Slashdot Mirror
Larry Sanger Tells FBI Wikipedia Distributes "Child Pornography"
Taco Cowboy writes with news that Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, has reported to the FBI what he says is child pornography on Wikipedia, including links (redacted in the letter just linked) to entries about pedophilia and the genre of manga known as lolicon. The Register has up an article with some analysis, which mentions the opinion of at least one attorney whose "reading of the statute [requiring reporting of child porn images] is that it does apply to the Wikimedia Foundation." Update 20100414 5:00 GMT: Larry Sanger has posted a general reply in response to critics of his report to the FBI, in which he addresses the form, content, and motivation of his complaint, and offers some discussion of the relevant statute.
Just doing his civic duty, yessir.
How did they fail to mention the album cover of the Virgin killers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killers
This got wikipedia banned a few years ago, because they dared show an actual album cover.
Good thing the links are redacted! Its not like anyone with a brain could go to http://commons.wikimedia.org/ and search for "pedophilia" or "lolicon" and find exactly what he was talking about. Nothing in those categories looks like child porn to me, I'm not afraid to post the links. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pedophilia http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Lolicon
I just spotted a case of sour grapes on Larry's website.
Won't somebody please think of the children?!
Wait, so the co-founder of Wikipedia is admitting that he knew Wikipedia had child porn on it when he was running the place and he failed to report it to the correct (US) authorities? That's a very interesting admission. Since the current administration only need to respond from this point forward (since we don't know if they knew previously) they have not yet committed a crime.
Pedophiles thinks of the children.
Yes, Wikipedia seems to indeed have a category for pedophilia-related articles, describing such things as the Catholic scandal, child grooming, various kidnapping cases and related stuff. I'm a bit unsure what makes this "child pornography" - does Mr. Sanger perhaps become turned on reading about the activities of less savory Catholic priests? Dunno what images he's referring to, either - the only ones I found were photographs of Greek vases. As for "lolicon", AFAIK it's legal in most countries due to it being cartoon not related to real people in any way.
Perhaps this case itself should be reported under pedophile hysteria, or, more cynically, barratry.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
For reasons totally unrelated to the (unsubstantiated) rumors that I am deeply bitter that no one has even heard of my self-evidently superior encyclopedia, Citizendium, I have discovered that it is my solemn duty under Federal law to attempt to have Wikipedia's servers seized by the FBI, thus inevitably thrusting the 121 properly expert-approved articles of Citizendium back into the spotlight where they bel--ah--I mean, thus saving...the children...from Jimbo.
Read it again, do some math and you'll easily see, that 2010 (now) minus 3 years (the page existes since then) is not a date before 2002, the year he left.
First of all, it doesn't inspire any level of confidence or conviction when the first paragraph of a letter, presumably about bad bad child porn on Wikipedia, is prefaced with what reads like the preamble on a CV. Citizendiwhat? Sorry you ditched on WP and failed to replicate its success, but trying to get the website shut down by pandering to think-of-the-children reactionaries is hardly an act of good faith or legitimate citizen concern. Sanger, how come you know so much about the pedophilia content at Wikimedia anyway?
Secondly, if one does visit the categories of which Sanger speaks, (not hard to figure out btw, in spite of link removals) all you see are A) historic pornographic cartoons, and B) Japanese pornographic cartoons. Even if one were to take the charges of child porn seriously, they are strictly limited to works of art, as in, not real people. I suggest that federal law enforcement should find much more pressing cases to deal with. If they have the time to perform an investigation over cartoon tits, they are overbudgeted.
You can stop thinking of the children now.
What happened when a drawing is being called child porn? Did any child get hurt? No. It may not be to my personal taste, but if noone is getting hurt, then why the hell is it being intefered with?
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
see subject.
While WP claims that it is "not censored", in my experience it is usually used as a justification for WP editors' petulant desires for unusual or shocking (in a more literal sense) images in articles.
No I can't.
Can you stop thinking about zebras NOW?
That's it, if I ever was against real child pornography before, I am done. I am all for it now. I know how to fight this insanity - with insanity.
The world needs to be FLOODED in child pornography. It must be put everywhere, so that there is not a single place, not a single site, not a single freaking lamppost that does not have a picture or a video of some child fucking.
Fuck the fucking children but most of all, fuck the fucking grown up idiots.
One thing makes me happy: everybody will die. Death, that's the fucking cure to idiocy.
You can't handle the truth.
I wonder if he was looking this stuff up for another reason and then after he "felt bad", or his mother found his backpack full of loli manga, he decided to draft this crybaby letter to the FBI. All this seems like is some bitter old mans attempt at shutting down a widely known and used website because his own site(s) aren't as popular or widely used. Until this posting I have never heard of those two site and I would have to re-read the letter to recall the names. Though I could be wrong. He could have read those statutes, did a Google search for those words, came across the wiki categories, and then wanted his 5 minutes of fame. Either way this just seems plain stupid. Wonder if the FBI will get a good laugh out of this or will actually go after them.
Larry mentions his own, new, quote "more responsible" encyclopedia project in the first paragraph. How convenient.
