I think the Spanking page are having an Ely*. I was just composing an email to the Scouting Association, and checking some links and saw the brand new "Non-violence against children" policy (so new it is still red-linked) together with a brand new "Non-violence policy."
However, reading their non-violence policy, they still have the major hole: it seems is not illegal to have pictures of children being spanked in Florida, therefore it is OK. Here it is at the moment, (created in 2 and a half hours yesterday). I've highlighted some points, but note the opening paragraph is doublespeak.
QUOTE
The Spanking Art wiki is an encyclopedic project. POV (point-of-view) contributions (personal opinions, etc.) are not permitted in the article namespace, only on user and discussion pages.
In particular, no part of any article in this wiki may condone or encourage violence against children (or adolescents or adults, for that matter). This includes any form of abuse – physical, emotional or sexual.
If you find any contents that violates this policy, please edit it, either by deletion or by properly marking the passage as an attributed or quoted POV.
Permissible contents
Note that it is perfectly permissible, however, to write factual NPOV information on the spanking of children. It is also allowed to quote POV statements provided that proper quoting practices are followed. Established facts should be stated as such, preferably with a citation, and opinions should be clearly identified as such. When there are several clearly identifiable opinions or points of view on a subject, all should be given, with properly identified sources.
Note that we also explicitly allow the uploading of legal pictures of children getting spanked, whether these are fictional drawings, rendered art or photographs. Legal means that the picture is not obscene (as defined by Florida law, where Wikia resides) and that there is no copyright or license violation. The same applies to legal pictures of adolescents or adults getting spanked, and to adult BDSM images.
Examples
* sentence that condones or encourages violence against children -> not permissible
* sentence that says that there was violence against children in history -> ok
* sentence that says that there is violence against children in the world today -> ok
* sentence that quotes someone who condoned or encouraged violence against children -> ok
* any obscene or pornographic photo -> not permissible
* non-obscene photo that documents violence against children (e.g. this) -> ok
* non-obscene photo of a nude adult or child (e.g. this) -> ok
* non-obscene photo of human body parts, including genitalia (e.g. this) -> ok
* non-obscene fictional drawing of violence against children (e.g. this) -> ok
* non-obscene photo of a recognisable person (e.g. this) -> ok, but the person may object to how their photo is used (see personality rights)
* any photo or drawing under fair use claim -> not permissible
* any copyrighted photo or drawing without a free license -> not permissible
So we see that there is now an acknowledgement of personality rights, but that the hand drawn picture of smacking a troop of boy scouts is still fair game. Hurmmph! Personaility rights is red linked as of now.
From The Meaning of Liff: An Ely being that uncomfortable feeling that you get when you know something is going horribly wrong, but you are not yet sure what it is.