distinction between real and simulated child porn images, so *objectively* these images *are* child porn
But many child porn laws *do* make the distinction, so *objectively* these images *are not* child porn.
As we can both see, it's useless to argue about whether the images themselves are, objectively, child pornography. That's not what matters, though. It's an irrelevant question. The real question is: was the image of net positive value to the encyclopedia? Due to the legal liabilities, PR risks, and general disrepute attached to the image, I argue that it was of net *negative* value, and ought to have been deleted on those grounds.