Child erotica Options

[carbuncle]

A coincidental meeting of some of popular WR themes and characters?

Stillwaterising, known for some strong opions about the recent porn deletions on Commons and for obessively polishing the bio of professional deepthroat enthusiast Heather Harmon, has added an image of an adult female model to Child erotica. That image comes from the uploads of the prolific Commons porn uploader Max Rebo Band.

I have no good explanation for why Stillwaterising would be adding a picture of an adult female -- she is a Suicide Girls model, so at least 18 -- to an article about "child" erotica.

[dogbiscuit]

That girl needs to learn how to knit properly.

[GlassBeadGame]

A coincidental meeting of some of popular WR themes and characters?

Stillwaterising, known for some strong opions about the recent porn deletions on Commons and for obessively polishing the bio of professional deepthroat enthusiast Heather Harmon, has added an image of an adult female model to Child erotica. That image comes from the uploads of the prolific Commons porn uploader Max Rebo Band.

I have no good explanation for why Stillwaterising would be adding a picture of an adult female -- she is a Suicide Girls model, so at least 18 -- to an article about "child" erotica.

To the extent that the image is intended to depict (even with an adult model) child erotica it is, at a minimum, grossly inappropriate. If it is not intended as such a depiction it is irrelevant. In any case it should be removed from the article. Also wouldn't hurt anything to delete the image as having no educational value.

[dogbiscuit]

To the extent that the image is intended to depict (even with an adult model) child erotica it is, at a minimum, grossly inappropriate. If it is not intended as such a depiction it is irrelevant. In any case it should be removed from the article. Also wouldn't hurt anything to delete the image as having no educational value.

In the UK, the law on child pornography is so widely drawn that it would treat something intended to be perceived as child pornography as such, in the same way that drawings and altered photographs fall under the remit. It was a pragmatic response to just such attempts at getting around previous legislation.

[Stillwaterising]

I chose this image because it comes from a source that is 2257(e) compliant. I don't know how old this model actually is (however SG claims all models are over 18 at time of production), however it is not pornographic because it does not have show sexual conduct or "lascivious display" of genitalia. Use of an identifiable minor would be highly inappropiate so this image could be thought of as "simulated child erotica".

This post has been edited by Stillwaterising:

[Subtle Bee]

Use of an identifiable minor would be highly inappropiate so this image could be thought of as "simulated child erotica".

So, this is your rationale, then?

[Moulton]

Maybe it's a "breaching experiment."

[EricBarbour]

Maybe SWR is trolling us. (Just a thought.)

[GlassBeadGame]

I chose this image because it comes from a source that is 2257(e) compliant. I don't know how old this model actually is (however SG claims all models are over 18 at time of production), however it is not pornographic because it does not have show sexual conduct or "lascivious display" of genitalia. Use of an identifiable minor would be highly inappropiate so this image could be thought of as "simulated child erotica".

You're basically a free culture scumbag.

[Stillwaterising]

You're basically a free culture scumbag.

This is from the provisional posting rules:

Statement of principles

The Wikipedia Review is an open forum, and its moderators pledge to avoid the sorts of vindictiveness and subterfuge that characterize the so-called "Wikipedia cabal."

[GlassBeadGame]

You're basically a free culture scumbag.

This is from the provisional posting rules:

Statement of principles

The Wikipedia Review is an open forum, and its moderators pledge to avoid the sorts of vindictiveness and subterfuge that characterize the so-called "Wikipedia cabal."

You are not entitled to dictate the parameters of discussion here. Your exploitation and disregard for children is reprehensible. Go fuck yourself.

[Kelly Martin]

The way you can tell that this is not Wikipedia, stillwaterising, is that GlassBeadGame hasn't banned you from posting, even though he has that authority. Being a scumbag isn't against the rules of this forum; neither is calling someone one, especially when the shoe fits.

[Stillwaterising]

You're basically a free culture scumbag.

You are not entitled to dictate the parameters of discussion here. Your exploitation and disregard for children is reprehensible. Go fuck yourself.

