[Foundation-l] Minors and sexual explicit stuff

[Ray Saintonge]

Andrew Garrett wrote:
> On 16/11/2009, at 1:04 AM, private musings wrote:
>   
>> On Wikipedia Review, 'tarantino' pointed out that on WMF projects,
>> self-identified minors (in this case User:Juliancolton) are involved  
>> in
>> routine maintenance stuff around sexually explicit images reasonably
>> describable as porn (one example is 'Masturbating Amy.jpg').
>>
>> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27358&st=0&p=204846&#entry204846
>>
>> I think this is wrong on a number of levels - and I'd like to see  
>> better
>> governance from the foundation in this area - I really feel that we  
>> need to
>> talk about some child protection measures in some way - they're  
>> overdue.
>>     
>
> I'm not sure where you get the idea that it's somehow inappropriate  
> for minors to be viewing or working on images depicting human nudity  
> and sexuality. Cultural sensibilities on this matter are inconsistent,  
> irrational and entirely lacking in substance.
>
> If it is truly inappropriate or harmful for children to be working on  
> such images, then those children should be supervised in their  
> internet access, or have gained the trust of their parents to use the  
> internet within whatever limits those parents (or, indeed, the minor)  
> believe is appropriate.
>
> It is absolutely not the job of the Wikimedia Foundation, nor the  
> Wikimedia community, to supervise a child's internet access and/or  
> usage, and certainly not to make arbitrary rules regarding said usage  
> on the basis of a single culture's sensibilities on children and  
> sexuality, especially sensibilities as baseless and harmful as this one.
>
>   
I agree that a common sense approach is warranted. In large measure 
applying complex controls on child viewing is totally unrealistic. We 
would begin with the problem of defining what is too young.  In an other 
topic, underage drinking, it is relatively far easier to define the 
offending act but the age at which drinking is permitted still varies 
widely from one jurisdiction to another.  So what age is appropriate for 
viewing such material? 12? 16? 18? 21? And even if we agree on an age, 
except for the few self-identified individuals how are we to know what 
someone's age really is?  Those who are too young very quickly learn 
that lying is a valuable skill founded upon necessity.

Not many years ago in a bible-belt suburb there was a very loud campaign 
to block books that depicted same sex parents from a school library. 
There was no question of those parents engaging in sexual activity in 
the books, only a depiction that they could be loving and committed 
parents just as much as opposite sex parents.  The aim of the books was 
to combat the development of homophobia among children of "normal" 
parents. Yes, that is at the other extreme from the raunchy photos that 
are most often complained about, but that merely illustrates the problem 
of definition.

As is often stated WMF is an ISP, and not a publisher.  The more it 
seeks to control content, the more it acquires characteristics of a 
publisher.  Indeed as an ISP it must respond to specific legal demands 
to remove certain material, but random complaints are not legal 
demands.  Perhaps at the same time those complainers should be asking 
why murder is so much more socially acceptable on TV than consensual sex.

The responsibility of parents remains paramount ... even if some are 
incapable of exercising that responsibility.  It would also be 
irresponsible if parents with the means to provide internet access 
exercised control to the extent of raising internet illiterates 
incapable of functioning in a wired world.  What teachers and other 
public institutions can do has severe limitations.  The sad unavoidable 
fact is that the seamier side of life exists.  A parent does not protect 
his child by pretending to him that such things don't happen.  More is 
accomplished by directing him toward a mature attitude.

Ec