On 4/7/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)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
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