Tony Sidaway said: "geni said:
Someone informed me that the law of Florida doesn't allow us to get rid of the bit of child porn at [[Lolicon]]. Perhaps we should get a second opinion from the Foundation's lawyers. I would be happy to see that trash off the website; at least the autofellatio guy is a grown-up doing it for fun.
US law allows simulated child porn at present (ie drawings, cgi, young looking models etc).
Well I won't make a big deal of it, but I do think it's absolutely vile."
No it is gross, but at least it's not a photo. I must say I'd never heard of Lolicon until I saw went to that page and saw this just now. I learn something new every day...
One point though: Florida is not the world so I'm nt sure why its laws are getting so much attention here....
--- Jack Lutz jack-lutz@comcast.net wrote:
One point though: Florida is not the world so I'm nt sure why its laws are
getting so much attention here....
Wikimedia is located in Florida.
The image in question is a cartoon of a little girl with her bare bottom exposed. That's all, just her bare bottom. I don't know about Florida, but commercials for baby products in California *very* often show the bare bottoms of very young children (real ones, not cartoons).
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Daniel Mayer said:
--- Jack Lutz jack-lutz@comcast.net wrote:
One point though: Florida is not the world so I'm nt sure why its laws are
getting so much attention here....
Wikimedia is located in Florida.
The image in question is a cartoon of a little girl with her bare bottom exposed. That's all, just her bare bottom. I don't know about Florida, but commercials for baby products in California *very* often show the bare bottoms of very young children (real ones, not cartoons).
She appears to be holding a teddy bear with a large dildo attached to its crotch.
The image in question is a cartoon of a little girl with her bare bottom exposed. That's all, just her bare bottom. I don't know about Florida, but commercials for baby products in California *very* often show the bare bottoms of very young children (real ones, not cartoons).
-- mav
I wonder what these overly-sensitive people would have done a few decades ago when one could see the classic Coppertone ad on a billboard, right out in public and all.
For those whose childhood didn't include this iconic image: Coppertone was a sunscreen product, the advertisements for which showed a drawing of a very young (under 10 years old) girl whose swimsuit bottom (as I recall, she wore nothing on top) was being pulled down by a cocker spaniel to reveal the contrast between her well-tanned back and very pale bottom.
Sean Barrett said:
For those whose childhood didn't include this iconic image: Coppertone was a sunscreen product, the advertisements for which showed a drawing of a very young (under 10 years old) girl whose swimsuit bottom (as I recall, she wore nothing on top) was being pulled down by a cocker spaniel to reveal the contrast between her well-tanned back and very pale bottom.
Was the spaniel equipped with a large dildo?
Was the spaniel equipped with a large dildo?
No, I must confess that I missed that detail in my cursory glance at the [[Lolicon]] image.
Sean Barrett said:
Was the spaniel equipped with a large dildo?
No, I must confess that I missed that detail in my cursory glance at the [[Lolicon]] image.
Arguably it isn't just the dildo, it's the composition. It's a child posed erotically. The look on the child's face is one of submission. The viewpoint is that of the abuser. I'm familiar with the suncream ad and none of those elements is present.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Sean Barrett said:
Was the spaniel equipped with a large dildo?
No, I must confess that I missed that detail in my cursory glance at the [[Lolicon]] image.
Arguably it isn't just the dildo, it's the composition. It's a child posed erotically. The look on the child's face is one of submission. The viewpoint is that of the abuser. I'm familiar with the suncream ad and none of those elements is present.
I have no problem with the illustration. It is a reasonable balance between good taste and a fair representation of what the topic is about. The simple fact that many would not notice the dildo without being told about it says a lot about the care that went into choosing the image. I'm sure that the contributor could have found far more objectionable drawings if he had so wanted.
Ec
--- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
The image in question is a cartoon of a little
girl with her bare bottom
exposed. That's all, just her bare bottom. I don't
know about Florida, but
commercials for baby products in California *very*
often show the bare bottoms
of very young children (real ones, not cartoons).
-- mav
I wonder what these overly-sensitive people would have done a few decades ago when one could see the classic Coppertone ad on a billboard, right out in public and all.
For those whose childhood didn't include this iconic image: Coppertone was a sunscreen product, the advertisements for which showed a drawing of a very young (under 10 years old) girl whose swimsuit bottom (as I recall, she wore nothing on top) was being pulled down by a cocker spaniel to reveal the contrast between her well-tanned back and very pale bottom.
The little girl who modeled for those ads was Jodie Foster.
RickK
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com
Someone informed me that the law of Florida doesn't allow us to get rid of the bit of child porn at [[Lolicon]].
Legally speaking, I think this is not said as precisely as it should be said. The law of Florida *does* allow us to get rid of this picture or any other. We are not required to publish anything we don't want to publish, period.
What Florida does not do is *require* us to get rid of this.
--Jimbo
Jimbo said:
What Florida does not do is *require* us to get rid of this.
Yes, I suppose that's what I meant. So, to the question: is an eroticized drawing of a child abuse victim suitable for Wikipedia?
--- Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Jimbo said:
What Florida does not do is *require* us to get rid of this.
Yes, I suppose that's what I meant. So, to the question: is an eroticized drawing of a child abuse victim suitable for Wikipedia?
Aside from an article on "eroticized drawings of child abuse victims", I can't imagine any place such a drawing would be relevant. And I'm not sure that the topic would deserve an article of its own.
