Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Larry Sanger Tells FBI Wikipedia Distributes "Child Pornography"

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the and-it-may-be-knowingly dept.

Wikipedia 572

Taco Cowboy writes with news that Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, has reported to the FBI what he says is child pornography on Wikipedia, including links (redacted in the letter just linked) to entries about pedophilia and the genre of manga known as lolicon. The Register has up an article with some analysis, which mentions the opinion of at least one attorney whose "reading of the statute [requiring reporting of child porn images] is that it does apply to the Wikimedia Foundation." Update 20100414 5:00 GMT: Larry Sanger has posted a general reply in response to critics of his report to the FBI, in which he addresses the form, content, and motivation of his complaint, and offers some discussion of the relevant statute.

cancel ×

572 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806074)

First

Re:First (4, Informative)

Useful Wheat (1488675) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806088)

How did they fail to mention the album cover of the Virgin killers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killers [wikipedia.org]

This got wikipedia banned a few years ago, because they dared show an actual album cover.

Re:First (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806126)

Won't somebody please think of the children?!

Re:First (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806180)

Pedophiles thinks of the children.

Re:First (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806200)

You can stop thinking of the children now.

Re:First (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806244)

No I can't.

Can you stop thinking about zebras NOW?

Re:First (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806316)

Child zebras?

Re:First (1)

Fuzzums (250400) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806636)

They're so soft and cuddly and those cute stripes. Awwww!

Re:First (5, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806486)

Among the worst "I read that wrong" comments:

"Won't somebody please link to the children?!"

Re:First (1)

eltaco (1311561) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806640)

damn you! I spat my coke out and then nearly choked reading that! I'll see you in small claims court for a new keyboard!
seriously though, thanks for the laugh.

Re:First (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806276)

Better question is how they failed to mention Wikpeida's anime-inspired "mascot", because as everyone knows, anime is favored by pedophile nerds who can't get women their own age. (i.e. wikipedoia editors who are universally pedophiles)

Re:First (1)

Posting=!Working (197779) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806392)

You mean the album "Virgin Killers" by the Scorpions? Probably when they mentioned the banned Scorpions album cover. Maybe you noticed the large font "Scorpions" at the top center of the album, nearly touching the word "Virgin" of the album cover, if you can raise your eyes that far.

Re:First (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806494)

They are truly pedophiles. As we all know, real scorpions have a stinger, which is a well known euphemism for a penis. They are essentially saying that they want to (or have) taken that 10 year old little girl's virginity by inserting their "stinger" into her vagina.

Sick fucks.

Re:First (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806398)

Replying to the FP doesn't get your post to the top of the page if the FP gets modded down. It does, however, often earn you an "offtopic" mod.

Vulva image on German Wikipedia main page (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806414)

Perhaps a bit offtopic, but noteworthy: The German Wikipedia recently had a vulva image on the main page, as part of "today's article". The article snippet with the image [wikipedia.org] (NSFW!).

This resulted in many complaints and a discussion about morals and Wikipedia. The rationale was that the German article "Vulva [wikipedia.org] " is featured and purely educational - it has nothing to do with erotics or pornography. Here [wikipedia.org] is a 0.5MB talk page about the incident.
(Posting as a AC, already spent mod points here)

Re:Vulva image on German Wikipedia main page (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806590)

They could've at least used a nice picture. I'm sure there are plenty of nice looking pussies on the internet.

No conflict of interest there (5, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806076)

Just doing his civic duty, yessir.

Re:No conflict of interest there (5, Insightful)

Kong the Medium (232629) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806132)

From the article:

I have also since founded a more responsible project, Citizendium.org, and a teacher-edited non-profit directory of preK-12 educational videos, WatchKnow.org. Given my position of influence on matters related to Wikipedia, though I'm no longer associated with it, I feel I have a moral obligation to make the following report.

And I have the moral obligation to call you an opportunist, a shill and accuse you of mudraking to further your goals, Mister Sanger.

IMHO, there are fair use cases, e.g. for educational purposes, for the depiction of under-age sexuality, and if wikipedia doesn't fall under the umbrella of educational websites, I want some suggestions which website does. Hey, here in Germany even our cabinet members can show hard child pornograghic pictures in press conferences.

Re:No conflict of interest there (2, Insightful)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806150)

I have also since founded a more responsible project, Citizendium.org, and a teacher-edited non-profit directory of preK-12 educational videos, WatchKnow.org. Given my position of influence on matters related to Wikipedia, though I'm no longer associated with it, I feel I have a moral obligation to make the following report.

