

Jimbo Wales exiles 'porn' from Wikiland - yread
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/

======
goodside
The biggest criticism of this purge seems to be that the definition of
pornography might have been slightly too restrictive. Some good images were
lost that might not have been legally required to be removed.

So what?

The Wikimedia Foundation can't be expected to toe the line, deciding for
itself exactly what pornography will result in criminal prosecution and just
keeping their fingers crossed that the State of Florida will agree with them.
The laws on obscenity are complex and inconsistent. American citizens have
been convicted of criminal obscenity for possessing _drawings_ of children
engaging in sex acts, whose production did not involve any actual child.
Perfect discrimination between legal and illegal images is not possible, and
they've decided that an error of unnecessarily deleting "good" pornography is
preferable to an error of distributing illegal images of minors.

I've been a Wikipedia editor since 2004, and I can say from experience that
child pornography is not some mythical boogieman. It does exist on WP, and it
can go undetected for a surprisingly long time.

The most recent example I can think of is an article on a medical condition
that involves as a symptom the swelling of the breasts in pre-pubescent girls.
A photograph was added showing a _very_ young girl standing topless with her
eyes edited from the photo, showing the camera her prematurely large breasts.
The image caption was a brief description saying that the girl was 13 years
old, had the relevant medical condition, and that the uploader, whose username
began with "Dr", took the photo himself in Brazil. Uploading this image was
the user's only contribution, and he hasn't been seen since.

It was literally months before any editor looked closely enough at the
situation to realize that this might not be fully kosher. This isn't because
editors are lazy or naive. Wikipedia is a big place, and catching these things
happens almost entirely by happenstance. Once the issue was raised on Media
for Deletion, consensus was quick that it had to go. But while the image is
gone from WP, it's more popular than ever elsewhere. A Google image search for
the title of the article will reveal the image re-hosted across dozens of web
sites, which is why I'm being so scarce on the details here.

The Foundation has to make a decision on whether preventing incidents like
this is worth the downside of forbidding some pornography, the only redeeming
feature of which is often that it isn't illegal, should be hosted on Wikimedia
servers, exposing the Wales and the Board to the possibility of severe
criminal penalties. We have no moral ground from which to accuse them of
shirking their responsibilities if they decline.

~~~
AgileCyborg
The image you mention here only becomes porn-like due to its exposure to the
non-medical mind. The image itself may not have been intended to be porn. His
disappearance could be linked to simple fear from the irrational.

There must be an ethical and rational balance over the incredibly important
aspects of research and science concerning the development of the young human.

Irrational social fear relating to any form of sexual development in the young
can polarize legitimate scientific study in regards to youth psychology and
physiology.

At some point one can cross from critical (and RATIONAL) exposition of
credible threats and crimes to an absurd witch hunt which puts pedophiles
behind every tree, image, or serious study.

Society already has a difficult enough time grasping how to cope with the
sexual development of its young while at the same time horrified over
scientific/medical exposition of said development.

~~~
goodside
You can argue all you want that the laws are not just. I agree fully. But that
isn't the issue here. The issue is whether it's reasonable to expect the
Foundation to expose themselves to (possibly unjust) prosecution by displaying
images that they believe may be illegal or immoral. If they were facing
criminal charges at this moment, I would be the first to say that they have
done nothing wrong, but you cannot fault them for not wanting to risk the
future of Wikipedia by fighting a legal battle (using donations provided by
people who thought they were just helping support an encyclopedia) against
laws that you and I think are unjust.

If you feel strongly to the contrary, I submit to you the following challenge.
I will tell you how to obtain the image in question, provided you agree to
display the image publicly on web space you own and control, in perpetuity
until its removal is requested by either your hosting provider or legal
authorities, with text below that states:

\- Your full, legal name and basic contact information (e-mail address is
fine)

\- That the image was presented to you by sources unknown with the assertion
that it depicts a 13-year-old girl

\- That you believe the photograph was taken for the purposes of legitimate
scientific study, but you admit there is at least _some_ possibility that it
was taken with the intent of pornographic distribution

\- Any other information or disclaimers you think are relevant

Let me know if this works for you. If so, you're more principled than I am.