-Rich Holton en.Wikipedia:User:Rholton
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
Rich Holton said:
--- Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
So, to the question: is an eroticized drawing of a child abuse victim suitable for Wikipedia?
Aside from an article on "eroticized drawings of child abuse victims", I can't imagine any place such a drawing would be relevant. And I'm not sure that the topic would deserve an article of its own.
Well that's apparently what Lolicon is about--child porn manga and anime.
--- Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Rich Holton said:
--- Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
So, to the question: is an eroticized drawing of a child abuse
victim
suitable for Wikipedia?
Aside from an article on "eroticized drawings of child abuse
victims",
I can't imagine any place such a drawing would be relevant. And I'm
not
sure that the topic would deserve an article of its own.
Well that's apparently what Lolicon is about--child porn manga and anime.
Tony,
I plead half-awakeness as my excuse for not seeing your point.
-Rich Holton
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Rich Holton said:
I plead half-awakeness as my excuse for not seeing your point.
No problem. Sometimes I don't express my point as well as I should.
What's hitting me on the funny bone is that I don't see the same people who are asking for the Autofellatio picture to be justified making the same point about the Lolicon picture. On the face of it, most of the reasons advanced for getting rid of the autofellatio picture, or at least making it a link, seem to hold up for Lolicon--if not even stronger. But the chap in the autofellatio picture is clearly an adult having a whole heap of fun. The girl in the Lolicon picture is submitting to child abuse, and the presentation is, or is intended to be, erotic. Perhaps the fact that the latter picture is an anime drawing is the reason why it seems to fly under so many radars.
No problem. Sometimes I don't express my point as well as I should. What's hitting me on the funny bone is that I don't see the same people who are asking for the Autofellatio picture to be justified making the same point about the Lolicon picture. On the face of it, most of the reasons advanced for getting rid of the autofellatio picture, or at least making it a link, seem to hold up for Lolicon--if not even stronger. But the chap in the autofellatio picture is clearly an adult having a whole heap of fun. The girl in the Lolicon picture is submitting to child abuse, and the presentation is, or is intended to be, erotic. Perhaps the fact that the latter picture is an anime drawing is the reason why it seems to fly under so many radars.
I'm currently involved in more content dissputes that I really have time for when those are resolved I'll start to think about what to do about this case.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Rich Holton said:
I plead half-awakeness as my excuse for not seeing your point.
No problem. Sometimes I don't express my point as well as I should.
What's hitting me on the funny bone is that I don't see the same people who are asking for the Autofellatio picture to be justified making the same point about the Lolicon picture. On the face of it, most of the
Sometimes it's better to just let your opponent in a debate make your point for you. You're doing a beautiful job making my point for me.
Nicholas Knight said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
the chap in the autofellatio picture is clearly an adult having a whole heap of fun. The girl in the Lolicon picture is submitting to child abuse, and the presentation is, or is intended to be, erotic.
Sometimes it's better to just let your opponent in a debate make your point for you. You're doing a beautiful job making my point for me.
Hardly.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Nicholas Knight said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
the chap in the autofellatio picture is clearly an adult having a whole heap of fun. The girl in the Lolicon picture is submitting to child abuse, and the presentation is, or is intended to be, erotic.
Sometimes it's better to just let your opponent in a debate make your point for you. You're doing a beautiful job making my point for me.
Hardly.
Yeah, it relies on you not realizing you're doing it.
Nicholas Knight said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Nicholas Knight said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
the chap in the autofellatio picture is clearly an adult having a whole heap of fun. The girl in the Lolicon picture is submitting to child abuse, and the presentation is, or is intended to be, erotic.
Sometimes it's better to just let your opponent in a debate make your point for you. You're doing a beautiful job making my point for me.
Hardly.
Yeah, it relies on you not realizing you're doing it.
Anybody else ever wondered if they're living in a Peewee Herman movie?
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 01:14:26PM -0000, Tony Sidaway wrote:
But the chap in the autofellatio picture is clearly an adult having a whole heap of fun. The girl in the Lolicon picture is submitting to child abuse, and the presentation is, or is intended to be, erotic. Perhaps the fact that the latter picture is an anime drawing is the reason why it seems to fly under so many radars.
One obvious distinction is that one is a photograph, being cited as evidence that a certain act is possible. The other is a drawing, serving as an example of a genre of drawing.
(And it's not really clear to me that the model in the photograph is having a whole heap of fun. He's a porn actor; he's paid to do that, whether he gets a nasty crick in his back from it or not. Plus he looks as if he's about to burst a blood vessel either in his forehead or his ... somewhere else.)
Karl A. Krueger said:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 01:14:26PM -0000, Tony Sidaway wrote:
But the chap in the autofellatio picture is clearly an adult having a whole heap of fun. The girl in the Lolicon picture is submitting to child abuse, and the presentation is, or is intended to be, erotic. Perhaps the fact that the latter picture is an anime drawing is the reason why it seems to fly under so many radars.
One obvious distinction is that one is a photograph, being cited as evidence that a certain act is possible. The other is a drawing, serving as an example of a genre of drawing.
Yes. An example of the eroticization of child abuse.
(And it's not really clear to me that the model in the photograph is having a whole heap of fun. He's a porn actor; he's paid to do that, whether he gets a nasty crick in his back from it or not. Plus he looks as if he's about to burst a blood vessel either in his forehead or his .... somewhere else.)
Well, he didn't get that erection by accident.