On 7 Apr 2006 at 11:45, Mikkerpikker mikkerpikker@gmail.com wrote:
Excellent idea! I have just looked at the protocol, and can see no reason why Wikipedia can't adopt it for this specific (and very serious and potentially damaging) issue of child porn.
But would the picture under recent debate count as "child porn" under that protocol? The definition there is:
(c) Child pornography means any representation, by whatever means, of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily sexual purposes.
The picture was a cartoon. This was clearly not "real". Maybe it can be argued to be "simulated", but only in a cartoony manner, not anything approximating a realistic simulation. The girl in question was pulling down her pants, but no "explicit sexual activities" were actually shown. Is her bare (cartoon) butt a "sexual part"?
In the trailer for the SpongeBob SquarePants movie (approved for general audiences by the MPAA), SpongeBob drops his SquarePants, and you see a brief image of his cartoon butt. Is that pornographic?
If you start defining things based on what the viewers of the picture think about (are they sexually aroused, or do they just find it humorous?) then you get in the territory of "Thought Crime". If enough people get aroused by the Sears lingerie catalog, should that be classified as pornographic too?
On 4/7/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
If you start defining things based on what the viewers of the picture think about (are they sexually aroused, or do they just find it humorous?) then you get in the territory of "Thought Crime". If enough people get aroused by the Sears lingerie catalog, should that be classified as pornographic too?
No, things should be defined based on what the creators intended the viewers of the picture to think about. Otherwise you delete pictures of sheep on account of the Welsh.
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
On 4/7/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
If you start defining things based on what the viewers of the picture think about (are they sexually aroused, or do they just find it humorous?) then you get in the territory of "Thought Crime". If enough people get aroused by the Sears lingerie catalog, should that be classified as pornographic too?
No, things should be defined based on what the creators intended the viewers of the picture to think about. Otherwise you delete pictures of sheep on account of the Welsh.
Well, I guess we'll have to delete all the pictures of sheep uploaded by New Zealanders then.
On 4/7/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
But would the picture under recent debate count as "child porn" under that protocol? The definition there is:
(c) Child pornography means any representation, by whatever means, of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily sexual purposes.
The picture was a cartoon. This was clearly not "real". Maybe it
"any representation, by whatever means" seems ot cover cartoon to me.
can be argued to be "simulated", but only in a cartoony manner, not anything approximating a realistic simulation. The girl in question was pulling down her pants, but no "explicit sexual activities" were actually shown. Is her bare (cartoon) butt a "sexual part"?
Um, look closer at teddy.
If you start defining things based on what the viewers of the picture think about (are they sexually aroused, or do they just find it humorous?) then you get in the territory of "Thought Crime". If enough people get aroused by the Sears lingerie catalog, should that be classified as pornographic too?
It has nothing to do with thought crimes. This photo came from an erotic/pornographic magazine - I don't think the magazine makes any bones about that fact.
But yeah, this isn't my favourite topic. If you don't see any shame in Wikipedia making that image publicly visible, then we're just in disagreement.
Steve
"any representation"
Fred
On Apr 7, 2006, at 6:52 AM, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 7 Apr 2006 at 11:45, Mikkerpikker mikkerpikker@gmail.com wrote:
Excellent idea! I have just looked at the protocol, and can see no reason why Wikipedia can't adopt it for this specific (and very serious and potentially damaging) issue of child porn.
But would the picture under recent debate count as "child porn" under that protocol? The definition there is:
(c) Child pornography means any representation, by whatever means, of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily sexual purposes.
The picture was a cartoon. This was clearly not "real". Maybe it can be argued to be "simulated", but only in a cartoony manner, not anything approximating a realistic simulation. The girl in question was pulling down her pants, but no "explicit sexual activities" were actually shown. Is her bare (cartoon) butt a "sexual part"?
In the trailer for the SpongeBob SquarePants movie (approved for general audiences by the MPAA), SpongeBob drops his SquarePants, and you see a brief image of his cartoon butt. Is that pornographic?
If you start defining things based on what the viewers of the picture think about (are they sexually aroused, or do they just find it humorous?) then you get in the territory of "Thought Crime". If enough people get aroused by the Sears lingerie catalog, should that be classified as pornographic too?
-- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I argued on the talk page that it was "explicit sexual activities". Others disagreed. Said that it was implied. Fantasy. Abstract thinking that could be interpreted in different ways. If I recall correctly, I was in the minority on this point. Sydney
Fred Bauder wrote:
"any representation"
Fred
On Apr 7, 2006, at 6:52 AM, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 7 Apr 2006 at 11:45, Mikkerpikker mikkerpikker@gmail.com wrote:
Excellent idea! I have just looked at the protocol, and can see no reason why Wikipedia can't adopt it for this specific (and very serious and potentially damaging) issue of child porn.
But would the picture under recent debate count as "child porn" under that protocol? The definition there is:
(c) Child pornography means any representation, by whatever means, of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily sexual purposes.
The picture was a cartoon. This was clearly not "real". Maybe it can be argued to be "simulated", but only in a cartoony manner, not anything approximating a realistic simulation. The girl in question was pulling down her pants, but no "explicit sexual activities" were actually shown. Is her bare (cartoon) butt a "sexual part"?
In the trailer for the SpongeBob SquarePants movie (approved for general audiences by the MPAA), SpongeBob drops his SquarePants, and you see a brief image of his cartoon butt. Is that pornographic?
If you start defining things based on what the viewers of the picture think about (are they sexually aroused, or do they just find it humorous?) then you get in the territory of "Thought Crime". If enough people get aroused by the Sears lingerie catalog, should that be classified as pornographic too?
-- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l