This is an example of what I believe is wrong with government censorship. I don't know how people get the idea that the web should be a safe place where you can click on any link and go to any site and never have the chance to be offended. The internet and the web, IMHO, should be a place where all information can be exchanged freely between all parties. There are plenty of things on the internet that I find quite disturbing. If you don't want to be offended, don't go there. If you don't trust the sites, don't click on the link. Wikipedia is no exception. I personally don't find it acceptable for children to browse unsupervised, but it isn't mine or the government's decision to make. On the other hand, don't be surprised if the government uses that free information to track down people who commit crimes.
The big problem that I have here is that we are using the government to legislate morality. Not only is that not their job, but they are really bad at it even if it were. So, unless we are willing to stone people for adultery we should let them make their own moral choices.
Just to clarify, I'm in no way in favor of allowing people to harm children. In those cases where actual children are hurt I have no problem hunting down those people. I just don't want to see a service shut down because somebody didn't like a drawing they had.
There are 10 commandments: 01)Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God 10)Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Matt22:34-40
Child zebras?
You mean the album "Virgin Killers" by the Scorpions? Probably when they mentioned the banned Scorpions album cover. Maybe you noticed the large font "Scorpions" at the top center of the album, nearly touching the word "Virgin" of the album cover, if you can raise your eyes that far.
This sentence no verb.
Perhaps a bit offtopic, but noteworthy: The German Wikipedia recently had a vulva image on the main page, as part of "today's article". The article snippet with the image (NSFW!).
This resulted in many complaints and a discussion about morals and Wikipedia. The rationale was that the German article "Vulva" is featured and purely educational - it has nothing to do with erotics or pornography. Here is a 0.5MB talk page about the incident.
(Posting as a AC, already spent mod points here)
Among the worst "I read that wrong" comments:
"Won't somebody please link to the children?!"
Before any web site reports illegal images they need to do two things:
1) If it's not obviously illegal and you intend to leave it up if it is not illegal get a lawyer's opinion and follow his advice. Wikipedia has a reputation for defending free speech when it comes it images that are encyclopedic. In late 2008 there was a big bru-ha-ha over a picture that was commercially available in many countries. After much discussion the image stayed. By the standards of a few countries the photo was probably illegal. However it was clearly legal by United States legal standards. Wikipedia servers are hosted in the United States and must follow US law.
2) If it is child porn take it down first then report it.
http://www.dianedew.com/porn.htm
Pornography and THINKOFTHECHILDREN have been witch hunts off and on for over a century.
Witch hunts are bad and destroy people. The opposite - wholesale open toleration or encouragement of actual child sexual abuse and actual child pornography - is worse. When practiced at a societal level they destroy the moral fabric of a society. Or perhaps they are merely an indicator that the moral fabric is already in tatters.
Since Mashable quoted Valleywag who gave us the gist of a machine generated translation of a 10 year old article originally in German, it's completely obvious. Especially when the translation is so clear:
Just try to argue with that. You can't. Or this one:
The monster. He should/should not be in prison for quoting that.
This sentence no verb.
is the sadham&ghonneria syndrome going away? you betcha. after the big flash, could be the only things left worth pursuing/saving will be our eternal spirits. the only reason we're here at all is to care for one another in a positive life extending manner. we're not doing very well at that presently. that will change.
never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators, who among other things, take the evil/bad stigma off sex, possibly because as they're consulted, the urge to be/do evil (thought, word & deed) will dissipate, leaving the ability to make sounder decisions regarding ourselves/others. see you there?
They're so soft and cuddly and those cute stripes. Awwww!
Privacy is terrorism.
The government doesn't dictate morals per se they proscribe actions.
The reason actual hey-its-a-real-kid-and-yes-its-really-porn child pornography is illegal is that with few exceptions either its creation requires directly victimizing a child or, when the image was a self-photo, its initial distribution is almost always either done without the actor's permission or the person getting permission it took advantage of the naivete of the actor.
Another reason it is illegal is that even in the few cases where this isn't a problem - such as a child or teenager taking a pornographic self-picture then as an adult choosing to have it published - it creates a market for such images. Depending on the mentality of the individual creating images for the market, the "currency" he is paid in may be cash, "barter credits" for similar images, "barter credits" for something else, or simply an ego boost. In order to supply this market children are abused.
I'd bet easily 99% of newly created child-pornography-as-defined-by-federal-statute-and-case-law that is distributed beyond a small circle of friends and family are either photos of obvious crimes such as child molestation, or cases where the sexual performance is directed or encouraged by an adult or the child or his parents or "handlers" are being paid in some form or other, both of which are illegal even if photography doesn't take place. In other words, these photos would be evidence of an underlying crime, not art, if they were taken in the United States.
"Distributed beyond a small circle of friends" eliminates most self-pictures, sexting, and family photo album stuff, even when such photos cross the legal line. If you include these then you start to see more photos whose creation and viewing isn't part of the "child porn market." The "99%" is there because obviously there are exceptions. The real number may be 99.9% or even higher.
damn you! I spat my coke out and then nearly choked reading that! I'll see you in small claims court for a new keyboard!
seriously though, thanks for the laugh.
It's not about fate, it's about character.
there be no shelter here, the frontline is everywhere!
Everyone knows that ascii girls with boobs can legallii say yes when you ascii consentii nicelii.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
He's been trying to get his pet project going for years, and people demonstrated repeatedly that nobody really cares about his vision.
Nupedia went nowhere and died after having produced 24 approved articles after 3 years. Then in 2006 he started Citizendium with great fanfare, and in those 4 years it managed to produce 121 approved articles.
