It is actually true that some ISP have mistakenly blocked all accesses to Wikimedia sites. We have received a complaint to that effect on OTRS, from a ISP technician. It seems that their upstream provider screwed up their redirection hacks (using BGP) and mistakenly propagated them to its clients.

The thing I don't understand here is why they don't censor other sites that also carry the image - as was brought up on the wiki, Amazon has the image, and many stores that sell the album have the image. If Wikipedia's usage is illegal, why isn't their usage illegal? -- --FastLizard4 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FastLizard4 Gregory Maxwell wrote:

That, or IWF is too dumb to realize that a album cover can exist on a site other than Wikipedia, To be honest to only block the site that the issued report was about when the concerned image is a album/cd cover is pretty stupid in my books.

2008/12/8 Artur Fijałkowski <wiki.warx(a)gmail.com>om>: I'm not sure that the IWF would want to be publicly recognised. They already wield a lot of power as gatekeepers for 95% of UK internet users, without any accountability or official standing. I'm not sure what publicity and public awareness could achieve for them except questions about their role and position. People tend not to like unaccountable censorship and the organisations which carry it out. In blocking the Wikipedia article and the collateral damage this has caused, they haven't improved their standing, they have undermined themselves. All of the news stories I have read regarding this are either neutral or take an anti-censorship line (since this album is available to buy in the high street and on Amazon, it doesn't make much sense to blame Wikipedia, an objective encyclopedia documenting the album). Surely the IWF is the kind of organisation that would prefer to be safely unknown, rather than publicised and questioned? -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

2008/12/8 Artur Fijałkowski <wiki.warx(a)gmail.com>om>: Yeah, I bet they're just loving the "promotion" they're getting. I'm amazed I haven't even seen a positive comment about this on the sites of UK newspapers whose usual maxim in such cases is "ban this filth". - d.

2008/12/8 Isabell Long <isabell121(a)gmail.com>om>: It's offensive, sure, I think most people agree with that. It isn't illegal though. We have an article on the word "Fuck", that can certainly be considered offensive but it is perfectly correct for us to have an article on it since it is a notable topic and it is impossible to fully discuss the word without using the word. Likewise, it is impossible to fully discuss an image without showing that image.

Hoi, What is obvious to you is not obvious at all. To me, if a person wants to be nude on a beach, it is a choice that is up to him or her. Good looks are not needed because this is none of anyone else's business. The parameters of what somebody looks like are dependent on gender, age and well being. There are people who are sexually stimulated by any demography therefore it cannot be a consideration as it would inhibit the freedom to savour the pleasures of the beach, the sun, the surf. The notion of what is acceptable or not is very much based on culture, within our projects we have people from many backgrounds and cultures who have many different points of view. In this my POV is good and valid as any other. I object however to the notion that "far left" can be associated with paedophiles. This attitude makes people that have an other opinion enemies and it prevents any possibility of a neutral point of view or a more common understanding. What is relevant is that the cover of this album was created in a different time when different morales prevailed. People object to what happened in the past, they want to remove this from the present and in effect create a history of the world in their image. Sadly perfection is not had in this way because the freedom of others who do not share this POV is forcefully denied. Thanks, GerardM 2008/12/8 DESLIPPE, MICHAEL CIV DCMA CIV DFAS <MICHAEL.DESLIPPE(a)dfas.mil>

Hoi, One of the points that I made is exactly that liberalism equates to conservatism. This may be not how you understand it, but for me it is a given. Associating specific political philosophies like liberalism with paedophilia is a travesty. If this is beyond your linguistic ability to appreciate, then I am really eager not to discuss this with you because your blinkers and probably mine will prevent any meaningful exchange of points of view. Thanks, GerardM 2008/12/8 DESLIPPE, MICHAEL CIV DCMA CIV DFAS <MICHAEL.DESLIPPE(a)dfas.mil>

