geni wrote: > 2009/8/6 Luna <[email protected]>: >> That'd make sense, I think. From the article linked, it sounds like giving >> the application in question might be approved with a "17+" rating. That's >> probably reasonable where the application and its designer are drawing from >> unrated content beyond their control. I'm sure many of us are familiar with >> that game-rating euphemism, "Experience may change during online play." This >> sounds like a similar idea to me. > > I the case of wikipedia anything less than a 17+ experience would be > something of a change. Heh it could be argued that about the about the > only country wikipedia is actually legal in is the US. > >
Maybe not even in the US. Does all the sexual imagery contain all the documentation required by the 2257 Regulations? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Protection_and_Obscenity_Enforcement_Act _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