What a douchebag.

Re:No conflict of interest there (-1, Troll)

Anarki2004 (1652007) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806260)

"what a douchebag"

fuck you

Re:No conflict of interest there (0)

Anarki2004 (1652007) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806384)

I apologize. That may have come off as a bit strong. However, my mother has been an evaluator for sexual predators for a number of years now and I feel as if I have a bit of insight into the subject. I simply cannot agree with the idea that the promotion and/or glorification of child pornography is right in any way shape or form. While I am all for freedom of speech and the rights of the people, this kind of thing is rather disguisting. Yes, I know what the pictures on wikipedia look like, but where do you draw the line? Do you have children of your own? Would you want said children around the sort of people that take pleasure in viewing photos such as the ones in question?

Re:No conflict of interest there (1)

Imrik (148191) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806428)

Would you want said children around the sort of people that take pleasure in viewing photos such as the ones in question?

You don't actually have a choice in the matter, the question that you can change is whether or not those people are going to have access to those pictures or not. Would you rather have your children around a pedophile that has an outlet or one that doesn't?

P.S. Since I don't have access to the pictures, I'm assuming you're talking about anime style lolicon pictures rather than pictures of actual children.

Re:No conflict of interest there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806440)

> Would you want said children around the sort of people that take pleasure in viewing photos such as the ones in question?

How is that related to what Wikipedia is doing?

Re:No conflict of interest there (5, Interesting)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806612)

No, but it should NEVER be criminal to indulge and satisfy in whatever fetish you have so long as it is victimless and harmless to real people. Problem with hysterical pedohunters is that they don't care how their actions actually affect children. They are simply out for blood because it's their fetish, just like spanish inquisition was. The whole lolicon issue is one brilliant example of this - why should anyone care if someone masturbates to an image of a drawn child? If that gets his/her kicks so that the person can be a normal productive member of society, all's good, or at least should be good - no child is ever harmed, and the person has taken care of his/her urges. Yet modern pedohunters would love to string every single one of these people from a nearest flagpole inspite of them posing zero real threat to the children. At the same time, it's a known fact that those who are most anti-[issue] people tend to have extreme fetishes themselves, and typically perform and support witch-hunt style actions to cover their own "shameful" fetishes. Great example of this are some of the most hardline anti-gay activists who come out of the closet later in their lives.

Finally there is a lovely issue of children as sex objects which many love to deny ignoring the cold and brutal medical facts and often their own experiences as parents. Every parent knows that children discover their sexuality long, long before teenage starts. Explaining to your child why masturbating in public is inapproproate when he/she is around age of 4-5 is fairly typical - it's just that in "this is shameful" families it's done in such a traumatizing way for the child, that child gets too afraid to explore it any further before teenage hormones kick in. This is stuff that's widely known in medical community. In fact, there are medical books who mention sexuality in babies - for example babies "humping" their bed covers because it feels good. Before the concept of "morality" kicks in, children sexuality is typically ignored, and is considered "acceptable if shameful" by most.

You have to remember, if you're close to someone who is actually working with real pedophiles who have actual victims, your view is very strongly skewed, same as a police officer's who's working in slums. You tend to see the worst in people because you're used to seeing worst in people. Not because it's actually there.

Re:No conflict of interest there (5, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806560)

Hey, here in Germany even our cabinet members can show hard child pornograghic pictures in press conferences.

"Press conferences"? Is that what they're calling them these days?

Re:No conflict of interest there (3, Insightful)

msclrhd (1211086) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806348)

So, is this the new communism? The new witch hunts?

Sanger: Wikipedia is a distributor of the communist agenda and everyone associated with it is a communist.

Re:No conflict of interest there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806508)

If by "communism" you mean child porn, then yes. Yes it is.

Not new at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806580)

Pornography and THINKOFTHECHILDREN have been witch hunts off and on for over a century.

Witch hunts are bad and destroy people. The opposite - wholesale open toleration or encouragement of actual child sexual abuse and actual child pornography - is worse. When practiced at a societal level they destroy the moral fabric of a society. Or perhaps they are merely an indicator that the moral fabric is already in tatters.