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:28 PM, J.L.W.S. The Special One <hildanknight(a)gmail.com> wrote: I don't think we care all that much about "fighting censorship": We're not really doing much fighting, we never have. We could do a lot: We could be promoting SSL and TOR, we could be evading the block, we could change Wikipedia to have a black background for censored users with a video from Jimmy explaining why the current situation is harmful. We could be litigating against the IWF and ISPs who are hijacking our traffic, even if we don't think we'd win. etc. We could make readers access to Wikipedia an all or nothing thing. These things would be fighting censorship. Right now we're just talking politely. At best you can say we're not being instantly cowed by demands by some private organization, over material which as far as we can tell both contributes to our mission (in however minor a way) and which is not illegal. I think this is good because if we were to do otherwise there would be no clear place to stop. The editing problems are purely from the technical incompetence in the manner in which the UK censorship is being performed, and not from the censorship itself. So long as the UK networks use censorship run in a technically broken way we can have no safety no matter what we host. Your dichotomy is a false one. (1) The blocking should be changed to be the actual image, rather than the page text. This would remove most of the collateral damage (no more editing problems), and actually do better at accomplishing their goals. Right now the ISPs and IWF claim to be protecting people from a harmful image, yet they aren't doing that: Instead they are protecting people from the discussion of the controversy and not stopping the image at all. (2) All of the proxies should be sending the XFF header to avoid the collateral damage. (a few did, and we we accept the header from them now) We've requested both of these things for days now, because of the way the filtering is performed (with each ISP doing its own thing) (2) may take a while, but I see no technical reason why (1) couldn't be done right away.

He right. Wikipedia has to respect other cultures and not harm them. If we did harm them, wikipedia wouldn't be neutral anymore. Techman224 On 8-Dec-08, at 10:44 PM, J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:

I ment in the way that we don't say "your culture is bad", or something like that. Techman224 On 9-Dec-08, at 7:51 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

2008/12/9 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com>om>: Explaining factual information in detail is what we're good at and what we basically do. So far, it's working quite well :-D In the case of Virgin Media, we spent months a few years ago getting them to get their XFF headers in a reliable and sensible condition so not all NTL/Virgin users appeared to be coming from their huge city-wide proxies, but from their individual IPs. Virgin switched that off on Saturday and are making out that the resulting breakage is somehow our doing and not theirs. This is more than a little obnoxious of them. - d.

So what is your answer? Do cultures/governments have a right to National Sovereignity, or should they give up Soverignity so they can share everything that is available on the Internet? (your answer doesn't matter, because it is only your opinion, whatever it is there is someplace a person who will disagree with it). To use a temporal metaphor, there's no such things as "a little bit pregnant". Once you let certain things into your cultural, there's no take it or leave it, you are forced to take it. Consequently, if you have a culture based on some form of abstinence (I'm not talking about merely sex, but abstinence from Islam, Christinaity, Buddhism, firearms, free speech, pick your objective) and a tool becomes available that allows the object of your abstinence to enter, you've destroyed the culture through the promotion of "freedom of choice". A cultural is created by having a set of shared values. Once the whole population ceases to cherish the same values, it is no longer a culture. That kind of fracture is what got Ireland fighting over Protestanism and Roman Catholicism, got Americans fighting over slavery in the Civil War, has children of Abraham fighting over Isaac and Ishmaeel. Fractured cultures result in wars. Wikimedia is such a tool. If we allow wikimedia to be the tool that fractures a culturet is the instrument of it's demise no matter the outcome. This is where the decision comes that, "Yeah, well, my way of thinking is better, so let's go ahead and fracture theirs". However, those very advocates are very much against allowing their beliefs to become fractured (i.e., there are people who are willing to stand up for "freedom of expression" by allowing pronography in some or all its forms, but they are against censorship - even if that's what the culture wants. They don't like the fact that someone has rejected or criticized their viewpoint). The truth is, allowing or disallowing the article is damaging one of the two viewpoints and some culture will be altered by what happens next. Since wikimedia is a tool, what is best is to allow them to take whatever actions are necessary to allow their culture to survive. For that reason, I disagree that only the one page should be censored. To function in that way, you have to wait until the culture is offended before you act, thus allowing the object of your offense to enter before you act. Again, an analogy; would you think it wise that homes, cars and businesses should not have locks on their doors? Some people who come in are friends, others are business and only a very few have ill intent. Should you wait until someone comes in and does something wrong before you act against them? No, it's a pretty good bet that someone who comes through your door at 1:00am while you are sleeping is going to harm you or your property. You have a right to protect yourself, so you lock your doors at night, but leave them open during the daytime while you can observe them. Same thing with wikimedia. If a culture is worried about being altered by the freedom within wikimedia, then they should be allowed to not allow it in, or, at best, only allow it in on an "as observed and approved" basis. Since the very nature of wikimedia is flux, that is, allowing unlimited change as users warrant, watching is not acceptable security, Q.E.D. blocking the entire site is the only way of securing the culture you wish to preserve. I agree that America has turned into the very opressor they escaped in 1776. It seems they want to colonize the world with their views, even with force if deemed to be the only thing that will change the mind of their objective, and spread their culture to the rest of the world in the name of righteousness (p.s., I'm an American, so I can say what I like about my own government). Their problem is, they don't realize that the freedom they think they value was once a shared dream of every American, making it a culture. America no longer shares the same values and dreams. Partisan politics have fractured America and the growing schism is a race between parties for whose values will bhe spread, and where. Wow! Deep stuff for a wikipedia list :-) ---Mike -----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [* mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org*<wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org>] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 8:52 AM To: wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] UK Censorship 2008/12/9 techman224 &lt;techman224(a)yahoo.ca&gt;ca>: There is a difference between respecting a culture and going against our own ideals in order to fit with theirs. If we want to be neutral and protect certain people from things that would offend them then we have to protect everyone from things that might offend them which means deleting the entire project. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org *https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l*<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l>

