Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart C
There's two sides to the coin. While I do not like the thought of the internet being unnecessarily censored, I can see that some censorship is needed. For one simple reason: To prevent exploitation of vulnerable people. There are a *lot* of people with a warped taste. And no, I am not talking about softcore porn, or even hardcore or violent porn (such as Bondage). I'm talking seriously perverted (involving kids, rape etc). A friend's brother worked for the Police on the Obscene Publications squad. His job was actually reviewing the items confiscated by both Police and Customs with a view to possible prosecution. He said he frequently saw things (although he could not go into details) that made him physically sick, and as a result of the job had a very negative view of humanity.
|
And does this image fall into that category? If this image was of actual child abuse, no one would be complaining about it being blocked, and Wikipedia would have removed the image anyway, since such images are rightly illegal in the US.
(Although note the OPA is another matter - that criminalises images of fictional and consensual acts involving adults, merely because some people find them offensive. The justification for criminalisation should be that non-consenting people are harmed in the production, not that they are distasteful. If your friend was sick from what he saw, then why on earth take up the job? No one asked him to look at the images - and if the OPA didn't exist, he wouldn't have to!)
@justreading: Should images from Wikipedia be removed everytime someone somewhere in the world complains?