> > Child porn is illegal, that's been upheld by the Supreme Court > repeatedly, end of discussion. If 2257 were similarly upheld to apply > even in circumstances of educational/artistic work, I suppose we'd > similarly have to follow it like it or not, but it is untested in such > areas, and I suspect the SC would find it massively overbroad, > especially as it relates to subjects not identifiable at all. >
2257 is also about child porn, because without age records there is often no way of telling whether a cropped shot belongs to a minor or an adult, and no way for the reader to tell whether they are looking at a picture or video of a minor or not. US-based adult sites use compliance statements for equivalent material. They seem to be more responsible and law-abiding than the Wikimedia community, which presents its material on a top-5 website. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
