On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 8:49 AM, David Monniaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> One problem is that all these distinctions are highly dependent on > context. Let me give you examples. > I don't see how that's a problem, since I believe that all ethical decisions are dependent on context. If a parent takes one photograph of a little boy or girl doing silly > things half-naked, this is "cute". > If, however, a whole series of such photographs is sold online, then > it's child porn. > > If one sees "Venus chastising Cupid" in a museum, this is classical art > and they take groups of children to see it. > If one sees a manga drawing of a naked, buxom woman, spanking a naked > child with the buttocks turned to the eye of the viewer (which is an > exact factual description of the above classical art), then this is > child pornography. I'm not sure that you're correct with regard to UK law in either of those situations. In any case, I don't see the point of this. A photograph (or, in the UK, a pseudo-photograph) of child sexual abuse is child porn. "A little boy or girl doing silly things half-naked" is not child sexual abuse, and a manga drawing is neither a photograph nor a pseudo-photograph. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