Categories (5, Informative)

Gudeldar (705128) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806118)

Good thing the links are redacted! Its not like anyone with a brain could go to http://commons.wikimedia.org/ [wikimedia.org] and search for "pedophilia" or "lolicon" and find exactly what he was talking about. Nothing in those categories looks like child porn to me, I'm not afraid to post the links. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pedophilia [wikimedia.org] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Lolicon [wikimedia.org]

Re:Categories (3, Informative)

St.Creed (853824) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806138)

It depends on your definition of child porn I guess, but the picture of a girl sucking someones dick sure does look like child porn to me. Or didn't you know that cartoons are banned as well? It's not about the children, it's about enforcing societies moral standards.

Re:Categories (5, Insightful)

Gudeldar (705128) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806162)

If the category hadn't been "pedophilia" would you still have assumed it was child pornography? The girl appears to me to be at least a teenager, but beyond that she could be 14 or 20 (or younger or older). Is it child pornography if the artist conceived of her as 13 or if I did? At what point does child pornography become a thought crime?

Re:Categories (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806334)

If the category hadn't been "pedophilia" would you still have assumed it was child pornography? The girl appears to me to be at least a teenager, but beyond that she could be 14 or 20 (or younger or older). Is it child pornography if the artist conceived of her as 13 or if I did? At what point does child pornography become a thought crime?

In Germany we recently got an "appearance pornography" law that says, if the depicted woman LOOKS younger than 18, it's illegal.

Hilarious what those moral morons come up with.

Re:Categories (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806174)

Child porn laws that cover cartoons have repeatedly been found to violate the First Amendment. Yes, really - look it up.

Re:Categories (2, Insightful)

Imrik (148191) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806434)

Maybe true, but that won't stop people from being prosecuted under them.

Re:Categories (2, Interesting)

Wizard Drongo (712526) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806540)

And of the course the entire world uses the US system of justice.

Wish we did actually. Here in Scotland, any picture which depicts an act in which a child is sexually active, or is witnessing sexual acts or involved in any way, can be deemed child pornography.

Only in the UK would a stick drawing of lisa simpson watching marge fuck homer land you in jail!

Re:Categories (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806594)

Only in the UK would a stick drawing of lisa simpson watching marge fuck homer land you in jail!

Australia would too.

Re:Categories (5, Insightful)

loufoque (1400831) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806254)

it's about enforcing societies moral standards

And why should it be the government responsibility to dictate morals? They should just provide a practical framework to make life in a community work.

Re:Categories (5, Interesting)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806472)

The great thing about (moral) standards is that there are so many to choose from.

Government dictating morals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806638)

The government doesn't dictate morals per se they proscribe actions.

The reason actual hey-its-a-real-kid-and-yes-its-really-porn child pornography is illegal is that with few exceptions either its creation requires directly victimizing a child or, when the image was a self-photo, its initial distribution is almost always either done without the actor's permission or the person getting permission it took advantage of the naivete of the actor.

Another reason it is illegal is that even in the few cases where this isn't a problem - such as a child or teenager taking a pornographic self-picture then as an adult choosing to have it published - it creates a market for such images. Depending on the mentality of the individual creating images for the market, the "currency" he is paid in may be cash, "barter credits" for similar images, "barter credits" for something else, or simply an ego boost. In order to supply this market children are abused.

I'd bet easily 99% of newly created child-pornography-as-defined-by-federal-statute-and-case-law that is distributed beyond a small circle of friends and family are either photos of obvious crimes such as child molestation, or cases where the sexual performance is directed or encouraged by an adult or the child or his parents or "handlers" are being paid in some form or other, both of which are illegal even if photography doesn't take place. In other words, these photos would be evidence of an underlying crime, not art, if they were taken in the United States.

"Distributed beyond a small circle of friends" eliminates most self-pictures, sexting, and family photo album stuff, even when such photos cross the legal line. If you include these then you start to see more photos whose creation and viewing isn't part of the "child porn market." The "99%" is there because obviously there are exceptions. The real number may be 99.9% or even higher.

Re:Categories (5, Funny)

hldn (1085833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806358)

( . )( . )

these ascii boobs belong to a 14 year old ascii girl. i'm serious.

Re:Categories (4, Funny)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806572)

( . )( . )

these ascii boobs belong to a 14 year old ascii girl. i'm serious.

Uuuurgh that's disgusting. Is there some sort of special term for these kinds of pictures, where the head and body was brutally cut off, and only a set of breasts is shown of an underage girl?

Also, I can't fap to this.