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Thomas Dalton &lt;thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: I absolutely disagree with that. Like I said, neutrality does not equal moral relativism. An encyclopedia *must* decide what is and isn't acceptable. There is no choice *except* to decide that. What law? The law of Florida? What's neutral about that? Clearly Florida law, and all US law for that matter, allows for speech which is directly contradictory to the goals of the foundation. Content which is legal under Florida law is at best a superset of acceptable content (I say "at best" because there are probably instances of acceptable content which is nonetheless illegal). On the other hand, content which is legal under the laws of all states in the world is clearly a subset of acceptable content. The fact that no-one I disagree with that, but moreover, the fact that the UK police were consulted about this very image, directly leading to the decision to ban the page, surely is greater evidence of the opposite conclusion. Furthermore, I don't see how you can state unequivocally that "no-one has ever been charged with any offence regarding this image". The image clearly is illegal in certain middle-eastern countries, isn't it?

2008/12/9 Thomas Dalton &lt;thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: There are no known reports of such. If Anthony believes there are, perhaps he should cite them. - d.

Oh, sure, we need to decide what is acceptable in terms of notability and verifiability, that's not the same as deciding what is morally acceptable which is what we are talking about here. Because we have no choice. You don't choose to obey the law, you have to do it or you get stopped. Well, yes, we make an exception for things that don't significantly add to the article, which that wouldn't. People have a pretty good idea of what a beheading looks like, so you don't really need to show them. I guess that is somewhat arbitrary, but there are exceptions to every rule. Generally (by my understanding) mens rea means you knew what you were doing, it doesn't require you to know that it was illegal. UK law is relevant because it is UK law that has prompted the censorship. UK law may not be relevant to our decision on whether or not to include the image, but it is relevant to the discussion.

What shopkeeper doesn't know what stock he has? And we're not talking about the contents, we're talking about the cover, it's hard to miss what's on the cover of an album.

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: [snip] Come now: We have accounts. We use 'having a unique IP' as a type of "proof of work". We'll gladly except XFF from their proxies if they'd bother sending it. Can you suggest anything better that we can do to prevent people from minting as many accounts as they like and causing trouble.

