[WikiEN-l] Illegal sources

[Sam Korn]

On 4/7/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at 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