Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Larry Sanger Tells FBI Wikipedia Distributes "Child Pornography"

Posted by timothy on from the and-it-may-be-knowingly dept.

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.

107 of 572 comments (clear)

  1. No conflict of interest there by Arancaytar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just doing his civic duty, yessir.

    1. Re:No conflict of interest there by Kong+the+Medium · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From the article:

      I have also since founded a more responsible project, Citizendium.org, and a teacher-edited non-profit directory of preK-12 educational videos, WatchKnow.org. Given my position of influence on matters related to Wikipedia, though I'm no longer associated with it, I feel I have a moral obligation to make the following report.

      And I have the moral obligation to call you an opportunist, a shill and accuse you of mudraking to further your goals, Mister Sanger.

      IMHO, there are fair use cases, e.g. for educational purposes, for the depiction of under-age sexuality, and if wikipedia doesn't fall under the umbrella of educational websites, I want some suggestions which website does. Hey, here in Germany even our cabinet members can show hard child pornograghic pictures in press conferences.

      --
      ... whenever a text is transmitted, variation occurs. This is because human beings are careless, fallible, and occasiona
    2. Re:No conflict of interest there by kestasjk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have also since founded a more responsible project, Citizendium.org, and a teacher-edited non-profit directory of preK-12 educational videos, WatchKnow.org. Given my position of influence on matters related to Wikipedia, though I'm no longer associated with it, I feel I have a moral obligation to make the following report.

      What a douchebag.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    3. Re:No conflict of interest there by msclrhd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, is this the new communism? The new witch hunts?

      Sanger: Wikipedia is a distributor of the communist agenda and everyone associated with it is a communist.

    4. Re:No conflict of interest there by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey, here in Germany even our cabinet members can show hard child pornograghic pictures in press conferences.

      "Press conferences"? Is that what they're calling them these days?

    5. Re:No conflict of interest there by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, but it should NEVER be criminal to indulge and satisfy in whatever fetish you have so long as it is victimless and harmless to real people. Problem with hysterical pedohunters is that they don't care how their actions actually affect children. They are simply out for blood because it's their fetish, just like spanish inquisition was. The whole lolicon issue is one brilliant example of this - why should anyone care if someone masturbates to an image of a drawn child? If that gets his/her kicks so that the person can be a normal productive member of society, all's good, or at least should be good - no child is ever harmed, and the person has taken care of his/her urges. Yet modern pedohunters would love to string every single one of these people from a nearest flagpole inspite of them posing zero real threat to the children. At the same time, it's a known fact that those who are most anti-[issue] people tend to have extreme fetishes themselves, and typically perform and support witch-hunt style actions to cover their own "shameful" fetishes. Great example of this are some of the most hardline anti-gay activists who come out of the closet later in their lives.

      Finally there is a lovely issue of children as sex objects which many love to deny ignoring the cold and brutal medical facts and often their own experiences as parents. Every parent knows that children discover their sexuality long, long before teenage starts. Explaining to your child why masturbating in public is inapproproate when he/she is around age of 4-5 is fairly typical - it's just that in "this is shameful" families it's done in such a traumatizing way for the child, that child gets too afraid to explore it any further before teenage hormones kick in. This is stuff that's widely known in medical community. In fact, there are medical books who mention sexuality in babies - for example babies "humping" their bed covers because it feels good. Before the concept of "morality" kicks in, children sexuality is typically ignored, and is considered "acceptable if shameful" by most.

      You have to remember, if you're close to someone who is actually working with real pedophiles who have actual victims, your view is very strongly skewed, same as a police officer's who's working in slums. You tend to see the worst in people because you're used to seeing worst in people. Not because it's actually there.

    6. Re:No conflict of interest there by Compaqt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't comment on the pedophilia claims, and Sanger is definitely not a disinterested party, but on the other hand, there are plenty of people who would love to see the Wikicabal get slapped for various nefarious and high-handed administrative acts over the years. (Deletionism, notability, citation-required spam, funneling articles toward Wikia, etc.)

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    7. Re:No conflict of interest there by davidwr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      victimless and harmless to real people

      This is just it, it's not harmless.

      Or more accurately, even if viewing child porn causes not additional harm to the child depicted if people in a position to create child porn are aware there is a demand for it - which they are if people are downloading material from web sites they control - then it's much more likely that they will invest the time and resources to set up a camera and get a child to act in front of it. In many cases, the child is far from a willing participant.

      So, yes, it is possible to view child pornography and not hurt anyone. However, in aggregate, the viewing of child pornography creates a demand for new images, and the filling of this demand results in child abuse.

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    8. Re:No conflict of interest there by ChrisMP1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      By that logic, asking people for money should be illegal because you create a demand for them to mug someone for it.

      --
      <sig>&nbsp;</sig>
    9. Re:No conflict of interest there by mdwh2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but by allowing lolicon and similar images to become acceptable I feel as if an important social barrier may have been breeched.

      So you support that all images of distasteful things be banned - whether newsworthy (e.g., people being killed in war, to use a recent example), to fictional (violence and rape scenes in films) to unrealistic (cartoons that often show unrealistic violence)? Or is there something special about something that appears to unrealistically depict a 17 year old?

      On that note, I'm curious what these images are supposed to be. The image on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon is surely not anything that would be considered "child" pornography, even in countries that have batshit laws against fictional images? Even if that was a real image with, you know, actual children, it wouldn't be child porn - unless you're going to say that nappy adverts be illegal...

      Is there a stack of explicit sexual images of cartoon characters depicted as under 18? I'm scared to go looking myself, since as of April 2010 in the UK I'd now be a sex offender facing three years in prison if I stumbled across one.

