On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <polime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/12/12 Florence Devouard <anthe...@yahoo.com>: > > > We all perfectly know that if this particular image was borderline, > > there are images or texts that are illegal in certain countries. I am > > not even speaking of China here, but good old westernish countries. > > In some countries, it may be sexually-oriented picts. In others, it may > > be violence. In others yet, some texts we host are forbidden. I am not > > going to cite any examples publicly ;-) > > Well in fact the picture blocked by IWF was not illegal. That's quite unclear. I'd say the image *is* illegal, but that it's far too widespread for the law to be enforced. > I think we > should complain that such the organisation like IWF should follow the > freedom of speach rules of their countries, which means that they > cannot legally block the content which has not been found illegal. If that was the rule they might as well not exist. The vast majority of child pornography hasn't been subject to a legal ruling. In fact, under the scenario you describe the sexual abuse of minors would only *increase*, because new child porn would be created whenever old child porn was "found illegal". _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