Patently false. I've fought tirelessly against child exploitation by expanding Wikipedia's legal coverage on the topic. I'm also the primary author of the child pornography restrictions of Com:Sex (current and April 2010 pro 2257 version).

I've also started numerous anti-child porn DRs and threads such as ongoing brittsuza@Flickr mass DR. I realize that this is a hot topic, however incivility l, from a Moderator no less, is completely uncalled for.

This post has been edited by Stillwaterising:

[GlassBeadGame]

You're basically a free culture scumbag.

You are not entitled to dictate the parameters of discussion here. Your exploitation and disregard for children is reprehensible. Go fuck yourself.

Patently false. I've fought tirelessly against child exploitation by expanding Wikipedia's legal coverage on the topic. I'm also the primary author of the child pornography restrictions of Com:Sex (current and April 2010 pro 2257 version).

I've also started numerous anti-child porn DRs and threads such as ongoing brittsuza@Flickr mass DR. I realize that this is a hot topic, however incivility l, from a Moderator no less, is completely uncalled for.

I am limiting my consideration to the placement of an erotic image of a young woman with features physically consistent with those of a child (although purported to be an adult) into an article on "child erotica." This act was exploitative and irresponsible. You cannot expect to avoid condemnation in the strongest possible terms for this kind of act. I have no desire to be polite or welcoming to a person who did such a unconscionable thing.

Some of your other positions on WP may be better than this action but that in no way justifies your conduct.

[Kelly Martin]

I realize that this is a hot topic, however incivility l, from a Moderator no less, is completely uncalled for.

This isn't Wikipedia. You may not divert attention from your own outrageous behavior by taking umbrage at others for being outraged at it.

[Stillwaterising]

I am limiting my consideration to the placement of an erotic image of a young woman with features physically consistent with those of a child (although purported to be an adult) into an article on "child erotica." This act was exploitative and irresponsible. You cannot expect to avoid condemnation in the strongest possible terms for this kind of act. I have no desire to be polite or welcoming to a person who did such a unconscionable thing.

Some of your other positions on WP may be better than this action but that in no way justifies your conduct.

Please consider the whole picture then. Please keep in the mind, and feel free to check the record, that I have NEVER uploaded an explicit image and this is the ONLY image of this type that I've inserted into an article. I did so to illustrate a point and bring awareness to this issue. I followed all laws and image guidelines. I did not intend to cause any disruption.

Maybe SWR is trolling us. (Just a thought.)

How could I be trolling WR if I didn't start this thread?

This post has been edited by Stillwaterising:

[GlassBeadGame]

Please consider the whole picture then. Please keep in the mind, and feel free to check the record, that I have NEVER uploaded an explicit image and this is the ONLY image of this type that I've inserted into an article. I did so to illustrate a point and bring awareness to this issue. I followed all laws and image guidelines. I did not intent to cause any disruption.

The appropriate type of awareness that using an image of a physically immature young adult girl as a proxy for an image depicting actual child erotica is not pleasant discussion but outrage. This is the type of conduct heretofore limited to the seediest kind of pornography skirting the edge of the law as close as possible. This convinces me that whatever else you might have to say on the matter you lack the maturity to have any voice in editorial decisions relating to children.

[Subtle Bee]

I realize that this is a hot topic, however incivility l, from a Moderator no less, is completely uncalled for.

I don't think we have any sort of civility policy per se, and we're largely glad of it. I don't think anything GBG said comes close to "vindictiveness" or "subterfuge", though feel free to contradict me.

Please consider the whole picture then. Please keep in the mind, and feel free to check the record, that I have NEVER uploaded an explicit image and this is the ONLY image of this type that I've inserted into an article. I did so to illustrate a point and bring awareness to this issue. I followed all laws and image guidelines. I did not intent to cause any disruption.

Instead of, perhaps subconsciously, attempting to shift the focus with wiki-style getting offended about civilty, how's about you explain briefly why the hell you were thinking an article on "child erotica" required a picture?

[Moulton]

[Chagrined.]

[Stillwaterising]

Instead of, perhaps subconsciously, attempting to shift the focus with wiki-style getting offended about civilty, how's about you explain briefly why the hell you were thinking an article on "child erotica" required a picture?