So it seems that if he can't compete, he'll try killing Wikipedia the legal way. Maybe then some of the contributors will switch to Citizendium. On my part, I don't see how would that work for him, because I'd just really hate his guts and never touch anything related to him after that.
You should be ashamed, mr. Sanger.
Some things should not be made more common
Two words: [see subject line]
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I'm hoping its the latter.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The Children.
If that's not enough, try this one: The Children.
What, you want pictures? Okay, try The Children or The Children.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
How do you propose they filter out heavily biased views, or people writing false articles for manipulation of the public? The way they do it may not be great, but it isn't any worse than a free for all.
You would have a much more difficult time getting published in a dead tree encyclopedia.
Sanger seems more at odds with Wikipedia's editorial choices than anything else. Just to show you where some editor's heads are at, the site actually has an article dedicated entirely to Rasputin's penis.
Freedom is drinking a beer in the park when you're supposed to be at work.
Damn, better hide all those Manga where the entire world gets destroyed - that's a consecutive murder sentence of a million years at least!
Is it safe for work?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
>> The judge deemed lolicon manga just as harmful as the real thing.
>To whom?
Probably the judge's guilt-ridden inner psyche.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Some of you have complained about the selfish attitude of Sanger in cynically reporting wikipedia in the hope of promoting his own website.
But amongst the people reading the post, some will visit the site, and of those a few will visit the site regularly.
Don't imagine that because most of the posts are critical of Sanger, his ploy has not been successful.
That's where most people are mugs when it comes to advertising and PR. They imagine that because it is patently obvious what the manipulators are doing, it must fail. Sadly, that is not true.
We already have minors going to jail due to having consensual sex with each other. We have girls being charged with possession & distribution of child-porn for taking pictures of their own naked bodies and sending it to boyfriends, who are then also charged with possession of child porn themselves.
This is why some states have "youthful offender" diversion programs and other special rules for people who are close in age. In a perfect world, the lawmakers would ask themselves "is this something non-sociopaths do so often that we don't want to turn all offenders into felons or registered sex offenders" and if the answer is no, then tweak the laws accordingly.
A lot of parents take pics of their kids growing up, sometimes kids run around naked or maybe it's their first bath, or potty training or something innocent such as that, could that be considered child porn?
In some cases, current laws do describe it as child porn. However, most DAs will look the other way if its only 1 or 2 pictures out of hundreds or thousands. Unfortunately, photo-labs are required my corporate policy or law to call the police without using much if any discretion.
Look at it this way:
If 1,000 people put their kid's photo album up on flickr, and 500 of them had at least a few nude pictures and 50 of those were individually considered pornographic, the cops would probably visit each of those homes and be able to convince most of those 50 parents to destroy the images with nothing more than a reminder that perverts troll teh interwebs looking for babies to wank off to. However, if I was such a pervert and I had a folder on my computer called "xxx hot flickr babies" that had just those 50 pictures in it and someone saw it and reported me to the police, I would be toast.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
How do you propose they filter out heavily biased views, or people writing false articles for manipulation of the public?
Manipulation? Surely no one uses the internet for manipulation!
If you think that "they" (whoever they may be) need to filter internet content, you are advocating that people should be trusting, obedient sheep that assume everything they are being fed has been sanitized by "someone". This gives that someone power - and people have tended to abuse power since there have been people around.
I myself enjoy the internet, with all its trolls and biases and wild stories. Anyone with a brain is smart enough to take EVERYTHING they read with a pinch of salt - be it from Wikipedia or Encyclopaedia Brittanica... but the internet with its "low barrier for entry" in the realm of global publishing, is a place where such fantasies are rampant. It's just due diligence to confirm everything you read here from a different (non internet) source.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
1. build your own inferior copy of product or service
2. make unfounded accusations that the existing product or service actually supports and encourages an illegal or unethical behavior
3. set the feds on the existing product
4. shamelessly promote your own inferior product prominently within the actual accusations.
5. PROFIT!
Yeah, he "stumbled" across this issue when he entered specific search terms. I've been using wiki for many years and have never hit any of that content. Further, if I had stumbled across something illegal, I'd have notified the appropriate wiki editor who would have taken care of it. Dude just wants to line his pockets.
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse Specific allegations from the cases included: * Seeing witches fly; travel in a hot air balloon; abuse and travel through underground tunnels;[113] being abused by Chuck Norris;[114] orgies at car washes and airports, children being flushed down toilets to secret rooms where they would be abused, then cleaned up and presented back to their unsuspecting parents[113][115][116] (McMartin preschool trial, no forensic evidence was found to support these claims)
'I don't get upset and teed off at things in life, except computers that don't work right,' -Woz
So... just how small are these claims?
*fap*
Now there's an interesting point - as of 6 April 2010, fictional unrealistic images (cartoons, drawings etc) are treated as child porn ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroners_and_Justice_Act_2009 ). As a result, I don't dare even look at the images you describe, but yes, oral sex is covered by the law, and all that matters is the jury believe the character appears to be under 18, or the predominant impression conveyed is of someone under 18 - yes, even though the age of consent is 16 here!
So we also have the Internet Watch Foundation, which blocks any page that they think could be possible "child porn" (as they famously did with Wikipedia a while back). It's unclear to me if they have any plans to do this for the new law, but if they were, we could be seeing a lot more censorship.