    10. Re:No conflict of interest there by mdwh2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    11. Re:No conflict of interest there by Jesus_666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      by allowing lolicon and similar images to become acceptable I feel as if an important social barrier may have been breeched.

      And that may be a good thing. Right now pedophilia is anathema. Anything related to the topic is considered so vile that even thinking about the topic itself is dirty. You don't get sensible approaches with that kind of atmosphere.

      What would happen if some politician came up with the idea of pedophile support networks and state-funded counseling? An instant career end, that's what would happen. Because pedophilia and everything remotely associated with it is EVIL EVIL EVIL any nuanced approach to the topic is seen as insufficiently anti-pedophile which is the same as pro-pedophile, thus you're unfit for any office anywhere if you don't demonize pedophiles enough.
      Progress can't be made if zealotry is the norm.

      Now what if drawn child pornography does get some mindshare? People might start to wonder whether victimless* CP is really just as bad as regular CP**. And then they wonder whether the current laws are actually to the benefit of the people. And when we have people wondering whether a picture of Bart Simpson naked really warrants a prison term and an entry in the sexual offender database we're a big step closer to them actually bothering to question other aspects of current policy.


      * Yes, we can't prove that a certain artist doesn't use actual children/CP as source material. Yet. We regularly catch companies doing bad things, though, so spot checks etc. can help. Requiring drawn CP creators to submit to random inspections (otherwise not getting admitted into the market) should keep the incidence of abusive drawn CP hitting the market low. And I do expect that the black market would take a large hit if a perfectly legal white market existed.

      ** The usual argument is that "all child porn turns people into pedophiles". So far I haven't seen any solid scientific support for that hypothesis. There are other hypotheses like "drawn CP allows pedophiles to let off steam without a child getting involved" which are equally unsubstantiated, seem equally sensible to a layman and make it seem a good idea to actually try and find out what is true.
      Right now we can't even tell whether drawn CP is good or bad beyond resorting to truthiness.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    12. Re:No conflict of interest there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, you could make drawings that look like children having sex, which is what this entire thread is about.

    13. Re:No conflict of interest there by Mr.+Bad+Example · · Score: 5, Funny

      > Do you have children of your own?

      The contents of my basement are nobody else's business.

    14. Re:No conflict of interest there by mog007 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.
    15. Re:No conflict of interest there by Jhon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Would you rather have your children around a pedophile that has an outlet or one that doesn't?

      I REALLY hate false choice scenarios. I, of course, would rather have my children not be around ANY pedophile.

      Your question also suggests that if someone has child porn they will not become a predator. Many of the pedophiles arrested had collections of child porn or erotica. Many studies have suggested this not to be the case with male->female rape. Example.

    16. Re:No conflict of interest there by AJWM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Many of the pedophiles arrested had collections of child porn or erotica.

      And 100% of them had, at some point in their life, taken dihydrogen monoxide. The more relevant question is how many of those who have erotica collections (or have drunk H2O, or whatever) have done something arrest-worthy? (Other than having the collection itself.)

      Do you have any idea how many people read murder mysteries? Are there really that many potential murderers out there? (Of course there's a broad spectrum between reading Agatha Christie and watching snuff films, just as there is between reading Nabokov and collecting porn photos, but the point remains.)

      --
      -- Alastair
    17. Re:No conflict of interest there by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Remember that panhandling is illegal in many cities for exactly that reason.

      No. Panhandling is illegal because most people find it annoying, and the panhandlers are in no position to find lawmakers to oppose making it illegal. Your idea that it "leads to mugging" is ridiculous.

      Anyone that's ever walked around a decent size U.S. city has been approached for money before. This has happened to me perhaps a hundred times. I've yet to be mugged or even seriously threatened by a bum panhandling. Most of the time it's the "gas can scam" with someone claiming they "ran out of gas" and need some small amount of money. This is really just panhandling with a touch of fraud added in.

      --
      AccountKiller
    18. Re:No conflict of interest there by Alsee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I always find it hysterical when people toss around that ass backwards supply-and-demand argument.

      Seriously. If someone genuinely wanted to prevent actual children from being actual victims of actual crimes to produce such images, the supply-and-demand argument mandates you must do the exact opposite. The supply-and-demand argument dictates that you would revoke any possible copyright in such images and that you would have law enforcement dump their vast collection of images free on the internet. You would keep the act of abuse itself a crime, but you would FLOOD the existing supply in order to obliterate demand for production.

      I'm always mystified when people bring up that argument. Arson is criminal, images of arson are not in themselves criminal, and this bizarre ass backwards supply-demand argument is somehow tossed around as a reason these sorts of images should be legally treated differently than images of arson.

      Throw arsonists in prison, throw child abusers in prison, but just drop the ridiculous supply demand argument to justify criminalizing non-arsonists or non-abusers over images themselves. Drop the bullshit argument that it's being done to protect children and prevent abuse, when in fact it wildly INCREASES the profit and INCREASES the abuse of children for production. Again, it increases the abuse of children for production. The reason the images are criminalized has nothing to do with supply and demand, it has nothing to do with protecting the children, the images are criminalized because that are offensive and disturbing.

      On Wikimedia there are some hundred-year-old fictional line drawings that might be considered offensive and disturbing. Oh. My. God. The sky is going to fall if we don't put somebody in prison over it.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    19. Re:No conflict of interest there by Stanislav_J · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ** The usual argument is that "all child porn turns people into pedophiles". So far I haven't seen any solid scientific support for that hypothesis. There are other hypotheses like "drawn CP allows pedophiles to let off steam without a child getting involved" which are equally unsubstantiated, seem equally sensible to a layman and make it seem a good idea to actually try and find out what is true.