Re:Categories (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806578)

fap fap fap

Re:Categories (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806160)

In Canada, explict drawn lolicon is illegal and people have actually gone to jail for it.

(I guess every country is retarded in some way).

Re:Categories (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806178)

So the Cake isn't a lie but a trap?

I've also filed my own report (2, Funny)

DrXym (126579) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806120)

I just spotted a case of sour grapes on Larry's website.

Re:I've also filed my own report (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806204)

Reminds me of the cold war when everybody you didn't like in the West was accused of being a Communist, and in the East people would spy on each other. Now the boogie man isn't economics but child and teen sexuality. Everybody needs something to hate. It shows that even PhD's (in Philosophy no less) like Larry Sanger can play the think-of-the-children card just like other people play the "racism" card, or the "socialism" card.

The thing I find interesting is that people like Dr. Larry Sanger accuse and insinuate people of being evil just because they "defend pedophilia" (i.e. state views that are not anti-pedophilia), which really means that if you don't agree with his neoconservative view point you will likely be demonized and "turned in" to the FBI (which is what I determined from reading his open letter). This is the opposite of fair and balanced or reasonable or logical. Unfortunately the people who get vetted for law enforcement tend to be Right Wing (they've got HR and personality tests to deny people careers if they aren't). So yes, being "informed on" to the police, even if you don't do anything illegal, by somebody who accuses you of being pro-pedophile (i.e. somebody who doesn't hate children) will likely get you put on a black list and could very well ruin your life. Dr. Larry Sanger mentions the word "moral" on his site, so it is obvious that he has an agenda.

It's too bad that probably only neoconservatives, the Christian Right, the FBI, and the Republican party will take Dr. Larry Sanger seriously.

Re:I've also filed my own report (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806328)

blah blah blah i'm so persecuted because i'm completely fucked in the head and want to fiddle with little black boys blah blah blah poor me

Seek psychological help now before you destroy some kid's life.
Signed, everyone who isn't a creep hated by society

Re:I've also filed my own report (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806354)

blah blah blah I'm buying into popular moral panics because I'm incapable of independent thought and want to fit in with other people incapable of independent thought blah blah blah poor me

Re:I've also filed my own report (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806460)

Yep, don't let anyone convince you that you have a dangerous mental illness which is despised by 99% of everyone. You're just a "independent thinker". That's the ticket!

I'm sure your prison buddies will respect that argument when the rest of society locks you up without a second thought.

So he is admitting a crime? (0, Troll)

Manip (656104) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806148)

Wait, so the co-founder of Wikipedia is admitting that he knew Wikipedia had child porn on it when he was running the place and he failed to report it to the correct (US) authorities? That's a very interesting admission. Since the current administration only need to respond from this point forward (since we don't know if they knew previously) they have not yet committed a crime.

Reading can be difficult... (2, Insightful)

Iryan (1754276) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806194)

Read it again, do some math and you'll easily see, that 2010 (now) minus 3 years (the page existes since then) is not a date before 2002, the year he left.

Category:Pedophilia (5, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806182)

Yes, Wikipedia seems to indeed have a category for pedophilia-related articles, describing such things as the Catholic scandal, child grooming, various kidnapping cases and related stuff. I'm a bit unsure what makes this "child pornography" - does Mr. Sanger perhaps become turned on reading about the activities of less savory Catholic priests? Dunno what images he's referring to, either - the only ones I found were photographs of Greek vases. As for "lolicon", AFAIK it's legal in most countries due to it being cartoon not related to real people in any way.

Perhaps this case itself should be reported under pedophile hysteria [telegraph.co.uk] , or, more cynically, barratry [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Category:Pedophilia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806206)

Lolicon was deemed illegal in Canada despite it not involving actual children. It still suggests a certain unacceptable behavior towards children.

Re:Category:Pedophilia (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806224)

It also applies to fictional stories, apparently. Just text, no images. What it suggests is that Canada's laws on this matter are fucking insane.

Re:Category:Pedophilia (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806240)

Have you seen the famous "wikipedia lolicon" image? It's completely tame, especially when you compare it to some of the graphic images of cancer, surgically removed breast ducts etc, that you can see on some wikipedia pages. This is a non-issue.

Re:Category:Pedophilia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806306)

This is a non-issue.

It is for you. It isn't for Mrs Biblebelt, mother of two, who has no problems censoring other opinions just because they disagree with her "moral standards" either. Nor her representative. Nor the media she and her tea circle write angry letters to. Nor the impressionable eager-to-pc crowd who reads and watches the same. Basically, you're a minority.