(OTOH, now that the Digital Economy Act 2010 allows sites to be censored simply for being suspected of copyright infringement, we could see many more sites being blocked anyway.)
AFAIK, the status of these images in the US is unclear - IIRC, the Supreme Court overturned a previous law, but the problem is the Government keeps passing new subtlety different laws against it.
And of the course the entire world uses the US system of justice.
The article is about Wikimedia Foundation. Wikimedia servers are in Florida, not in Great Britain or Australia.
Only in the UK would a stick drawing of lisa simpson watching marge fuck homer land you in jail!
Then a lot of people will go to jail in about two years because the logo of the Games of the XXX Olympiad, to be held in London, resembles Lisa Simpson giving oral sex.
One fundamental principle of Citizendium is family-friendly. This has caused some confusion amongst the editors. I find that concept to be quite ill-defined.
Links (well, they obviously go to that site) http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Fundamentals http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php?topic=49.0 forum link, to a discussion spanning many years. It's about "offensive content".
In my opinion, Sanger is trying to ride on a high horse. ( That sounds bad, my English is failing me.)
There they go again with another waste of tax dollars. These must be the same people who want Big Bird to wear pants on Sesame Street.
So my question is, since even in his letter he leads off talking about his new projects he's working on showing what his true motives are (free publication), how long has he known and sat on it?
*DrugCheese rants*
The unfortunate truth is that the government has the right idea in "protectiveness" when it comes to stuff like this and even things like the prohibition. That is not to say that I think that they didn't cross the line in either case but the simple truth of the matter is that it just takes a little bit of time to turn someone from a normal person into something awful. Look at any psychology book published in the past 20-30 years and you'll find all sorts of research that says that slow, gradual introduction of stimuli changes our attitudes towards it. If you spend a lot of time with obese friends you are more likely to find obesity forgivable and become obese yourself. Shoplifters start off by taking a pack of gum and end up taking hundreds of dollars worth of stuff. Pot starts out as something your friends did around you to something you did habitually. The governments actions aren't wrong, it's their infringing on people's rights that are wrong. As for Sanger, he's just a loser.
... and they shouldn't be kept too long apart, since they're central to this issue...
But... please observe "child pornography" is relative to culture. What is acceptable to one culture maybe not in another. For instance, we get a lot of US movies over here which are too spicy in violence; if we were to censor based on such criteria, we wouldn't see a lot of the CSI franchise (not a bad idea de per se, IMHO). Economic interests are both involved in the violence and "child pornography" aspects of leaked or sold motion pictures.
Also, "child pornography" is undesirable not because of the pornography being disgusting -- we should aim at protecting the children. If we forget this, it all becomes selfish (besides misguided).
Last, pornography is a complex issue. In my country, adults above a certain age can determine what they (and their children) see -- censorship itself is very much abhorred. If we go that path, though, a lot of things will be prohibited -- not only "adult" things...
Tell me more about these hard children. Hmmmmmmmmm.
So does the Pope.
Outlawing child pornography will make sure that demand goes underground. So instead of creepy/grey-area things going on in the open, you'll have more and more nasty things going on underground. The real criminals will just become more clever, while innocent people may be wrongfully accused because of overboard laws and suspicions. Is it still allowed for a father to hug his child? What about hugging another's child? Where do we actually draw the limits, and why risk alienating our youth more and more?
Laws does NOT an ethical society make, but they DO make a fear-induced police-state. We don't wanna go there. Sex is a normal thing, even for 12 year old kids, it is very normal for kids at that age to begin to explore their sexuality, very innocently of course. You cannot stop that, or accidents happening. So the morality-police of USA needs to chill down, or risk losing more freedoms in a false sense of security. Instead we should be much more fearful of our own governments and corrupt organizations such as the EU. We should make sure THAT is made more and more transparent.
I find it a DESPICABLE argument that depicting child pornography on an educational online encyclopedia, which is non-profit btw, is somehow satisfying "demand for child pornography".
It seems people are more interested in controlling, manipulating and sensoring other people, than to promote REAL education and science (learn how to learn, learn relationships, learn leadership, learn the scientific method, etc.). All should be banned in the name of "morality" I guess, so one can feel morally superior, and that one have "fixed the issue". In truth however, the issue is in the mind. Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
and I kinda got to wonder what type of people enjoy it. But at the end of the day, no one is being harmed. It's kinda like asparagus. It's gross but some people like it. That's why next time the legality of lolicon comes up, I'm voting to criminalize it. Because I really don't care one way or the other.
Save the lolis! If people want to be able to have and distribute their own pictures of something, then nothing should stop them. It's only pictures for goodness sakes, it's not like it's the real thing, It might even prevent abuse.
OK I looked at the album cover and then looked at the law which said
and I'll be honest while the cover is more risqué, than I might have chosen personally, it doesn't fit any reasonable definition of obscene that I'm aware of and doesn't depict a minor in a sexually explicit act.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Art is always of great cultural value, and should be protected from heathens and christians.
Pornography is always of interest to perverts, but how do you distinguish?
For me if society (the least qualified) decides to make a law that defines an asexual baby, child, adult... picture as porno, then the picture is illegal and possibly pornographic. If the viewer identifies porno, then it may be porno, or it may be a personal psycho-sexual dysfunction caused by nurture or events.