      Good luck getting funding for THAT study. As someone else said (to borrow his words), the whole subject area is "EVIL, EVIL, EVIL" to many, who would rather use a broad brush to paint generalities and condemnation rather than actually study the matter and perhaps seek to understand the why of how such an interest develops, and possibly develop strategies for prevention and treatment. It's SOOO much easier just to write pedos off as sub-human monsters and treat them as such.

      I think the more hysterical, over-the-top anti-pedos might fear that such a study WOULD show that so-called "virtual kiddie porn" DOES act as a "safety valve," more often preventing such an interest from escalating to harming or exploiting actual children. I don't know if that is true, but a study showing it to be thus would take some of the wind out of their sails.

      Or not. Hell, plenty of studies show that abstinence-based sex education does absolutely nothing in the long run to prevent teens from having sex, but that hasn't quieted the naysayers. A similar mentality keeps the War on Drugs chugging along when it does little to actually curb drug use, whether habitual or recreational. Remember that most of the "antis" in these areas have a strong religious bent, and will easily ignore or reject practical solutions in favor of simple condemnation and prohibition because "God says it's wrong" requires so much less actual thought.

      --
      "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
    20. Re:No conflict of interest there by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unfortunately, pedos don't wear a tag. They're not labeled. They don't come with warning stickers akin to "keep out of reach of children under 12" or something like that. The world does not bend the the sticker-craze of the US. So saying "I'd rather not live next to a pedo" isn't working out. They don't (for good reason, as you may be able to imagine) don't wear it on their sleeve.

      Your example of pedos arrested for rape and then being child porn (drawn or real, you left it open, but let's assume we're talking about CP that came from the crayon instead of a camera) smell a bit like an argument often used when run amok and then finding shooter games on their PC. And the logic instilled in people like Mr. Thompson and his cronies that this is some sort of indicator of a shootist. Having FPS games -> some crazy gunman in the making. Having pencil CP on PC -> some pedo rapist in the making. Now, I tend to be a person that goes by the law of similarities when he cannot relate to the topic at hand, and this really seems like where the law of similarities could apply. I play FPS games. I still don't have the urge to go out there and go on a killing spree. Likewise, I can easily imagine how someone who hoards lolicon isn't interested in raping real kids. VR is one thing, RL another.

      So, sorry, no sale. Unless you have better examples, like, say, that someone who has (pencil) CP on his computer at least significantly tends to become a rapist, we needn't continue the talking.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re:No conflict of interest there by Lunzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      We wouldn't expect anything less from Mr. Bad Example.

  2. Re:First by Useful+Wheat · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  3. Categories by Gudeldar · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    1. Re:Categories by St.Creed · · Score: 3, Informative

      It depends on your definition of child porn I guess, but the picture of a girl sucking someones dick sure does look like child porn to me. Or didn't you know that cartoons are banned as well? It's not about the children, it's about enforcing societies moral standards.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    2. Re:Categories by Gudeldar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the category hadn't been "pedophilia" would you still have assumed it was child pornography? The girl appears to me to be at least a teenager, but beyond that she could be 14 or 20 (or younger or older). Is it child pornography if the artist conceived of her as 13 or if I did? At what point does child pornography become a thought crime?

    3. Re:Categories by loufoque · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it's about enforcing societies moral standards

      And why should it be the government responsibility to dictate morals? They should just provide a practical framework to make life in a community work.

    4. Re:Categories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the category hadn't been "pedophilia" would you still have assumed it was child pornography? The girl appears to me to be at least a teenager, but beyond that she could be 14 or 20 (or younger or older). Is it child pornography if the artist conceived of her as 13 or if I did? At what point does child pornography become a thought crime?

      In Germany we recently got an "appearance pornography" law that says, if the depicted woman LOOKS younger than 18, it's illegal.

      Hilarious what those moral morons come up with.

    5. Re:Categories by hldn · · Score: 5, Funny

      ( . )( . )

      these ascii boobs belong to a 14 year old ascii girl. i'm serious.

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    6. Re:Categories by Imrik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe true, but that won't stop people from being prosecuted under them.

    7. Re:Categories by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The great thing about (moral) standards is that there are so many to choose from.

    8. Re:Categories by Wizard+Drongo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And of the course the entire world uses the US system of justice.

      Wish we did actually. Here in Scotland, any picture which depicts an act in which a child is sexually active, or is witnessing sexual acts or involved in any way, can be deemed child pornography.

      Only in the UK would a stick drawing of lisa simpson watching marge fuck homer land you in jail!

      --
      The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
    9. Re:Categories by cerberusss · · Score: 4, Funny

      ( . )( . )

      these ascii boobs belong to a 14 year old ascii girl. i'm serious.

      Uuuurgh that's disgusting. Is there some sort of special term for these kinds of pictures, where the head and body was brutally cut off, and only a set of breasts is shown of an underage girl?

      Also, I can't fap to this.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    10. Re:Categories by houghi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At what point does child pornography become a thought crime?

      The moment you are against whatever you elected government says.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    11. Re:Categories by Yvanhoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At what point does child pornography become a thought crime?

      When we began apply it to cartoons instead of live "models" it became a thought crime.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    12. Re:Categories by billius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At what point does child pornography become a thought crime?