Re:Category:Pedophilia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806324)

If you've been on the internet long enough, you become desensitized to many things anyway, after seeing so much shit.

Re:Category:Pedophilia (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806320)

It still suggests a certain unacceptable behavior towards children.

Video games, most stories' actions of characters, and a fuckton of other things suggest unacceptable behavior towards children.

What are you trying to suggest? Cover your eyes and all the kids' eyes and make it go away?

Re:Category:Pedophilia (1)

init100 (915886) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806586)

It still suggests a certain unacceptable behavior towards children.

Many movies openly depict murder and excessive violence, which could certainly be classified as unacceptable behavior, but they seem to be completely legal. If depicting unacceptable behavior would be illegal, a lot of books, pictures, movies and video games would have to be banned.

So this cannot be about depicting or suggesting unacceptable behavior.

Re:Category:Pedophilia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806368)

He's not complaining about a category for paedophilia-related articles, he's complaing about the contents of a category for paedophilia-related images. I don't think you have to be hysterical to see why having a paedophilia image category might not be a good idea.

Re:Category:Pedophilia (1, Offtopic)

init100 (915886) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806592)

I don't think you have to be hysterical to see why having a paedophilia image category might not be a good idea.

Why not? It could contain an image of the Pope, as well as his cardinals and many Catholic priests.

Re:Category:Pedophilia (3, Informative)

FooBarWidget (556006) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806488)

Several Americans have in fact been jailed for possessing lolicon. The judge deemed lolicon manga just as harmful as the real thing.

Re:Category:Pedophilia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806606)

> The judge deemed lolicon manga just as harmful as the real thing.

To whom?

Alternate statement (4, Informative)

Protoslo (752870) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806190)

For reasons totally unrelated to the (unsubstantiated) rumors that I am deeply bitter that no one has even heard of my self-evidently superior encyclopedia, Citizendium [citizendium.org] , I have discovered that it is my solemn duty under Federal law to attempt to have Wikipedia's servers seized by the FBI, thus inevitably thrusting the 121 properly expert-approved articles of Citizendium back into the spotlight where they bel--ah--I mean, thus saving...the children...from Jimbo.

Re:Alternate statement (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806232)

Don't even link to it, that's all he's trying to achieve with this..

Sanger's sour grapes (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806198)

First of all, it doesn't inspire any level of confidence or conviction when the first paragraph of a letter, presumably about bad bad child porn on Wikipedia, is prefaced with what reads like the preamble on a CV. Citizendiwhat? Sorry you ditched on WP and failed to replicate its success, but trying to get the website shut down by pandering to think-of-the-children reactionaries is hardly an act of good faith or legitimate citizen concern. Sanger, how come you know so much about the pedophilia content at Wikimedia anyway?

Secondly, if one does visit the categories of which Sanger speaks, (not hard to figure out btw, in spite of link removals) all you see are A) historic pornographic cartoons, and B) Japanese pornographic cartoons. Even if one were to take the charges of child porn seriously, they are strictly limited to works of art, as in, not real people. I suggest that federal law enforcement should find much more pressing cases to deal with. If they have the time to perform an investigation over cartoon tits, they are overbudgeted.

What happened... (4, Insightful)

lattyware (934246) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806216)

What happened when a drawing is being called child porn? Did any child get hurt? No. It may not be to my personal taste, but if noone is getting hurt, then why the hell is it being intefered with?

Re:What happened... (2, Insightful)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806410)

It makes it more common and the more common something is, the more people find it acceptable.

I am not big on the knee-jerk "think of the children," but if we do not, who will?

Some things should not be made more common nor more acceptable.

Re:What happened... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806470)

It makes it more common and the more common something is, the more people find it acceptable.

the problem as I see it is that the same reasoning has been applied to other, more acceptable forms of pornography as well - so where to draw the line?

Re:What happened... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806546)

kinda how movie's show buildings blowing up or terrorist killing hundred of people when they hijack a plane. like when 9-11 happened. everybody was soooo nonchalant about the whole thing. it was as if hijacking planes and slamming them into building was no big deal. it is a sad world we live in now that people can not tell the difference between reality and fiction.

Re:What happened... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806566)

Some things probably shouldn't be made more acceptable, but that excuse has been used to repeatedly to repress expression & whole groups of people(e.g. African Americans, Gays, Women, etc...)

