[Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Andreas Kolbe]

>
> Child porn is illegal, that's been upheld by the Supreme Court
> repeatedly, end of discussion. If 2257 were similarly upheld to apply
> even in circumstances of educational/artistic work, I suppose we'd
> similarly have to follow it like it or not, but it is untested in such
> areas, and I suspect the SC would find it massively overbroad,
> especially as it relates to subjects not identifiable at all.
>


2257 is also about child porn, because without age records there is often
no way of telling whether a cropped shot belongs to a minor or an adult,
and no way for the reader to tell whether they are looking at a picture or
video of a minor or not.

US-based adult sites use compliance statements for equivalent material.
They seem to be more responsible and law-abiding than the Wikimedia
community, which presents its material on a top-5 website.