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: [snip] Would not have the desired effect. Do you agree or do I need to make a point by mailbombing you from 10,000 email addresses? :) IPs aren't a perfect proof of work but they are vastly better than email addresses. They are also painless for the user in the common case, unlike email. We are allowing people to edit from the UK, you know — they have to now go through a painful registration process. You've hopped on a pointless tangent in any case: We wouldn't have these problems if they blocked the image rather than the text. (Images are served from another IP that doesn't currently go through the censoring filters) They don't claim to want to block the text, if they did there would be more grounds to debate the wisdom of using IPs for anything.

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: I'm still waiting. [snip] Which is why we have a registration process for these people. It still sucks. Ah. Well that explains a good bit. :) The proxies that don't send XFF are soft-blocked. There is a process to request an account using toolserver which can see the users real IP because the toolserver is not censored. Once you have an account you are free to edit. Solely the IWF? No. The IWF is at fault for blocking the article rather than the image. The ISPs are at fault for not sending XFF. XFF is the standard required behavior for transparent proxies. Stripping XFF when you do not prepend yourself is a "MUST" behavior, yet some of the proxies are not doing that. The ISPs are not RFC compliant. We are doing the best we can to mitigate harm by having a procedure to create accounts (although painful) and still allowing editing from those IPs (although not 'anonymous'). The same can not be said for many of the other involved parties. [snip] Can you cite this to anything other than some mumbled comments in an interview? As far as I can tell IWF only claims to block "possibly illegal" materials, and I'm not aware of anyone arguing that the article text is possibly illegal. If they did it would add a rather nice book-burning wrinkle to the whole issue. [snip] It's simply a question of technical competence: To someone with reasonable technical competence the Image:Virgin_Killer.jpg page is very clearly not the image itself (as it has all that user interface stuff on it). I don't doubt that it's an error, but it's one they've been informed of since Sunday (and yes, they had a human addressing this on Sunday) and has not been resolved. On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: Amazon.co.uk did until Monday morning. And we have reports of it being in high street record shops. It's also widely available on the internet in general.

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:12 PM, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Do they believe it is a technical limitation (it's not, if they think this we need to educate them harder) or that its their purpose? If the latter, how do we get that better featured in the media... I think it's outrageous.

2008/12/9 Gregory Maxwell &lt;gmaxwell(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: They spoke as though they thought it was a technical requirement. It appears the IWF largely don't know how computers work. - d.

They probably removed it for the same reason Channel 4 News blurred the image when they showed it - they are less idealistic than we are and prefer a quiet life. For Amazon, I completely support that, they exist to sell stuff, they have no reason to get involved in a censorship debate. I was a little disappointed (although not surprised) that Channel 4 News didn't stand up for themselves and show the image (after consulting with their own legal team) so viewers could make up their own minds about whether or not it should be on Wikipedia - censorship is as big an issue for the press as it is for us.

Because if their legal team said the image was illegal they wouldn't have gone into a shop and bought a copy? Viewing the image on the internet is one thing, actually buying it is quite another - I doubt they would have done that if they knew it was illegal.

2008/12/9 Thomas Dalton &lt;thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: The guy had it on his computer in the background. I wonder if anyone will report the URL for the Channel 4 news "play again" to the IWF. - d.

2008/12/9 Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt;rg>: It should also be noted that this album cover has been continuously available in stores in the UK for 32 years. No one has been prosecuted, and it has never been banned. This strongly suggests the image is not illegal. The IWF also stated that they blocked Wikipedia (although the image is available on plenty of other sites) for "pragmatic" reasons. Read into that what you will. -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Gregory Maxwell &lt;gmaxwell(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: "See, proof that the IWF system works" Seriously though, I hope they explain exactly why they've made that decision, though I doubt they will.

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Dalton &lt;thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: Wow, that's exactly the type of explanation I was looking for. I'm going to hold off on deciding whether or not I agree with it. Also interesting is: I'm not sure if I disagree with their conclusion, or disagree with their objective. I think this incident has at least had the potential to encourage productive dialogue about this problem. Of course, they probably see the issue in a completely different way than I do anyway, especially if their goal is to minimize the availability of the images, and not to minimize the actual victimization of children.

