Yes, I like that better. It is less specific but a strong statement. Be prepared for the argument that child erotica is different from child porn. I'm having that problem on the Child modeling (erotica) article now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_modeling_%28erotic%29 Sydney
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 4/8/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
So, in other words, we need an accepted definition for what constitutes deletable child porn on Wikipedia. Something like
Any image, whether a photograph, drawing, or render, which depicts minors engaged in sexual activity or sexually suggestive poses. Let's be stronger: Any image containing:
- elements of erotica,
- and depictions of people, real or fictitious, apparently under 18.
I don't really see the argument for being inclusionist. Keeping borderline cases causes us problems, and causes us to have to justify those inclusions.
Steve