      If I recall correctly, it's never a thought crime. Child pornography (that is, pictures of actual children engaging in sexual acts) is illegal not because the content is objectionable, but rather because its very existence requires a crime to be committed. New York v. Feber concluded that the distribution of visual depictions of children engaged in sexual activity is intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children and that since the government has a compelling interest in preventing the sexual exploitation of children, it is therefore okay to ban child pornography without having to first show that it's obscene. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition referenced this case when they decided that parts of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 were unconstitutional because they attempted to ban simulated child pornography (eg drawings, etc) because the creation of such images do not harm children. In effect, it's like the difference between a snuff film and a horror movie. You can make a horror movie as gruesome as you like, but you can't depict actual death in it.

      Based on these grounds, I think it's shameful for Larry Sanger to be slinging mud like this. As far as I can tell, the images in question do not require the sexual exploitation of children and are therefore not child pornography. But from what I've seen, accusing anyone of supporting child pornography online is an incredibly effective way to get people to turn off their brains and hate someone without a second thought.

    13. Re:Categories by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even more hilarious that around the same time Media Markt instituted the rule that everybody must show ID for age verification, no matter how old they appear. So we can trust people's judgment on pictures enough to determine guilt but not in real life?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    14. Re:Categories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Provided you're not trolling, I'd like to ask how you'd cover those anime characters that look young but are "hundreds of millions of years old!" or some variation according to canon.

      The question then becomes, are we banning those with the *appearance* of children from pornographic material or banning the idea of children being exploited.

      The second, I'd say, is far more important. But then the question continues further as to exactly which point a child can be considered developed enough, mentally, to make decisions about their sexuality. In most of the world we've set up semi-arbitrary values which are reflected in physical appearance (puberty). As such, for someone lacking the proper appearance, we make the assumption that they lack the mental faculty to properly understand their actions.

      So, if a cartoon character is stated to be older, acts in a mature manner, and shows all signs of being a rational, intelligent adult *except* in terms of physical appearance, would porn of that be child porn or not? I suppose in this case you'd have to argue as to the intent of the author and so on?

    15. Re:Categories by smchris · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We're _decades_ into thought crime within current generations:

      1) Started with narcs looking for dealers.
      2) If it was good hunting dealers, wasn't it good hunting users?
      3) If undercover worked so well for drugs, why not expand it to other areas like burglary and car theft rings?

      I wonder whether it was prostitution where the line was first crossed into temptation:

      4) Why should we spend time busting prostitutes when we can pose as prostitutes and bust clients?
      5) Why not set up our own fencing operations to catch burglars?
      6) Why not set up our own kiddie porn sites? We can offer genuine confiscated kiddie porn either as downloads or send them by post for extra client criminality.
      7) But that's so passive. Why not pose _as_ kids and troll for child molesters?

      I'm sure in all these cases officers can come up with examples of "good work" where they imprisoned repeat offenders. But from a sociological viewpoint, America has become a very strange place where it is the government's job to entice "those so inclined" into crime. Do we have any idea of the cultural fallout from this shift and can it casually be assumed to be all good?

         

    16. Re:Categories by jez9999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Child pornography (that is, pictures of actual children engaging in sexual acts) is illegal not because the content is objectionable, but rather because its very existence requires a crime to be committed.

      A child porn cartoon does not.

      --
      == Jez ==
      Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
    17. Re:Categories by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Under new laws, a simple well known game now results in the creation of snuff porn:

      =======
      |/   |
      |    0
      |   /|\
      |    |
      |   / \
      |
      +-------

      And how can you be sure that the person depicted here isn't under 18 too?

    18. Re:Categories by Phrogman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, but just try to apply the moral standards of say Germany or Holland over here in North America. They seem to be much better adjusted about human sexuality over in Europe. In North America (Canada/US) we are positively out to lunch about sexuality, and completely accepting of violence.
      Its okay for a child to watch someone get murdered on TV, but considered completely unacceptable if they should see a naked breast - let alone a naked human body.
      I recall a woman in a local coffee shop, unobtrusively deciding to breastfeed her baby - and some American tourists got up and complained to the management - even though she was not in their view unless they strained to look. I was shocked anyone would object to breastfeeding, not that she was doing it (what could be more natural?).
      I think our whole western culture has gotten so grossly twisted up over issues of sexuality that it gives rise to a lot of our problems. Granted there has to be some limits - Pedophilia is a great example, completely unacceptable - but we seem intent on enforcing limits that are very very extreme in a lot of cases, and yet, as I said above, we gloss over violence in film and television and accept it as perfectly natural and acceptable.
      Christianity is at the heart of the matter in my opinion. Our currently accepted moral standards are based on a religion that most of us ostensibly Christian people pay no heed to.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    19. Re:Categories by jandrese · · Score: 4, Funny

      Shouldn't that be: |.||.|

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    20. Re:Categories by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, indeed - hence I argue that we shouldn't use terms like "child porn cartoons". You're right, even if one conceded that it was reasonable to use "child porn" to describe a cartoon (which I don't), the problem is still that the laws are far broader than that.

      I fear this new law will be even broader than the dubious recent "extreme porn" law, Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. The worrying thing is, I don't even think that hentai is some unintended consequence of the law - I've seen references to police forces explicitly mentioning hentai, calling it to be banned (e.g., in the consultation for Section 63, Gtr Manchester Police also called for laws against hentai. And the sad thing is, all we'll see reported in the press is "man convicted of possessing child pornography", with at best a reference to cartoons or drawings (one of the problems with trying to follow the consequences of Section 63 is that details in the press are very limited, and usually follow the Government-spin definitions of "man possessing extreme pornographic images").