2008/12/9 Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt;rg>: One high street retailer, zaavi (or whatever they're called), took a compromise - they covered the image with a "click this to view, you must be over 18" clickthrough, since it was considered offensive. Unfortunately, the image they were screening... was the entirely unremarkable black outer casing. http://www.zavvi.co.uk/productdetails.jsf?code=779728 It's hard not to get the impression impression some people may be reacting to the fuss rather than the actual issue :-) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Anthony wrote: How about this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cupidon.jpg Ting

2008/12/9 Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt;rg>: My understanding is that for material of the first class in the UK, they get it taken down rather than (possibly in addition to?) filtering - it can't be legally hosted here anyway, so if they've found it they may as well move on to stage two! However, whilst their remit does encompass "normal" criminally obscene material (as it were) and the more malignant types of racial hatred, it's not clear what that means in practice. The reports I've read seem to indicate that they don't actively do anything about these types of material, perhaps due to lack of resources or of clear guidelines on what they should be dealing with, and instead concentrate (almost?) entirely on child abuse material. Of course, it's hard to say withy any degree of certainty, because the blockees tend not to issue press releases on a regular basis... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Charlotte Webb &lt;charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: Sorry, I disagree with you there. Yes, there are worse abuses of children out there, but that fact doesn't in itself exclude this image from the definition of "child porn". Promoting a sexual performance by a child is a sex crime, and as defined generally includes the promotion of lewd exhibitionism.

tralalalala http://notnews.today.com/?p=269 excuse me if I crow *just a little* - d.

2008/12/9 Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt;rg>: Ok, so it comes down to what a reasonable person considers to be lewd. (At least in the UK, there is no set definition of "indecent", it's up to a jury.)

What's not what you said? And what distinction? I'm trying to make the point that there is no obvious definition of lewdness and plenty of people don't consider the Virgin Killer picture to be lewd (highly distasteful for an album cover, sure, not not lewd), seemly including the UK police (and the US police, although I don't know if that version of the cover is still on sale in the US so it just be a matter of times changing and were it released now the police would act).

The definition in the context of UK law is simply what a "reasonable person" considers indecent, there is no set definition. The sentencing guidelines talk about "erotic posing" (as the least serious form of indecency, there are obviously more serious forms that are far easier to define). My definition of "erotic" would require there to be a sexual element. Nudity is not automatically sexual, there would need to be something about the pose which could be reasonably associated with sex.

On Dec 9, 2008, at 5:13 PM, Anthony wrote: In the US, that doesn't matter, if it's representing sexuality (not sex acts).... *but* it's also art. The "shatter" is what really brings the work together, uniting the awkward image of a young girl in a sexualized pose beyond her years, with the shatter effect conveying a sense of damage, a sense of something about innocence being permanently broken. Centering the shatter on her genital area further drives the point home about how we hold (as western society) the concept of "virginity" to be focused on the genitals, rather than the mind. In the US, we protect art. I'm not sure why people are so scared, or fearful, of artwork that depicts a shattering of innocence, of permanently damaging young girls. I have my suspicions. -Bop

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Charlotte Webb &lt;charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com > On 12/9/08, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org> > Things like spread out legs, arms behind back, and pushing forward of the > > chest? C'mon, the pose was obviously intended to be a sexual pose. > > For better or worse schools tend to consider this definition of sexual > posing an acceptable way to generate school spirit. Well yes, > cheerleaders are clothed, but usually at the minimum level allowed by > whatever dress code regulation has been published by the school board. > > On the other hand a pose which involves physical contact of private > parts (actual or suggested, such as "reaching toward...") would very > reasonably be "associated with sex", regardless of whether clothing is > worn or whether the naughtiness is visible to the camera. > The law I was referring to included physical contact of private parts and "lewd exhibitionism" as two separate possibilities, suggesting that one does not imply the other. And this makes sense. Sure, a cheerleader might make sexual poses while fully clothed, and this isn't considered a lewd performance. But the fact that the cheerleader is fully clothed *makes a difference*. It can certainly lend evidence of the state of mind of the photographer who abused this young girl. There's obviously a line to be drawn between a tasteless act and a criminal one. Apparently you are of the opinion that a criminal act requires physical contact of private parts. I strongly disagree. I wonder, what would you say of a prepubescent girl whose parents had her work in a strip club? Is that a decision that a girl and her parents should be allowed to make, or is it a situation where the government can step in and stop? If the latter, is it reasonable to call it a sex crime?

