On 4/4/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Revulsive as it is, I fail to see how making an ink drawing violates anyone's rights. The reason child pornography is illegal isn't because it's sick, it's because it can't be produced without sexually assaulting children, and sexually assaulting children is wrong (as is financially supporting such assaults).
Cartoons don't necessarily involve assault. They're just revolting.
Simulated child porn (involving photoshop etc) can be illegal, too. The basic argument goes along the lines of it making the line of acceptable/unacceptable blurrier, people could end up thinking child abuse is acceptable etc etc.
All of which is irrelevant to WP - we shouldn't have anything vaguely resembling child porn because it makes us look really bad, which gets in the way of our mission. People were willing to argue at length for the inclusion of one image over another, claiming that the encyclopaedia was suffering. Whereas they could have just been working on some other article.
Steve