The album cover does reflect a cultural fixation of US/EU iconoclast use of titillation to artistically (not porno) express repression or promote capitalist marketing (bad taste, but not porno).
Religious/Cultural laws should never define civil law about human sexual behavior, but the spectrum of irreligious global law ranges from murderous cristian/islam fanatics in primitive villages to major international cities round the world.
For me the rule: Art does include all human exclusive sexual activity. Art does include asexual imaging/expression of the human form. Never harm others mentally, physically, or emotionally, still (for me) does mean art should at times offend and confront the righteous indignation of others. If it harms others in the making, marketing, provoking... then it is porno, but if the making and marketing is to provide information, objects, value, entertainment, and there is no intended purpose to provoke the mentally and emotionally ill (pedophiles, necrophiliacs...) into harming themselves or others, then it cannot be pornographic (but may be illegal and should reasonably be avoided).
Yes we should protect children and people (strong law and sentences) from sexual and cultural exploitation. However, a picture of a woman graphically presented as a pre-pubescent nubile girl is art. A person (man or woman) seeking sexual gratification from such a picture or person should seek professional psychiatric help, because individuals not seeing artistic value is a problem indicator (maybe a closet pedophile) .
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
This MAY look like a 14 year old girl, but it's really your grandmother..
__
|**\
|O|\
(..)
(V)
|.|.|
| | |
==
Sure I could use more time to perfect the ASCII-art, but then I'm sure someone would object and put me in prison. All for superior morality I guess..
Let's say you take a picture of your 5 yo daughter, in your backyard pool. She's wearing a swimsuit. You publish the photo on a public site, say Flickr, with a license that allows non-commercial use of the photo.
Some weeks later, a policeman bursts in a suspected pedophile home. He finds that picture of your daughter printed, which the suspect has jerked off to (I really hope you don't really have a daughter at this point), along with others pictures of girls about the same age he obtained in a similar manner. Was there any crime commited?
Let's try something harder. Your 16 yo daughter take her own picture doing a sensual pose, perhaps showing her breasts, using her own cellphone. She passes this picture to a friend of hers using SMS/text messages, which passes to another friend, which then passes it to the same supected pedophile of the above case. Was there any crime commited? If so, by whom? What if the picture was taken by your daughter's 18 yo friend, with you daughter knowledge and consent?
Laws can be a mess.
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
Is illegal to own/access drawings that could be interpreted as minors having sex or just being in part naked, while is perfectly legal and reasonable to own weapons. And the punishment for owning that kind of drawings is probably worse than driving drunk in a populated city or a highway.
Somewhat life don't matter anymore to laws, you, die, and are just a number. Just ideas are the ones that worth to the law, and what they think are bad ideas.
because they are DRAWINGS. Artistic depictions. No real people were involved in the manufacturing of the drawing, other than the artists themselves. So no child ever suffered.
The only way you can say drawings hurt real people is by either stating [1] that pedophilia is such a vile thing that it can't even actually be depicted or narrated, because it hurts some kind of society moral conscience (which is exactly what most people defend), OR that [2] drawings somehow furthers demand for real-life child abuse.
The problem with [1] is that it's thoughtcrime, and with [2] is that it hasn't been proved. I don't feel confortable with either one, it seriously hurts what should be a definition of a crime in a civilized, democratic society.
I do acknowledge, though, that there is a real problem with today image processing software such as Photoshop. It is possible to edit a photo of a real child so that it is impossible to know its origin - a real photo depicting someone or an original drawing.
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
I want to thank, and praise, Mr Sanger for bringing to light this shameful practice by his chief competitor. Poor innocent Toons like those who pose for "lolicon" images have been exploited for decades (and in fact, for centuries, dating back to the Cartones who posed for Italian Renaissance sketches). From the moment of their very conception, these underage Toons are forced to engage in degrading activities for the private amusement of readers in the solitude of their own homes, leading to the dire social scourge of inappropriate thoughts. A single Toon might find herself being viewed by hundreds of thousands of readers of all walks of life, traumatized over and over. But thanks to the efforts of legislators in the U.S., the U.K., and other countries, and the heroic actions of Mr Sanger and others like him, these Toons may finally be freed of this abuse. No person is free while other people – even imaginary ones – are still being oppressed!
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
an image of a drawn child
The poster was talking about hand-drawn images. No actual children were being photographed in his example.
Actual sexual exploitation of actual children should be illegal for the very reasons you gave.
Hand-drawn images should be legal for the reasons the O.P. gave.
I draw this stuff, and I know many who do as well...
Guys, anime little girls are NOT realistic at all. "Duh, he made a picture so he used a model, duuuuh", oh yeah, when I draw robots I use so many real life models, because machines with four arms and cannons are available everywhere you look. Or girls with wings or elf ears and stuff like that. Or android girls. Totally realistic.
Even regular human girl characters are unrealistic as hell, with bodies much rounder than real and proportions that are only vaguely realistic... and a behavior that is obviously written by a grown adult. Depending on their roles anime little girls can be just that or little war machines.
I might be a pervert, for sure, but if people believes you need a model to draw a child, they just never tried to draw something.
I expect drawing loli to be pretty much like saying "I love this fictional character": Not taken seriously.