Obstensibly, very few articles require images, however Commons has over 6 million or them and I had noticed this "boyshorts" image earlier in a discussion thread for Commons Talk:Sexual Content called Sexy Teenagers. I had started working on Child Erotica ten hours earlier as part of the newly created Dost test that I wrote initially to help define what kind of images of children (with children meaning any person under the age of consent by the legal definition) should be considered prohibited. Since this image is from SuicideGirls, and they do claim that all of their models are 18+ and claim to hold 2257 records, I thought this image may be a suitable to demonstrate what child erotica looks like without actually displaying a child.

A copy of this girl's drivers license and signed record keeping form with date(s) of photography should be held by SG's custiodian of records found at their legal page here. Please note, they can only be viewed by an US Attorney or law enforcement with a legitimate search warrant.

This post has been edited by Stillwaterising:

[EricBarbour]

I realize that this is a hot topic, however incivility l, from a Moderator no less, is completely uncalled for.

This isn't Wikipedia. You may not divert attention from your own outrageous behavior by taking umbrage at others for being outraged at it.

Nor can you "wikilawyer" around here, by quoting from "da roolz".
No workie. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[CharlotteWebb]

This isn't Wikipedia. You may not divert attention from your own outrageous behavior by taking umbrage at others for being outraged at it.

B-b-but I thought the "I'm offended that you're offended" defense was a huge hit around here. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[dogbiscuit]

A copy of this girl's drivers license and signed record keeping form with date(s) of photography should be held by SG's custiodian of records found at their legal page here. Please note, they can only be viewed by an US Attorney or law enforcement with a legitimate search warrant.

In the UK, such an image could well still be illegal. Due to previous law being found to being difficult to enforce, with people working around the problem in exactly the way you have done, substituting drawings or models while still trying to create a particular image, more recent legislation bans such subterfuge.

You might then consider the Wikipedian argument that you cannot take into account all laws of all countries; this is usually code for not wanting to take into account laws in any country, and the only reason for compliance with US law is self-preservation rather than recognising the moral authority enshrined within the legal system. Think on this though. If it were determined that you personally were distributing child pornography as recognised by legislation in the UK, and your name became linked and recorded due to UK investigations, you might never be able to travel freely to Europe for fear of being charged with distribution of child pornography.

It is a fanciful but attractive image that Jimbo might be deported from the UK due to his role in the WMF tolerating such content, whether it is placed there by the evil or the naive.

[CharlotteWebb]

It is a fanciful but attractive image that Jimbo might be deported from the UK due to his role in the WMF tolerating such content, whether it is placed there by the evil or the naive.

Maybe Florence would like not having to fund his return ticket.

[Moulton]

It's as much a moral/ethical issue as a legal one.

As much as politicians try, there is good evidence that you simply can't legislate morality.

Then again, you can't legislate lamentations, remorse, or chagrin, either.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

It's as much a moral/ethical issue as a legal one.

Moral ... ethical ... and a simple one of marketing.

Who, and for what purpose, is the Wikipedia being marketed at?

Stillwaterising, I don't know. We have never crossed swords. On a very brief overview, you appear to be one of the "players" in this Wiki-porn drama.

What is your position and your take on it all?

To whom, and for what purpose, is the Wikipedia being marketed at and should the Wikipedia being marketed at?

As it is also being marketed at children and educational facilities, how do you think it should handle the Porn issue?


As a side note to others ... this has never really being raised before to my knowledge ... does anyone not suspect that the whole issue of Suicide Girls being fed into Flickr and then scrapped into Wikipedia not constitute as obvious advertising by the company being it?

SG is a company previous recently accused of exploitation, its male owner Sean Suhl accused of treating women poorly and failing to pay them, from which many models continue to leave.

Just to look closer at how Web 2.0 works "empowering" ordinary people into doing stuff for free ... the lead SG girl's blog which brought about the walks out and first voiced criticism, is here.

