[WikiEN-l] Just to throw this out there...

[Vicki Rosenzweig]

At 03:14 PM 6/11/03 -0700, Ray wrote:


>To be effective any kind of flagging system must avoid subjective 
>determinations.  Words like "explicit" and "mature" can lead to some 
>serious disagreements that can't easily be resolved.  The following 
>spectrum can be more objectively determined for photographs.
>    1. Contains images of sex acts
>    2. Contains close-up images of genitals
>    3. Contains whole-body nudity
>    4. Contains partial nudity
>    5. Shows people in underclothes
>    6. Shows suggestive photos of fully clad people

I'm not convinced that this doesn't just move the subjectivity. Even
"sex acts" is open to argument--is one woman licking another's
breast a sex act, for example? (I assume we agree that a photo of
a nursing infant does not contain a sex act.) Was I partially nude
at the clinic this morning, in underwear, t-shirt, and a hospital gown?
(Yes, it's street legal, but this is New York State, so that doesn't
mean a great deal.) In particular, what are "suggestive photos"?
I doubt we'd manage a more objective definition for that than Potter
Stewart's famous "I know it when I see it."
-- 
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org