Drawing a 6yo version of Hatsune Miku shouldn't be illegal, it's like saying drawing blood is murder. It's just pixels that didn't come from a crime, have no trauma behind (except to the fans of the character maybe), and no sad story to talk about in a trial.
Sanger just launched the world's worst FUD campaign:
My competitors are all pedophiles and their product is for distributing pedophilia.
-- $G
Kiddie porn is a product the production of which harms children but it is produced if there's demand for it, which there demonstrably is, if people watch it. Claiming that asking for money creates a demand to mug people for it is not comparable since (1) producing it harms no one (unless we get into monetary policy) and (2) people who are willing to mug others are willing to commit crimes and will thus just as well steal whatever they want, if that is an easier option but not all those who want to watch child porn, are able to produce it.
I'm quite suprised that you got a +4, Insightful.
*starts drawing a winning lottery-ticket*
Who the fuck said anything about wikipedia being "sanitized"??? Not me. What do you think will happen if they take away all the protections? I tell you what will happen: a whole bunch of fucking crazy nutjobs will constantly update just about every article with conspiracy theories, company pr, vandalism, spam, and just plain nonsensical shit.
If you still insist this would not happen, why don't you read slashdot at -1 for a while. On second thought, you won't get the full brunt because many trolls give up because most people don't read below 1 (many just read at 5). They realize they don't have an audience. You should go back several years and find where there were waves of shit posted by scripts and just loons with lots of time on their hands. This is also why slashdot uses captchas.
Wikipedia (and slashdot) would be useless if there wasn't some sort of system to filter out total shit.
While I mostly agree with your sentiment, the answer to your question seems obvious. It is called child porn because it's pornography involving children, using drawings as medium. Ignoring the difficulty in defining pornography, paintings can be pornographic.
Your question should be, "Why is child porn considered harmful when no one was actually harmed in producing it?"
There are people who claim that it indeed is, as in inciting or popularizing a fetish that would be harmful if acted out, but going by that rationale we'd have to illegalize a whole slew of fiction (written sexual fantasy like A.S.S.T.R, series like Dexter, video games like Hitman and GTA etc.) that is completely legal, and IMO justly so.
Someone can create a highly realistic porn images depicting minors just using Photoshop. Are those illegal? No child is abused, so no law is broken.
In some countries like Japan, South Korea or Spain the age of consent is 13. Therefore making sex with a consenting kid which is 13 years and 6 month old is legal. However if you film the action and stream it over internet is illegal?
Seems to be mostly a slam job on Wikipedia.
I was puzzled, though, by one thing. The letter goes off on how Eric Moeller must be a pedophile because some of his edits on Wikipedia are "indicating that pedophelia is something that’s less than evil."
Wow. There's a pretty tough standard: if every single edit does not explicity state "pedophelia is evil," then you must be a pedophile, or at least support pedophilia?
The link was to this blog post, which gives the specific examples of his Wikipedia posts. The problem is, none of his edits seem to be even the least bit problematical. One of the edits that is highlighted, for example, is this:
He inserted the following text into the article on Human sexual behavior:
It is generally acknowledged that children are capable of feeling sexual pleasure, even if they are not yet able to engage in sexual intercourse with each other, and/or are not yet biologically able to reproduce.
Yea, so? Is this even the slightest bit controversial? I'd say it's a simple statement of fact. It is generally acknowledged that children are capable of feeling sexual pleasure even before puberty. Duh. Anybody who disagrees with this, I assume, has never actually been a child.
And all of the edits quoted are equally blandly factual. One discuses the definition of pedophile in the context of sexual abuse of minors. I might accuse this edit of engaging in pedanticism, but not pedophilia-- he is being pedantically correctly about the definition. Another of his edits that is shown as an example is:
“A small minority believes that children are capable of consenting to homosexual acts with older men, but all major pro-homosexual groups have rejected that view.”
He's not advocating the opinion, just stating that it exists-- and that the opinion is widely rejected. Is the argument now that if you even acknowlege that an opinion exists, you must agree with it?
(Posting this one as AC because that article quoted says that because of those posts, the guy should be fired from any job other than underwater basket weaver. I happen do like my job, and I really don't want nut jobs writing to my employer saying that I am posting to the internet posts that defending somebody who wrote something that might be read as defending pederasts, so I must be a pederast. Sheesh.)
If you still insist this would not happen, why don't you read slashdot at -1 for a while.
I _do_ read slashdot at -1. The garbage is very easy to ignore. I would simply rather have the chance to make up my own mind than have someone decide for me what is worth reading and what isn't. Of course it takes more time to sort through the pile of crap - but then again anything worthwhile always has some form of cost associated with it.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I have found that Wikipedia conveniently has a list of States
where these sick bastards can indulge in *LEGAL SEX WITH UNDERAGE* girls.
Despicable backwater places were pederasts can *legally* own
their own *CHILD* brides / sex slaves.
In most of these places 16!, in some as young as 14, 13!
Is there no end to this evil?
Why does Wikipedia hate America and our Christian way of life so much ???!!!!
Here's the link as if more proof were required:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age#North_America
Asking for money creates demand for money, which can be satisfied through many legal means as well. Watching child porn creates demand for child porn, which can only be satisfied through abuse of children.
