-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I think the point that he was making is that perceptions are not the main problem in a case such as this - many child porn laws make no distinction between real and simulated child porn images, so *objectively* these images *are* child porn
Cynical
Philip Welch wrote:
On Apr 7, 2006, at 4:33 AM, Ryan Delaney wrote:
Some of us feel that even if the image had been free, it still should never have been included in Wikipedia. Concentrating on its copyright status is ignoring the real debate, rather than deciding once and for all how to deal with images that would be perceived by the public to be child porn.
It's not even that the public would perceive that image to be child porn. It is child porn.
So it's not whether the *public* would perceive it to be child porn-- it's whether *Ryan Delaney* would perceive it to be child porn.
"Imagine a world in which Ryan Delaney has free access to the sum of human knowledge..."