"Child porn" and the "think of the children mentality is a slippery slope. We already have minors going to jail due to having consensual sex with each other. We have girls being charged with possession & distribution of child-porn for taking pictures of their own naked bodies and sending it to boyfriends, who are then also charged with possession of child porn themselves. Would you view the famous paintings or statues of Cherubs child porn? A lot of parents take pics of their kids growing up, sometimes kids run around naked or maybe it's their first bath, or potty training or something innocent such as that, could that be considered child porn?

There should be limits, but sometimes it can become a crazy witch hunt & used as an excuse to drum up fear or to manipulate sheeple. If someone is being exploited or harmed, that is definitely wrong. However, there are many imaginary images out there depicting many illegal things... Should we ban images that show drug use? Images that simulate murder? Images that simulate sodomy? Certainly we don't want drug use or murder to be more common, thus any depiction of it should be banned... Right? That'll solve all murders & drug use. No instead TV & movies are rife with murder & show drug use all the time, nor do I really think there is anything terribly wrong with that as these things are part of life, but so is sex. The USA has extreme hang-ups about sex and it just shows in how they prosecute child-porn, teenage sexual activity & terrible sex-ed.

Lolicon itself is a bit tongue-in-cheek usually with very cute characters who are slanted with a sexual side. One could draw parallels to how the USA has beauty pageants for 5 & 6 year olds, yet we are not running out prosecuting these parents for sexually exploiting their children, though in that case actual children are on display and probably being exploited by their overbearing parents, versus zero exploitation going on in an imaginary image.

Re:What happened... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806588)

> I am not big on the knee-jerk "think of the children," but if we do not, who will?

The pedophiles?

Re:What happened... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806446)

Maybe because it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia? You know, those things that kids might use for research? Last I heard that's what Wikipedia was supposed to be, not "Eric Moeller's Spank Bank".

Sure, "Wikipedia isn't censored", parents/teachers/whoever need to be responsible for what kids are viewing on the Internet under their supervision, the content in question might not technically be illegal, we get the picture. This whole situation arose from a discussion on filtering access to Wikipedia at educational institutions, and the presence of this sort of content on "the world's greatest encyclopedia" isn't exactly making it a simple issue. Sure, have nudity where it's appropriate, but I don't see how a cartoon of a toddler giving a zebra a blowjob is benefiting anybody.

It's forcing a situation where kids are either exposed to this stuff, or they're being deprived of Wikipedia entirely because schools or parents have to block this filth (no, most of it isn't "art"). Maybe the FBI shouldn't be involved, I wouldn't know as I'm not a lawyer, but there are definitely good reasons to interfere. Unfortunately with creeps like Moeller are running the show, Wikipedia is going to contiune to tolerate this crap (at least until the heat from the FBI becomes too much).

Re:What happened... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806532)

It's on Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia, and there's no toddlers or zebras involved.

Re:What happened... (3, Insightful)

mayberry42 (1604077) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806630)

It may not be to my personal taste, but if noone is getting hurt, then why the hell is it being intefered with?

So those in power can force upon you their own moral beliefs of what is right and wrong regardless of your own opinion. Same as any other victimless crime.

I know it when I see it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806226)

see subject.

WP "Policy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806238)

While WP claims that it is "not censored", in my experience it is usually used as a justification for WP editors' petulant desires for unusual or shocking (in a more literal sense) images in articles.

tired of this crap (0, Troll)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806248)

That's it, if I ever was against real child pornography before, I am done. I am all for it now. I know how to fight this insanity - with insanity.

The world needs to be FLOODED in child pornography. It must be put everywhere, so that there is not a single place, not a single site, not a single freaking lamppost that does not have a picture or a video of some child fucking.

Fuck the fucking children but most of all, fuck the fucking grown up idiots.

One thing makes me happy: everybody will die. Death, that's the fucking cure to idiocy.

Re:tired of this crap (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806258)

But... won't you think of the children?

Re:tired of this crap (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806284)

Oh gimme a break, I've spent *hours* today thinking of the children, my wrist is too sore to do it any longer.

Re:tired of this crap (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806302)

Yeah, I am thinking of the children and the question is: should they be subjected to this level or retardation in the world?

Should the children be forced to grow up in this dark fucking place surrounded by these mentally ill, retarded, brainless idiots? What did they do to get this punishment?