    21. Re:Categories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Child pornography (that is, pictures of actual children engaging in sexual acts) is illegal not because the content is objectionable, but rather because its very existence requires a crime to be committed.

      That was true, until children started taking pictures of themselves engaging in sexual acts. Now the act itself is not a crime, but taking pictures is.

    22. Re:Categories by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When I was 15 I had a fourteen year old girlfriend with D cups. rBGH++

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:Categories by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The great thing about (moral) standards is that there are so many to choose from.

      ... but only MY religion/race/communities moral righteousness are the divine/correct ones. And since we have the reins of power, thou shalt yield to our moral will come law of the land. /sarcasm. As the thorough research of Bob Altemeyer discovered:

      What makes authoritarian followers? Altemeyer suggests that the “social learning model of aggression” explains authoritarian aggression in high RWAs. The model is basically fear plus a trigger, in this case self-righteousness.

      Thus in the experiments done on this subject, if you know how highly people scored on the Dangerous World scale, and if you know how self-righteous they are,you can explain rather well the homophobia of authoritarian followers, their heavy-handedness in sentencing criminals, their prejudices against racial and ethnic minorities, why they are so mean-spirited toward those who have erred and suffered, and their readiness to join posses to ride down Communists, radicals, or whomever. (p. 57)

      He also offers a personal-development model of overall high-RWA characteristics. “I have discovered in my investigations that, by and large, high RWA students had simply missed many of the experiences that might have lowered their authoritarianism” (p. 61). Altemeyer doesn’t rule out a genetic component to being a high RWA, but he suggests that life experiences that reinforce the correctness of authority and offer few chances to question received truth are responsible for the development of high RWA characteristics.

      Some characteristics of high RWAs. Altemeyer has found that people who score high on the RWA scale tend to also have the following characteristics:

      1. Illogical Thinking
      2. Highly Compartmentalized Minds
      3. Double Standards
      4. Hypocrisy
      5. Blindness to Themselves
      6. A Profound Ethnocentrism (“Authoritarian followers are highly suspicious of their many out-groups; but they are credulous to the point of self-delusion when it comes to their in-groups.” p. 90)
      7. Dogmatism: The Authoritarian’s Last Ditch Defense

      Right-wing authoritarianism and religion.

      The first thing you need to know about religious fundamentalists, in case you haven’t inferred it already, is that they usually score very highly on the RWA scale. A solid majority of them are authoritarian followers. (p.111)

      Altemeyer sees religious fundamentalism as “a template for prejudice,” and not surprisingly, fundamentalists exhibit the same kinds of cognitive and ethical problems as high RWAs — a disregard of standards of reasoning and evidence, mental compartmentalization, hypocrisy, dogmatism, etc. This chapter is where the careful groundwork of earlier chapters really pays off — Altemeyer makes a convincing case that religious fundamentalism feeds its followers right-wing authoritarian attitudes.

    24. Re:Categories by Bobb9000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First of all, thank you for calling me a authoritarian pig. It's always good to have a friend that knows you better than you know your self.

      Sorry, but as a disinterested third party, I have to say that the position you just advocated kinda does make you an authoritarian pig:

      That way there will be no discussion in court about the images being real or not.

      In general, speaking positively of rules which ban the introduction of relevant, defendant-exonerating evidence in court, as opposed to mentioning it only as a last resort, means bad things about your commitment to having a free society.

      If that also means obviously drawn child porn is illegal, that is fine with me. Everybody that needs images of children of nay kind to fap should have their heads examined.

      Then again, looking for the intention behind the words is kind of silly if you just go and state your authoritarian prejudices explicitly.

      Now, I don't necessarily disagree that, as a matter of necessity, some provision may need to be made for the criminalization of photorealistic 3D renderings. However, that isn't something to be happy about - it's a very bad thing. The only legitimate reason for banning child porn is protecting children from being exploited in its production. Take that away, and all you have is totalitarian moralism.

      --
      Bobb9000 - raised by the wolves,
      Oxford education as phrased by the wolves.
    25. Re:Categories by rrohbeck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You just make drawing it crime. Problem solved.

      --
      thegodmovie.com - watch it
    26. Re:Categories by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Troll, how?

      When I was 15 I had a 15 year old girl with C cups.

      I started having sex at 13.

      Heck, I didn't have my first cigarette until I was 16. It tasted nasty. Just now getting back into smoking (quality tobacco tastes *gooooood*) after over thirty years.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  4. I've also filed my own report by DrXym · · Score: 2, Funny

    I just spotted a case of sour grapes on Larry's website.

  5. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pedophiles thinks of the children.

  6. Category:Pedophilia by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Category:Pedophilia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It also applies to fictional stories, apparently. Just text, no images. What it suggests is that Canada's laws on this matter are fucking insane.

    2. Re:Category:Pedophilia by FooBarWidget · · Score: 3, Informative

      Several Americans have in fact been jailed for possessing lolicon. The judge deemed lolicon manga just as harmful as the real thing.

    3. Re:Category:Pedophilia by zblack_eagle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yet the emerging trend of dressing children in clothing that is tarty and/or has sexually suggestive slogans printed on them is A-OK

    4. Re:Category:Pedophilia by Duradin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Child beauty pageants are a wholesome part of American life that allows mothers to vicariously relive an idealized childhood by exploiting their daughters by making their kid into child sized versions of themselves but with mature overtones that they wished they would have understood when they were that age. It's as American as apple pie.

      But drawing pictures of a fictional character dressed up like that is EVIL! IMMORAL! COMMUNIST!