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Charlotte Webb &lt;charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: I'd say it's definitely a good thing, and that those laws are as I mentioned before, "Promoting a sexual performance by a child". I don't see why it shouldn't be called a sex crime, though. It is possible that some jurisdictions may classify the strip club It's ironic you should say that, because when I googled for {strip club child} the very first line of the very first result was "The city ordinance that regulates sexually oriented businesses does not allow authorities to revoke the license of such a business for employing someone under 18." This was referring to a strip club which employed a 12-year-old. Two coworkers were charged with "felony sexual performance of the child in connection with making the 12-year-old work at the club". And yes I do agree that it would be bad parenting on the mother's Of course we should enforce laws we think should exist. We should make them laws first, though. As for Wikipedia, I think Wikipedia has a duty to not distribute content which violates laws we think should exist, regardless of whether or not the law does exist. In any case, laws against "sexual performance of the child" and "distribution of child pornography" do exist.

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Thomas Dalton &lt;thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: This discussion is quite obviously relevant to Wikipedia. I personally don't think the precise details of child exploitation law aren't particularly relevant, but that's because I think Wikipedia's principles should be based on ethics and not on the law. However, I believe you were the one who suggested that Wikipedia's inclusion standards should be based solely on the law, so rather than simply dismiss this idea I thought we should examine the law. I also think there are a number of things we can learn from the law. The law isn't perfect, but I think most of us can agree that child pornography is something that should be restricted. Maybe I'm wrong about this, though. There certainly seems to be a lot of confusion over what child pornography is, and why it is illegal.

On Dec 9, 2008, at 4:19 PM, Anthony wrote: I take it you've never raised children. When they're young, convincing them to actually put on *any clothes* is a problem at times. Really. (Ages 3-6 is a blast, but it can be a tad embarrassing at times) ... Then, just when you think you finally have them dressed on a fairly regular basis, they discover a new fashion wave, or style, or trend, and next thing you know, they want to show ankles (or god forbid, knees), cut their hair, shave their legs, bathe, etc. Hopefully, none of the girls I've had a hand in raising will *ever* discover what "boys" are, I shudder at the thought. (For those of you reading this from other cultures and languages, this is sarcasm. Except for the age 3-6 part.) -Bop

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:41 AM, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 0 and 2, actually, but there's a big difference between a child running around naked at home and a young girl posing nude for an album cover. The claim that "nudity" is the only criterion for "child porn" is a strawman, or at least, it's not the claim I'm making. Someone from one of those "other sites" emailed me a link to an image on Wikipedia of a bunch of naked boys jumping into a lake (I think that's what it was, I didn't look at it very long), and I commented that such an image clearly was *not* child pornography (though I do still think it's inappropriate for the Wikipedia article on [[boy]]).

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 8:49 AM, David Monniaux &lt;David.Monniaux(a)free.fr&gt;wrote;wrote: I don't see how that's a problem, since I believe that all ethical decisions are dependent on context. If a parent takes one photograph of a little boy or girl doing silly I'm not sure that you're correct with regard to UK law in either of those situations. In any case, I don't see the point of this. A photograph (or, in the UK, a pseudo-photograph) of child sexual abuse is child porn. "A little boy or girl doing silly things half-naked" is not child sexual abuse, and a manga drawing is neither a photograph nor a pseudo-photograph.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ray Saintonge wrote: I've also seen left-wingers as rabid anti-pornographers. Some feminists, as an example, cite pornography as promotional to the degradation of women, and as something that contributes to inequality between the genders. Cary