[WikiEN-l] Deleting the Lolicon picture

[Jay Whetherspoon]

That's ridiculous. Ten minutes of research, even, will clarify to anyone who
viewed the image that it is _not_  legally child pornography, no matter how
you interpret the PROTECT Act's constitutionality. There's no legal reason
to remove a completely legal image.

And morality is entirely subjective. Arguing that a certain image  is
"immoral" is *not* a valid argument in the context of Wikipedia, because we
have to adhere to WP:NPOV. You, personally, see this drawing as morally
wrong. I do not.

I *do* think censorship is morally wrong, though...


Jay

On 4/7/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Exactly. Child porn images shouldn't be included for moral and legal
> reasons but ordinary sexual images (where they are relevant to the
> article of course) are perfectly fine. WP:NOT censored for minors.
>
> Cynical
>
> Philip Welch wrote:
> > On Apr 7, 2006, at 5:40 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not convinced there's much reason to include *any* images of *any*
> >> sex acts, involving children or otherwise. Does Britannica?
> >
> > We're not just trying to replace Britannica; we're trying to replace
> > specialized encyclopedias as well. I'm sure that an encyclopedia of
> > sexual behavior would include sketches of varying sexual positions
> > much like our own.
> >
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFENt3Ig8fvtQYQevcRAnatAJ43HQBncdoAz7JKBoyh3JsY0sILlgCffOwo
> 9WJLsFIDsFl9n1a6HaFGyjg=
> =ebNJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>