On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> You know, I think the precise details of child exploitation law is a > topic best discussed elsewhere. This discussion has gone way past > anything that is actually relevant to Wikipedia. This discussion is quite obviously relevant to Wikipedia. I personally don't think the precise details of child exploitation law aren't particularly relevant, but that's because I think Wikipedia's principles should be based on ethics and not on the law. However, I believe you were the one who suggested that Wikipedia's inclusion standards should be based solely on the law, so rather than simply dismiss this idea I thought we should examine the law. I also think there are a number of things we can learn from the law. The law isn't perfect, but I think most of us can agree that child pornography is something that should be restricted. Maybe I'm wrong about this, though. There certainly seems to be a lot of confusion over what child pornography is, and why it is illegal. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
