[WikiEN-l] Illegal sources

[Fred Bauder]

"any representation"

Fred

On Apr 7, 2006, at 6:52 AM, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:

> On 7 Apr 2006 at 11:45, Mikkerpikker <mikkerpikker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Excellent idea! I have just looked at the protocol, and can see no
>> reason why Wikipedia can't adopt it for this specific (and very
>> serious and potentially damaging) issue of child porn.
>>
>
> 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
>   sexual purposes.
>
> The picture was a cartoon.  This was clearly not "real".  Maybe it
> 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"?
>
> In the trailer for the SpongeBob SquarePants movie (approved for
> general audiences by the MPAA), SpongeBob drops his SquarePants, and
> you see a brief image of his cartoon butt.  Is that pornographic?
>
> 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?
>
> -- 
> == Dan ==
> Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
> Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
> Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>