You should get a -1, Moronic
In spite of the sarcasm, it should be added that going abroad to have sex with someone who would be underage where you live opens you up to prosecution in your own country. Sex tourism and all that.
Is there a stack of explicit sexual images of cartoon characters depicted as under 18?
I looked on the lollicon page, and there's a picture there that's pretty tame in my books ((essentially, a bunch of girls at a slumber party )). There's nothing in it that I'd call overtly sexual, although they are in somewhat skimpy pajamas.
Nobody's made notable changes to the page in the last couple of days, so -- unless somebody changed the actual image (didn't check that), then this whole thing's been something of a tempest in a teapot.
Maybe the offending picture's elsewhere and/or perhaps Sanger hoped that people would go on a witch hunt.
There's nothing like a bit if innuendo to stir up a hornet's nest of controversy.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Larry Sanger here--let me clarify a few things.
First of all, what very few of the commenters (at least the first commenters) noticed was that the statute I cited, 18 U.S.C. 1466A, has the following title: "Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children." It specifically states: "Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that..."
That's drawings, cartoons, sculptures, and paintings. "Visual depictions of any kind." Many people who criticized my message to the FBI really seem to have a problem with the law, which I find interesting.
Anyway, I now realize with regret that "child pornography" was probably the wrong word to use. I didn't realize that it would be so misleading. I thought that "obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children" (the title of the statute) was just what we mean when we say "child pornography." It didn't occur to me until afterward that many people restrict "child pornography" to mean photographs of real children. If I had realized this sooner, I would have used "depictions of child sexual abuse" instead.
So, why did I report Wikimedia to the FBI? First some background. I am broadly a libertarian, but I am also a sincere moralist (as opposed to a cynical amoralist). Libertarianism and moralism are not--of course--contradictory. Being a libertarian, I think we have the right to do a lot of things, including a lot of things that broadly coarsen society; that's the price we pay for freedom. But, just as the law provides for, I do draw one line when it comes to photographs, or even merely realistic depictions, of child sexual abuse. Most sane libertarians recognize that some speech should be restricted by the force of law--the hackneyed examples are shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, perjury, and libel. But for me, depictions of child sexual abuse are another. I respect the opinion of those who have a principled disagreement with me when it comes to depictions of child sexual abuse. But pretending that it's just obvious, even for libertarians, that we have a right to publish such depictions is simply wrong, in my opinion.
Regarding my motives, yes, I thought I was doing my civic duty, one that I didn't really want to do, but which I felt I ought to do. Partly this was because the statute in question required me to make the report if I thought the statute applied (and it seems to me it does--those drawings sure look like obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children to me). But partly also it was because I think that this sort of thing--including some pictures of children being out-and-out raped--is completely wrong, and should not be allowed in a civilized society. Call this censorship if you like, but I don't really think you have a constitutional right to publish and consume realistic drawings of child rape and molestation.
But what outcome am I aiming at? Contrary to the insinuations of some, I have no interest in trying to get Wikimedia shut down; that would be unnecessary, and I doubt it would happen as a result of the violation of the statute. But I think and hope it may cause pressure on Wikimedia from law enforcement, politicians, and the general public to eliminate this sort of content. I also hope that Wikimedia will be persuaded, or if necessary forced, to label its "adult" content as such in a consistent and reliable way, so that it can be easily filtered by school system filters. This would be a win-win, because then Wikipedia would be used in more schools--something I don't at all oppose, except for all the grossly inappropriate material for school children--and, when used in schools, children would be less likely to find content that their parents and teachers regard as grossly inappropriate for their age.
I know that in our cynical world, a lot of people will have trouble believing t
It was taken of me by my mother when I was a kid. If I post that to my Facebook page am I committing an act of paedophilia? What if a put in through Photoshop and give myself a sex change at 2 yo? Will that make me a sex change doctor? And what if I take a current photo of me and Photoshop me screwing myself at age 4, OMG what will I be then, a rapist?
Hell you better filter me off the Internet, I'm clearly dangerous to my own young mind.
The issue here is about harm and intent as if anything along those lines would stand up to censorship in wikipedia, it just doesn't happen. This is clearly about the thought police. It's just a pity they can't devote all their energy to removing guns from society, that would actually be useful.
Blind Faith - Well All Right!!! .... all right?
Then and only then will you be allowed to SEE and enjoy the music!
Details of the above picture available at: http://www.angelfire.com/wi/blindfaith/vvcov69.html
CAUTION! THIS PICTURE IS NOT FIT FIT FOR AMERICANS. UNLESS THEY ARE MEDICAL DOCTORS!
Possibly not Canadians either. The jury is still out on this.
Now go cleanse your filthy body with Pinoqachole, you pervert!
.
- aqk
F U
Larry Sanger is an interesting guy, way to get TOW V&
Does this mean that Mallrats is illegal in AUS?
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
It sounded quite worse from the heading of the article, seriously thought the FBI had done something stupid like link the url of the child p0rn sites or something, they have been know to do stuff like this before, I just thought it happened again from the heading.