[carbuncle]

Obstensibly, very few articles require images, however Commons has over 6 million or them and I had noticed this "boyshorts" image earlier in a discussion thread for Commons Talk:Sexual Content called Sexy Teenagers. I had started working on Child Erotica ten hours earlier as part of the newly created Dost test that I wrote initially to help define what kind of images of children (with children meaning any person under the age of consent by the legal definition) should be considered prohibited. Since this image is from SuicideGirls, and they do claim that all of their models are 18+ and claim to hold 2257 records, I thought this image may be a suitable to demonstrate what child erotica looks like without actually displaying a child.

Leaving the question of why this article needs an image, why would you think that an image of a post-pubescent young woman would be a suitable substitute for one of a child? She clearly isn't a child, whatever doubts you may have about her age. Isn't "child erotica" much more likely to depict actual children? Wouldn't readers perhaps be mislead by your choice of an image into thinking that "child erotica" is a harmless charade by adults and not the deliberate sexualization of pre-pubescent children? Just curious about your thought process leading up to the inclusion of the image.

[Stillwaterising]

Leaving the question of why this article needs an image, why would you think that an image of a post-pubescent young woman would be a suitable substitute for one of a child? She clearly isn't a child, whatever doubts you may have about her age. Isn't "child erotica" much more likely to depict actual children? Wouldn't readers perhaps be mislead by your choice of an image into thinking that "child erotica" is a harmless charade by adults and not the deliberate sexualization of pre-pubescent children? Just curious about your thought process leading up to the inclusion of the image.

This was inspired by reading New York v. Ferber. In the actual text it says:

The value of permitting live performances and photographic reproductions of children engaged in lewd sexual conduct is exceedingly modest, if not de minimis. We consider it unlikely that visual depictions of children performing sexual acts or lewdly exhibiting their genitals would often constitute an important and necessary part of a literary performance or scientific or educational work. As a state judge in this case observed, if it were necessary for literary or artistic value, a person over the statutory age who perhaps looked younger could be utilized. Simulation outside of the prohibition of the statute could provide another alternative. Nor is there any question here of censoring a particular literary theme or portrayal of sexual activity. The First Amendment interest is limited to that of rendering the portrayal somewhat more "realistic" by utilizing or photographing children.

[One]

This was inspired by reading New York v. Ferber.

God, you're dense. The outrage here is not that anyone thinks what you've done is illegal in the United States. The problem is that you have no moral compass on this issue whatsoever.

Why the fucking hell is it good and proper to "demonstrate what child erotica looks like"?

That's why you said you posted the image, and I find your rationale mind-boggling.

This post has been edited by One:

[GlassBeadGame]

Leaving the question of why this article needs an image, why would you think that an image of a post-pubescent young woman would be a suitable substitute for one of a child? She clearly isn't a child, whatever doubts you may have about her age. Isn't "child erotica" much more likely to depict actual children? Wouldn't readers perhaps be mislead by your choice of an image into thinking that "child erotica" is a harmless charade by adults and not the deliberate sexualization of pre-pubescent children? Just curious about your thought process leading up to the inclusion of the image.

This was inspired by reading New York v. Ferber. In the actual text it says:

The value of permitting live performances and photographic reproductions of children engaged in lewd sexual conduct is exceedingly modest, if not de minimis. We consider it unlikely that visual depictions of children performing sexual acts or lewdly exhibiting their genitals would often constitute an important and necessary part of a literary performance or scientific or educational work. As a state judge in this case observed, if it were necessary for literary or artistic value, a person over the statutory age who perhaps looked younger could be utilized. Simulation outside of the prohibition of the statute could provide another alternative. Nor is there any question here of censoring a particular literary theme or portrayal of sexual activity. The First Amendment interest is limited to that of rendering the portrayal somewhat more "realistic" by utilizing or photographing children.

So SCOTUS made you do it? Well that's original. The above is a discussion that even given the courts reference to "scientific and artistic" uses almost always applies to the pornography industry. WP purports to some kind of encyclopedia. Pornographer achieve this end run to get content for viewer seeking to satisfy their desire to view images otherwise prohibited child sexual depictions by using "models" who appear to be children. Back away from from skirting the boundaries of law. To do otherwise makes you a Free Culture Scumbag of the first order.