    5. Re:Category:Pedophilia by ultranova · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:Category:Pedophilia by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Child beauty pageants and child porn hysteria are two sides of the same coin; namely, the sexualisations of children and the sale of it for profit. And yes, I mean the "hysteria" is the sale of child sex for profit.

      In both cases, business are selling images and/or stories of children to people hungry for them. Those involved will strenuously and vigorously deny this, but you need only to look at child pageant photographs or read pedophile/child porn news stories to see what is going on. The very people who howl loudest about child porn are the very same who greedily devour every morsel or every story about that same topic. It Freudianism on a sociological level and it stinks to high heaven.

      These people are inexorably eroding free society as we know it; and we're letting them.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    7. Re:Category:Pedophilia by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Insightful


      I'm not uncomfortable around homosexuals in social settings. But the thought of guy-on-guy is pretty yucky to me. Does that make me a homophobe?

      No. Dan Savage (sex advice columnist) has commented several times that gay men find hetero sex pretty disgusting. Most people would say they'd find sex between old people disgusting.

      My conclusion is that sex is essentially kind of disgusting unless you happen to find the particular people involved sexy. Homophobia (or discrimination in general) would only come into play if you thought the parties involved were themselves disgusting for engaging in the act rather than the act itself being disgusting. I don't like limburger cheese, think it's kind of disgusting, and don't want to eat it myself or be near someone eating it. But I don't think less of anyone that enjoys it.

      --
      AccountKiller
  7. Alternate statement by Protoslo · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  8. Reading can be difficult... by Iryan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  9. Sanger's sour grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    You can stop thinking of the children now.

  11. What happened... by lattyware · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)
    1. Re:What happened... by JackieBrown · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It makes it more common and the more common something is, the more people find it acceptable.

      I am not big on the knee-jerk "think of the children," but if we do not, who will?

      Some things should not be made more common nor more acceptable.

    2. Re:What happened... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some things probably shouldn't be made more acceptable, but that excuse has been used to repeatedly to repress expression & whole groups of people(e.g. African Americans, Gays, Women, etc...)

      "Child porn" and the "think of the children mentality is a slippery slope. 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. Would you view the famous paintings or statues of Cherubs child porn? 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?

      There should be limits, but sometimes it can become a crazy witch hunt & used as an excuse to drum up fear or to manipulate sheeple. If someone is being exploited or harmed, that is definitely wrong. However, there are many imaginary images out there depicting many illegal things... Should we ban images that show drug use? Images that simulate murder? Images that simulate sodomy? Certainly we don't want drug use or murder to be more common, thus any depiction of it should be banned... Right? That'll solve all murders & drug use. No instead TV & movies are rife with murder & show drug use all the time, nor do I really think there is anything terribly wrong with that as these things are part of life, but so is sex. The USA has extreme hang-ups about sex and it just shows in how they prosecute child-porn, teenage sexual activity & terrible sex-ed.

      Lolicon itself is a bit tongue-in-cheek usually with very cute characters who are slanted with a sexual side. One could draw parallels to how the USA has beauty pageants for 5 & 6 year olds, yet we are not running out prosecuting these parents for sexually exploiting their children, though in that case actual children are on display and probably being exploited by their overbearing parents, versus zero exploitation going on in an imaginary image.

    3. Re:What happened... by mayberry42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It may not be to my personal taste, but if noone is getting hurt, then why the hell is it being intefered with?

      So those in power can force upon you their own moral beliefs of what is right and wrong regardless of your own opinion. Same as any other victimless crime.

    4. Re:What happened... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A moment's reflection leads one to the obvious answer: because a large group of people, including many in power, are deathly afraid of a sexual fetish that violates their instincts to protect children (and about which they remain intentionally ignorant, preferring instead to denigrate from a safe distance). Thus, in their zeal to prevent real harm to children, they forbid even drawings of child abuse. Provided that no children were actually harmed in the making of the drawings, this kind of censorship is a vibrant example of the triumph of emotion over reason, of the limbic system over the cerebral cortex. Perhaps one day, the majority of people will have evolved to the point where they are able to distinguish fact from fiction, abuse from art, and overcome their baser instincts, but until that day they shall remain afraid of that which they do not understand.

    5. Re:What happened... by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... unless there's a convincing reason to believe that viewing child pornography increases ones' likelihood in sexually engaging children.

      I remember hearing a quote from a child sex offender in prison-- something to the tune of "not a single fellow child sex offender here in prison did not first begin with child porn."

      Maybe that's a wad of nonsense; after all, I'm not providing a credible source. But if it could be successfully argued that viewing child porn creates material desire to abuse children sexually then the position to ban child pornography would no longer need to rest solely on the idea that children are being abused.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
  12. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No I can't.

    Can you stop thinking about zebras NOW?

  13. Re:tired of this crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    But... won't you think of the children?

  14. Re:tired of this crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh gimme a break, I've spent *hours* today thinking of the children, my wrist is too sore to do it any longer.

  15. Look at that by Jerrei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Larry mentions his own, new, quote "more responsible" encyclopedia project in the first paragraph. How convenient.

    1. Re:Look at that by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed, how pathetic, he has resorted to reporting his competitors to the authorities in an effort to whore his failed Citizendium project that no one visits.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
  16. Government Censorship by kainosnous · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Government Censorship by muridae · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You have to remember, the tricky thing about morals is that 'mine are always right'. Almost every sociology 101 course has to devote a huge amount of time just getting people to admit their own ethnocentrism, much less acknowledge that other people have values that are right for their culture. However, it is the government's job to legislate, if not morality, socially agreed norms. One could even say that legislation against murder is a moral legislation, if someone wanted to carry the argument that far. And I know one sociology professor who probably would, if not just to annoy his students. It seems that our culture has come to view the internet as our own. It follows that, if it is ours, then the internet must play by our rules. Circular logic says that, since we have used our laws to enforce our views on the internet already, it must be our own to legislate further. Bad logic, but the cynic in me says that the same logical problem pervades more of our culture than just the way we deal with the internet.