Re:tired of this crap (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806312)

He thinks about them aaaaall the tiiiiime. (to paraphrase every R&B song and new boyfriend ever)

Re:tired of this crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806346)

Google preteen.

Enjoy.

Anonymous for very obvious reasons.

Re:tired of this crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806386)

Oh, I guess I should mention does doing this also make Google a distributor?

What about Microsoft/Apple/Linux? You wouldn't be able to see it without a computer and whatever OS and software you're using. Like Mozilla Firefox or Opera or whatever.

I also bet the government has a lot of it in their libraries too. I know bookstores have them, look in their art sections for classic pictures (there are a lot of picture books with them. I don't know the name of the war picture of a small completely naked girl running toward the cameraperson in panic but that's one), or look in their manga section.

What about people's homes? They have lots of baby pictures too.

Let's arrest EVERYONE because of this then.

Re:tired of this crap (2, Informative)

init100 (915886) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806620)

the war picture of a small completely naked girl running toward the cameraperson in panic

Are you perhaps referring to this picture [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:tired of this crap (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806484)

No, your anonymous cowardly reasons not obvious.

Re:tired of this crap (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806554)

The world needs to be FLOODED in child pornography. It must be put everywhere, so that there is not a single place, not a single site, not a single freaking lamppost that does not have a picture or a video of some child fucking.

Um, if you're going to go to that much effort, can't you at least make it regular porn? You know, the good kind? I'm sure you'd make a whole lot more people happy if you did that.

One thing makes me happy: everybody will die. Death, that's the fucking cure to idiocy.

I'm sorry to be the one that has to tell you this, but idiocy is far too pervasive to be wiped out by death. There are just way too many people doing or saying too many things that are stupid. It will survive their deaths, and even yours and mine. The internet is a giant library recording every stupid deed, stupid thought and stupid thing people have, and will, ever say. Thanks for doing your part.

Altier Motive? (0, Flamebait)

flawedkaos (836742) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806274)

I wonder if he was looking this stuff up for another reason and then after he "felt bad", or his mother found his backpack full of loli manga, he decided to draft this crybaby letter to the FBI. All this seems like is some bitter old mans attempt at shutting down a widely known and used website because his own site(s) aren't as popular or widely used. Until this posting I have never heard of those two site and I would have to re-read the letter to recall the names. Though I could be wrong. He could have read those statutes, did a Google search for those words, came across the wiki categories, and then wanted his 5 minutes of fame. Either way this just seems plain stupid. Wonder if the FBI will get a good laugh out of this or will actually go after them.

Look at that (4, Insightful)

Jerrei (1515395) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806296)

Larry mentions his own, new, quote "more responsible" encyclopedia project in the first paragraph. How convenient.

Re:Look at that (4, Insightful)

Reservoir Penguin (611789) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806492)

Agreed, how pathetic, he has resorted to reporting his competitors to the authorities in an effort to whore his failed Citizendium project that no one visits.

Government Censorship (4, Insightful)

kainosnous (1753770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806304)

This is an example of what I believe is wrong with government censorship. I don't know how people get the idea that the web should be a safe place where you can click on any link and go to any site and never have the chance to be offended. The internet and the web, IMHO, should be a place where all information can be exchanged freely between all parties. There are plenty of things on the internet that I find quite disturbing. If you don't want to be offended, don't go there. If you don't trust the sites, don't click on the link. Wikipedia is no exception. I personally don't find it acceptable for children to browse unsupervised, but it isn't mine or the government's decision to make. On the other hand, don't be surprised if the government uses that free information to track down people who commit crimes.

The big problem that I have here is that we are using the government to legislate morality. Not only is that not their job, but they are really bad at it even if it were. So, unless we are willing to stone people for adultery we should let them make their own moral choices.

Just to clarify, I'm in no way in favor of allowing people to harm children. In those cases where actual children are hurt I have no problem hunting down those people. I just don't want to see a service shut down because somebody didn't like a drawing they had.

Re:Government Censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806340)

Because the Internet should not be a place which does not play by any society's rules, like the high seas. Even in truly anarchic societies people will develop conventions and standards, and they will be enforced, without formal leadership or guidance. E.g. Kowloon in Hong Kong.

A large part of this I guess is driven by the unique characteristic of the USA of "cowboy individualism".

Re:Government Censorship (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806452)

Nice strawman; no one said the internet doesn't have rules, conventions, and standards...
There are plenty of conventions on the internet, but they are not necessarily tied to those of any particular physical society.

