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.
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
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.
Several Americans have in fact been jailed for possessing lolicon. The judge deemed lolicon manga just as harmful as the real thing.
the war picture of a small completely naked girl running toward the cameraperson in panic
Are you perhaps referring to this picture?
I think the OP was talking about fictional images (e.g., "lolicon")? Yes, for child pornography, there's the argument that even though the simply act of viewing or possession is a victimless crime, there are reasons to criminalise all of this. But none of this applies to people downloading fictional (especially unrealistic) images, even if they then go and download more of it.
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.)
... 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...
He probably meant Kowloon walled city, the densest settlement in human history, free from any central governing body, and still had a lower homicide rate than Hong Kong. It was bulldozed in 94.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
No need to imagine. This scenario has happened multiple times in history, for example with Taliban destroying Buddhist statues and Christians destroying pagan temples.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
In Japan, the age of consent is 16, not 18. Also, I'm willing to bet that information is added during the translation/localization phase, because the Japanese government doesn't view lolicon as a crime, because it doesn't actually involve minors.
Learn something new.
In the US, the age of consent is as low as 14 in some states: http://ageofconsent.com/
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
apple pie is french...
Meh, Germany bans about everything they can get their hands on. From video games to political views. It's a total mess over there.
This is one of the smaller problems Germany has.
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