------
ugh
The big problem with any centralized deletion of porn is that there is no
standard definition of porn. Commons should strive to only exclude images
which can lead to legal problems and leave the decision which of the remaining
images to use up to the different language Wikipedias.

Maybe that’s what they plan to do and I would have no problem with that. I
would have a problem if they went above and beyond that.

~~~
buro9
Even that would be a problem... legal problems according to what legal domain?
What is acceptable in some US States is wildly different from what is
acceptable in some EU countries.

The concern I have is greater than the definition of what is or is not
pornographic, but it is the underlying notion that some entity feels that I
should not see something, that a puritanical approach has come in at the top.
To me this is the greater problem.

If we stick to legal definitions then we're in a much better position, even
though the lack of a global legal system introduces technical issues about
what is stored where, and what is available to whom (according to where they
are) and the maintenance of that legal knowledge (that in one region the laws
are X, Y and Z and that in another the laws are B, C and D).

------
ErrantX
That Sanger thing was just him trolling; I'm surprised it got the rise it has
done... (there is no way those "etchings" would ever have been considered CP
by a criminal prosecutor)

~~~
goatforce5
FWIW, the UK police often get confused between art and child porn:

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/sep/25/artnews.art>

~~~
ErrantX
There is a distinct difference between a "created" image and a photograph
(which the suggestion in your link is).

The wood carvings are probably fine; you have to take a pragmatic approach at
some point. Artistic (non-abusive) photography is also usually fine - I'm not
sure what the outcome of that specific case was but I expect nothing came of
it.

The point is to capture those abusing - or encouraging the abuse of -
children. So you will find occasional contradictions and difficult
distinctions.

~~~
goatforce5
My point was it's probably not wise to assume what the authorities may or may
not find actionable.

~~~
ErrantX
Ah, I see. Well I work in investigating computer pedophilia (among other
things). Obviously there is still a caveat of "within my experience" but I am
quite confident that nothing will come of this particular complaint to the
FBI.

~~~
pyre
I think that what may happen in a lot of these cases is that the authorities
subscribe to the, "if there's smoke, there's fire," train of thought. If they
see that someone has art of small children (or just 'under age' children),
they'll probably bust down their door hoping to find actual child porn. If
they don't, then they'll try to make 'child porn' charges stick using just the
art because the authorities involved at this point either don't like the
person or just don't want to admit that they were wrong (and spent a bunch of
wasted time for nothing).

~~~
ErrantX
The problem is this; if you receive a complaint about child pornography what
do you do? If it's about an individual and the complaint is not by a family
member etc. then probably not much will take place. But as soon as there is
reasonable cause for suspicion then an officer is on dangerous territory - if
it turns out there was abuse etc. going on then they are screwed (usually by
the media) if it is uncovered later.

If it is about a public place etc. like the gallery example they really have
to take a look/action. Removing the image is standard - if it turns out to be
CP and the Police left it up then there would be hell to pay ;) The problem is
defining if it is CP or not - and you will find some lawyers whose sole
purpose for the UK CPS is to assess if images break CP laws and can be
prosecuted etc.

You will see mistakes; predominantly of the side of innocent people being
investigated. But, again, many of the child protection officers are not idiots
- they spend their career investigating these cases and, so, will be able to
make a decent judgement whether there is merit in the accusations or not.

 _If they don't, then they'll try to make 'child porn' charges stick using
just the art because the authorities involved at this point either don't like
the person or just don't want to admit that they were wrong_

Bullshit I am afraid. Fortunately the law doesn't work like this. Also, CP
charges are hard enough to make stick at the moment for all sorts of reasons -
it would fall apart due to impracticality.

~~~
pyre
> _Bullshit I am afraid. Fortunately the law doesn't work like this. Also, CP
> charges are hard enough to make stick at the moment for all sorts of reasons
> - it would fall apart due to impracticality._

I'm more referring to the idea that the guy 'got off' because they couldn't
find any child porn, so they charge him with anything they can find (e.g.
unpaid parking ticket).

~~~
ErrantX
Hmm. Probably not to be honest, fortunately most police aren't really like
that.

------
aw3c2
A somehow distributed (to resist censorship) and encrypt (against problems
with varying local legislation) wikipedia would not have problems like this.

~~~
kragen
We can hope. It might also turn out that censors, irritated by the resistance,
would criminalize participation in it.

