Re:Shakeup at Wikipedia in Wake of Porn Purge
by jarek on Sunday May 16, 2010 @01:17PM
(#1352334)
To say that "[t]hose images have been the subject of heated discussion within the community since their existence was revealed exclusively by FoxNews.com on April 27" is disingenuous considering Larry Sanger has been ringing this bell for quite a while now.
To say "... the images, which legal analysts say may violate pornography and obscenity laws" is border-line FUDish. Even something like "there is no agreement among legal analysts whether or not some of the images violate pornography and obscenity laws" would be better. It would be nice if they would get some experts to go on record and explain their reasoning, but I'm truly not expecting that much.
To say "images ... that could be considered child pornography" is a smear. If they want to call it CP, or get an expert to go on record as calling it CP, go for it -- but don't hide behind the "could" while invoking a moral panic.
Re:Shakeup at Wikipedia in Wake of Porn Purge
by hugh3 on Sunday May 16, 2010 @02:33PM
(#1352502)
They undoubtedly violate the child pornography laws in some jurisdictions and are perfectly legal in some others. The US may be one of the borderline cases.
To say "... the images, which legal analysts say may violate pornography and obscenity laws" is border-line FUDish. Even something like "there is no agreement among legal analysts whether or not some of the images violate pornography and obscenity laws" would be better. It would be nice if they would get some experts to go on record and explain their reasoning, but I'm truly not expecting that much.
To say "images ... that could be considered child pornography" is a smear. If they want to call it CP, or get an expert to go on record as calling it CP, go for it -- but don't hide behind the "could" while invoking a moral panic.