      I do agree with you, that anyone harming a child deserves to be caught. I, personally, feel they should be shot on sight. The problem, for my opinion, is what constitutes harm? Given the way our society has come down strongly against child porn and abuse, what harm is done after the fact to the children involved? How much of a role does the stigma of being abused, and the ostracization that follow, play in the development of the children involved? And how can we, as a society, justify 'think of the children' when we so blatantly do not think of them at all after the 'bad guy' has been put away?

    2. Re:Government Censorship by HungryHobo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The madness with legislating morality goes far deeper than that.

      I've talked to people who honestly believe that it's right that teenage girls should be arrested, sent to prison and put on the sex offenders register for life because they took photos of themselves with their phone cameras.
      The reason: "What if a pedophile got hold of the images..." "...internet..." "...pedophiles..." "zzzt zt" *brain shorts out*
      They honestly believe the possibility of a pedo getting hold of a phone cam picture of you is more harmful to you than years in prison and getting classed right alongside rapists.

      As for the murder- the whole euthanasia debate is based around that one so I'd class the problem not as legislating morality but rather legislating choice. "no you can't ever choose that no matter what because we think it's bad for you and to make the point we're going to punish you so badly that it ruins your life and the lives of everyone around you"
      Weather it's applied to sick people who wish to end their own lives or to teenagers who snap photos of themselves.

    3. Re:Government Censorship by moortak · · Score: 2, Informative

      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
    4. Re:Government Censorship by Angst+Badger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      ...which is, in the end, why things like the proposed .xxx TLD are fundamentally flawed. What the censors consider objectionable is a constantly moving target: once they've successfully banned or contained x, then they'll go after x-1. A better alternative would be a .beige TLD, where the censors can put content they consider acceptable, and people who don't care for freedom of speech can limit their browsers to that domain.

      And to take this post squarely back on topic, yes, Larry Sanger is a vindictive little asshole, selfishly attacking what is, for all its flaws, one of our most valuable public resources because no one gives a wet crap about his pathetic little walled garden. I frankly wouldn't be surprised if he posted the content he subsequently reported to the FBI, and I certainly hope that WP's admins look very closely at the history of the articles involved.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    5. Re:Government Censorship by joe_frisch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are 2 different issues here. One is whether the government's definition of child porn makes sense. Personally I think that including drawings makes it unreasonable. The second is whether the wikipedia images meet the government's definition - I think they probably do.

      The way to change the first problem is through political action / voting. If you think it is unreasonable to send someone to prison for looking at a DRAWING of a naked child, write your congress person.

      The second is a different issue. On line as well as off line organizations should follow the law - or engage in specific legal challenges.

    6. Re:Government Censorship by Reziac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Making murder illegal because it is theft of someone's property (their life) is different from because it is "immoral". Discuss.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    7. Re:Government Censorship by lukas84 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  17. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Child zebras?

  18. Vulva image on German Wikipedia main page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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)

    1. Re:Vulva image on German Wikipedia main page by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually I think it's better they used something away from the "Playboy" look since some women think they are abnormal when they have genitals different to a pencil mark on a barbie doll. In some places women even get reconstructive plastic surgery done or just bits snipped off to fit that body image.

    2. Re:Vulva image on German Wikipedia main page by Jurily · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I really don't get this obsession about sex. Everyone[1] does it, everyone has the appropriate organs, and it's definitely a prerequisite of you being alive. Most people have even seen naked children. What's the problem?

      I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather have pedophiles jerking off to Wikipedia than rape some kid. Ditto for child porn[2]. Give them all the animations and drawings they want, so they don't get stupid ideas every time they drive past a playground.

      [1] statistically speaking. Cue the Slashdot jokes.
      [2] actual children being molested is out of the question, of course

    3. Re:Vulva image on German Wikipedia main page by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How is a woman having her genitals mutilated "fixing up bits" exactly? We aren't talking about women that, for example, have a labia so long as it is causing her pain, we are talking about women thinking they have to get chopped on, and risk all kinds of complications and possible infection, all so they can look like a 12 year old girl.

      Personally I'm sick of this "all women should look like Barbie dolls" crap. I'm lucky enough to have a woman with a full beautiful labia, yet it took me ages to convince her to make love with the lights on because all this Barbie doll crap had drilled into her head that having a normal labia made her somehow ugly. Nothing could be further from the truth yet it is one more thing that makes nice normal women feel inferior, just like we have women getting balloons strapped to their chests if it isn't what the media considers a "good size" or starving/making themselves sick if they dare to gain a pound. Unless the labia is causing her real physical problems it is just so much horseshit.

      As for TFA, Good Lord, can we pleeease stop the "eek! There's pedo!" bogeyman bullshit? All this crap ends up doing is throwing sanity right out the window and turning our laws into sick jokes. As it is now it is becoming another Red Scare, with kids being labeled child pornographers for taking a video of themselves or guys getting thrown into prison for fricking cartoons. Get real! Instead of looking for bogeymen on every webpage, why not...ohh I don't know...actually go after those molesting kids! How about that? The fact that anyone can seriously say Wikipedia might be distributing child porn for something like 70s album covers (BTW anybody with the Blind Faith album should just turn themselves in right now) or stupid Loli cartoons shows how far down the wrong path we've gone already.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    4. Re:Vulva image on German Wikipedia main page by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In some places women even get reconstructive plastic surgery done or just bits snipped off to fit that body image.

