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.
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.
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.
Ugly and pretty are now irrelevant because it could hurt ugly people's feelings?
All people and all errm body parts are not created equally in terms of beauty. People find it pleasant to look at things that are pleasant to the eye, which is probably no coincidence.
You can of course keep looking at ugly body parts of ugly people if it makes you fell well. When the sense of smug righteousness wears off after a while you will realize you wasted your time to the benefit of no one.
90% of "Fixing up bits where nature wasn't good enough" can be completed with a shower, a hairbrush and a shave.
No wonder Hippies don't like any of these three.
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?
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.
Gotta love Slashdot where false dichotomies get insightful mods.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year