Here's some reading material for you: The Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace

"We believe that from ethics, enlightened self-interest, and the commonwealth, our governance will emerge.
Our identities may be distributed across many of your jurisdictions.
The only law that all our constituent cultures would generally recognize is the Golden Rule.
We hope we will be able to build our particular solutions on that basis.
But we cannot accept the solutions you are attempting to impose. "

http://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/barlow_0296.declaration [eff.org]

Re:Government Censorship (2, Interesting)

muridae (966931) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806522)

You have to remember, the tricky thing about morals is that 'mine are always right'. Almost every sociology 101 course has to devote a huge amount of time just getting people to admit their own ethnocentrism, much less acknowledge that other people have values that are right for their culture. However, it is the government's job to legislate, if not morality, socially agreed norms. One could even say that legislation against murder is a moral legislation, if someone wanted to carry the argument that far. And I know one sociology professor who probably would, if not just to annoy his students. It seems that our culture has come to view the internet as our own. It follows that, if it is ours, then the internet must play by our rules. Circular logic says that, since we have used our laws to enforce our views on the internet already, it must be our own to legislate further. Bad logic, but the cynic in me says that the same logical problem pervades more of our culture than just the way we deal with the internet.

I do agree with you, that anyone harming a child deserves to be caught. I, personally, feel they should be shot on sight. The problem, for my opinion, is what constitutes harm? Given the way our society has come down strongly against child porn and abuse, what harm is done after the fact to the children involved? How much of a role does the stigma of being abused, and the ostracization that follow, play in the development of the children involved? And how can we, as a society, justify 'think of the children' when we so blatantly do not think of them at all after the 'bad guy' has been put away?

Take it down first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806498)

Before any web site reports illegal images they need to do two things:

1) If it's not obviously illegal and you intend to leave it up if it is not illegal get a lawyer's opinion and follow his advice. Wikipedia has a reputation for defending free speech when it comes it images that are encyclopedic. In late 2008 there was a big bru-ha-ha over a picture that was commercially available in many countries. After much discussion the image stayed. By the standards of a few countries the photo was probably illegal. However it was clearly legal by United States legal standards. Wikipedia servers are hosted in the United States and must follow US law.

2) If it is child porn take it down first then report it.

What is up (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806500)

with the Pro-Wikipedia/Anti-Not-Wikipedia attitude of Slashdot members?

Better report the bible. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806506)

http://www.dianedew.com/porn.htm

Wikipedia is ran by a cabal (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806512)

If you are not part of the cabal your sources are not "reliable" and your articles are not "notable". Admins and twinkle users revert your edits in seconds.

They also block anonymous edits through the back door via "checkuser" blocks. A single sockpuppet can get an entire ISP banned. For example 149.254.0.0/16 (T-mobile).

Do not use wikipedia. Support proper encyclopedias instead.

The eveidence is overwhelming (4, Funny)

Posting=!Working (197779) | more than 4 years ago | (#31806596)

As ValleyWag put it (as quoted by Mashable): ...they could pass the time reading a 2000 work by Möller. Its German title is "Kinder sind Pornos," which means "Children are pornography." Even in Google's rough translation, the gist [of the paper, not of the title] is clear enough: Möller argues that nonviolent child pornography does no harm. He relates the frosty reception he received when he put forth this view at a conference in Nuremberg in 2000.

Since Mashable quoted Valleywag who gave us the gist of a machine generated translation of a 10 year old article originally in German, it's completely obvious. Especially when the translation is so clear:

It is in the rest of the Judgement quoted abuse therapist without recognizable to its methodology would be a critical distance.

Just try to argue with that. You can't. Or this one:

"The opinion that children have sexuality and can enjoy this too, should / should not be distributed," says Schweer further.
That this is not an opinion, but a scientific fact that is not doubted by many self-proclaimed protectors children, he is silent.

The monster. He should/should not be in prison for quoting that.

shake, rattle & roll (over&over&over) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31806628)

is the sadham&ghonneria syndrome going away? you betcha. after the big flash, could be the only things left worth pursuing/saving will be our eternal spirits. the only reason we're here at all is to care for one another in a positive life extending manner. we're not doing very well at that presently. that will change.

never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators, who among other things, take the evil/bad stigma off sex, possibly because as they're consulted, the urge to be/do evil (thought, word & deed) will dissipate, leaving the ability to make sounder decisions regarding ourselves/others. see you there?

 

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?