      And then they have bits snipped off their baby boys' privates, because it "looks better" too. Some people just think the best thing they can do to sex organs is to take a knife to 'em.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    5. Re:Vulva image on German Wikipedia main page by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some people equate circumcision with "mutilation", which is

      Factually correct.

      Foot binding, neck elongation, excision, circumcision, stretching out your earlobes, those are all mutilations. And when all your peers have been mutilated in the same way, you're very happy to fit in.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    6. Re:Vulva image on German Wikipedia main page by toriver · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to mention tattoos, piercings etc...

    7. Re:Vulva image on German Wikipedia main page by Myopic · · Score: 2

      Well, technically (I've heard) some men do try to regrow their foreskin, but let's say that's not the same (because, really, it isn't).

      Hey, man, we have a genuine disagreement over what it means to mutilate a body, and I doubt we will find common ground. Let's just disagree. But I am genuinely curious about where you draw the line. Seriously. Do you consider ear piercing to be mutilation? or is it not because, given enough time, the hole will grow together? If science invented a way to grow together larger ear holes, then would ear stretching stop being mutilation? If science invented a way to regrow or replace foreskin, would that stop being mutilation?

      What about balding? If a man who is balding cuts his hair, and thus can not regrow it, is that mutilation? what about laser hair removal?

      Or what about chemo treatment for cancer -- is that mutilation in cases when the hair will never grow back?

      How do you feel about having a cancer removed from the body, with the specific hope that it won't grow back? what about having a mole removed, which isn't cancerous, "just in case" it might someday become cancerous? What about liposuction? What about Lazik eye surgery?

      I'm not joking, and I know this is off topic, but I've never met anybody like you personally to be able to talk to in depth about this kind of issue, and I'm piqued. Don't insult me and call me names, engage me and show me where you are coming from.

  19. Re:First by erroneus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Among the worst "I read that wrong" comments:

    "Won't somebody please link to the children?!"

  20. The eveidence is overwhelming by Posting=!Working · · Score: 4, Funny

    As ValleyWag put it (as quoted by Mashable): ...they could pass the time reading a 2000 work by Möller. Its German title is "Kinder sind Pornos," which means "Children are pornography." Even in Google's rough translation, the gist [of the paper, not of the title] is clear enough: Möller argues that nonviolent child pornography does no harm. He relates the frosty reception he received when he put forth this view at a conference in Nuremberg in 2000.

    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:

    It is in the rest of the Judgement quoted abuse therapist without recognizable to its methodology would be a critical distance.

    Just try to argue with that. You can't. Or this one:

    "The opinion that children have sexuality and can enjoy this too, should / should not be distributed," says Schweer further.
    That this is not an opinion, but a scientific fact that is not doubted by many self-proclaimed protectors children, he is silent.

    The monster. He should/should not be in prison for quoting that.

    --
    This sentence no verb.
  21. Re:tired of this crap by init100 · · Score: 2, Informative

    the war picture of a small completely naked girl running toward the cameraperson in panic

    Are you perhaps referring to this picture?

  22. Larry Sanger is getting desperate, I see by vadim_t · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  23. Re:First by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 3, Funny

    So... just how small are these claims?

    *fap*

  24. Citizendium sensibilities by tonique · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.)

  25. Time and Money by b4upoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  26. Re:tired of this crap by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm fairly sure child porn has to have a sexual element to it to be considered child porn.

  27. Re:tired of this crap by ultranova · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sexuality is in the eye of the beholder, and some people love the smell of napalm in the morning. If some people get their jollies watching children get raped, as our esteemed moral guardians seem to be implying, then why wouldn't they enjoy watching those same children get bombarded with napalm?

    Just imagine it's an adult woman instead, and ask yourself: would no one get turned on by the hypothethical image?

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  28. Some food for thought by Wooky_linuxer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:Some food for thought by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's not split hairs. It is still the same ones taking pleasure from children and who will eventually cross barriers.

      You have absolutely no proof that they will "eventually cross barriers".

      Millions of people every year view porn, yet no one assumes that viewers of porn will inevitably rape someone. So why would you assume that to be the case of pedophiles? In fact, I would be very surprised if the opposite weren't, in fact, true.

    2. Re:Some food for thought by English+French+Man · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's not split hairs. It is still the same ones taking pleasure from children and who will eventually cross barriers.

      You have absolutely no proof that they will "eventually cross barriers".

      Millions of people every year view porn, yet no one assumes that viewers of porn will inevitably rape someone. So why would you assume that to be the case of pedophiles? In fact, I would be very surprised if the opposite weren't, in fact, true.

      Millions of people view porn, those people generally like to have sex, and I assume it is generally the same kind that the porn they look at (a man looking at asian porn would love to bone an asian woman, I have of course no proof of that)

      People would look at child porn and would want to have sex with a child, which is generally not legally possible. So if they act upon this desire, it would be at least statutory rape (assuming the child is willing)

      --
      If I'm wrong, please correct me ; learning is better than being right.
  29. Re:lolicon is creepy by Ignatius+D'Lusional · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, let me get this straight... because you don't personally enjoy something (such as asparagus or lolicon), you would vote to make it illegal (criminalize it)? BECAUSE you don't care one way or the other??? That sounds pretty screwed up to me.

  30. Re:Wikipedia is ran by a cabal by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  31. General reply by Larry+Sanger · · Score: 3, Informative

    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