Here's what most of the comments seem to be missing. If you look at the top 25 most-viewed images on Wikimedia Commons, they are not "made-up drawings", and many of them are themed as such:
5 Category:Shaved genitalia (female) 231062 views
6 Category:Vulva 204043
11 Penis 129794
12 Category:Female genitalia 115613
13 Category:Ejaculation 107525
14 Category:Sex positions 107061
16 Category:Vagina 98422
17 Category:Erotic 95543
18 Category:Oral sex 92525
19 Category:Masturbation 92416
21 Category:Penis 90955
22 Category:Female masturbation 85930
23 Category:Sex 84217
25 Category:Male masturbation 77042
The evidence clearly indicates that what Commons is, is a porn gallery server. Why is it that my government allows Google, Omidyar Network, Hewlett Foundation, Stanton Foundation, and Sloan Foundation to ENJOY A TAX BREAK when they donate huge sums of money to this particular porn gallery? The fact that the Wikimedia Foundation is allowed to operate as a 501-c-3 "charity" makes me puke a little in my mouth.
In reply to this :
Call this censorship if you like, but I don't really think you have a constitutional right to publish and consume realistic drawings of child rape and molestation.
Apart from repeatedly saying it's wrong, you didn't give any reason behind this opinion.
So i'd like to know what are the criteria that you would use to decide what *fictional* material should be allowed or not ?
Surely it can't be that the situation depicted is illegal or most fictions would be banned.
Surely it can't be that the situation depicted is illegal and shocking as the sensibilty varies from one person to another. I can't stand the movie "Natural born killers" but that doesn't mean i want it banned. If you don't like one type of fiction, just don't look at it. You would have a point if sensitive fiction would be pushed on national TV. I personally think there is too much violence on tv but i don't care if someone rents a very violent movie on dvd.
Is it that the situation depicted must be illegal, shocking and involve children ? Then we surely must ban "Anne Frank's journal", "Schindler's list", "Pan's labyrinth" (murder of a child at the end), "law abiding citizen" (murder of a child at the beginning)
On what grounds would you assume that it's right to show violence, murder, rape or torture on an adult in a fiction but not on a child ? If you ban fictional situations involving children on the basis that it's "wrong" in reality then it looks like the same horrible situations are "right" in reality if they concern an adult. Of course that is not the case ! A rape is criminal and horrible in reality whether on a child or an adult. And in fiction, it's still horrible but like many other fictional depictions, it's FICTION, if you don't like it, just ignore it ! [NB: Anne Frank is not fiction]
Is it that the situation depicted must be illegal, shocking, involve children and depict sexuality or nudity ? Then, i am sorry but you have strange moral values. I see no reason why you would be offended by the cartoon of an underage having sex and not be offended by the murder of a child in a movie.
Is it that the situation depicted must be illegal, involve children and depict sexuality or nudity and look apologetic ? When you see a murder in a movie, you instantly know it's wrong, whether the movie is apologetic or not. That should be the same with depiction of illegal sexual activities involving minors. There is no reason to ban it, you should be able to use your moral judgment whatever fiction you see.
The bottomline is, if it's fiction and there is no victim, it's not a matter of legality but morality. And morality is in the eye of the beholder. It's not the role of a governement to decide what is moral or not. If you don't agree with that, then you surely are not a libertarian.
Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
I have just one last comment, in response to a few Slashdot comments. Some of those comments were written by people who sound like complete creeps to me, [...] Such people should not be making policy for the seventh most popular website in the world.
So now, in your opinion, anyone who defends freedom of expression or freedom of thinking is automatically classified as having the lowest moral standards among those who can use that freedom ?
Never heard of the quote "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." by Voltaire ?
Besides, you make a succession of small and subtle deviations in your reasoning :
first, we start with the subject of fictional representations of sexual characters that might be minors;
second, we are on the subject of those who are sexually stimulated by such depictions. It's not the same ! Watching such cartoons *does not* automatically translate in being sexually stimulated for a massively large part of the population. It even is disgusting for many people. [For me, I am more disgusted when i see a baby about to die of malnutrition in Africa or children being shot by an helicopter in Irak or Gaza, than by a stupid cartoon.]
third, we are now talking about those who make a comment acknowedging that people get stimulated by that kind of fiction, or simply moderate the comment. It doesn't necessarily mean they are "creeps" but you put them in the same league;
fourth, you make a whole paragraph about those who advocate a pedosociety : "Such people should not be making policy for the seventh most popular website in the world."
What it leads to think is that watching cartoons about sex equals being sexually stimulated by it equals morally approving it equals advocating for legal sex with minors in the society.
I don't think that kind of reasoning is fair or valid.
Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
I wrote democrat in the sense of being for democracy, not in the sense of being for the democrats of USA.
Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
the people who want to put joe shmoe behind bars because he jerked off to a drawn picture of a fictional child do not feel that way because they are concerned with the safety of children. they feel that way because they find joe shmoe's fetishes personally distateful. This is not an issue of safety or right vs wrong, but merely an issue of social acceptance. this is a nissue of their bigotry. These people legislate based on mere personal taste. Their invasive ideology protects nobody, and causes real legal problems good, ethical people.
I believe is the 'obscenity' charge. The problem is since you determine that on a local level and Wikipedia is not only all over the state, but the country and the continent and the world at large, where do you get the jury to determine what obscenity is for all of that? This is pretty much the same statute pressed against Christopher Handley. Neil Gaiman, creator of Coraline, stands with the lolicons.
Good. Someone needs to stand up to Wikipedia. For too long, the administrators and owners of Wikipedia have acted like they are above the law. They're not, and Wikipedia will be held accountable eventually.