Talk:Lolicon/Archive 2

message: Although I agree with other contributors that the image should not be deleted purely because it is found subjectively offensive by some people (on this standard nearly EVERYTHING should be deleted), I do think the illegality of the image in some jurisdictions is sufficient for non-inclusion. (in my country, South Africa, it is most certainly illegal, see: http://www.info.gov.za/gazette/bills/2003/b61-03.pdf). 
**I don't think this image qualifies as "sexual conduct" in your reference and that inadvertant viewing is prosecutable -Nv8200p talk 06:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: couldn't the use of the image be claimed as being educational? Would laws against child pornography depictions still have anything against that? The other issue, that i've mentioned before, is that the image itself is not pornographic in and of itself. Nakedness does not equal pornography, even when it's a child (or maybe especially when it's a child). Now the fact that she seems to be holding a sex toy might be stretching it a bit  but I still don't think there is inherantly anything pornographic here, in the context it's provided in. --86.135.179.53 23:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is the image constitutes child pornography de jure in some jurisdictions (specifically, in South Africa - see the link I posted) whether or not it is pornographic in any intuitive sense. My argument is that wikipedia should not contain content that the reasonable person would not realise is illegal. Again, the reasonable Iranian *knows* the vagina or sex or porn articles in wiki will contain information perhaps illegal in his or her country whereas the reasonable South African/Canadian/Australian CANNOT be expected to know - how could they know without first reading the article? - that by clicking on "lolicon" they are about to commit a crime. Lastly, exactly why is the image's inclusion so important? Surely saving wikipedians from inadvertent crime is more important than including the image? (People who really want to look at such images are free to do so in their spare time if they live in areas where it is legal...) NOTE: given the seriousness of this problem with the image's inclusion I will continue to delete it until someone offers an argument that defeats mine... Mikkerpikker 07:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep claiming that a "reasonable Iranian" knows to avoid the vagina article.  Care to cite a source?  'Cause they don't speak English in Iran.  Do the words "vagina" or "dildo" appear on the vocab list of your average Iranian English course? 
I've listed the image for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. (My reasons are the same for its non-inclusion in the article). Mikkerpikker 08:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: If a "reasonable" Iranian would suspect that the vagina article has pictures of vaginas, why wouldn't a "reasonable" South African suspect that the lolicon article has pictures of lolicon? And if I was doing serious research on lolicon, I don't see why I would object seeing examples of it. Don't medical students in Iran get to see pictures of vaginas? I certainly hope so. Kaldari 16:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image some more

message: I see rational discussion is out of the question with respect to the image. Frankly, I have better things to do than reverting repeatedly, so what about getting other users to comment about what should be done? 
To be clear: I am not repeating the argument that the image should be removed because it is offensive. Nor am I saying it should be removed because it is immoral or hurtful or simply because it is child porn (that depends on your definition, which can be subjective). My argument is that since the picture is illegal in several countries, if we include the image we are forcing those with a legitimate interest in the topic to commit a crime when there is NO reason for them to suspect that is what is about to happen. I'd love to hear what can be said against this position and I'll readily change my stance if good arguments against me can be found. Mikkerpikker 11:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument that uses Iranian law as another example of censorship not being relevent to Wikipedia seems like a pretty good one. Wikipedia isn't made for any government. It's not wikipedia's fault if a state feels the need to censor free speech and information, whether that be images of sexual organs or drawings of (apparently) sexualised children in an educational context. We shouldn't have to cater to the whims of some government's bizarre decree against drawings. The image should only be removed if it is offensive on a purely personal level, not offensive to the prescribed morality of a state. And for the record, I believe that here in the UK there is a similar ban on depictions of sexualised children; but I havn't been arrested yet for viewing this page ;) --86.135.179.53 17:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you completely that wikipedia is not made for any government, but then, surely, it is made for the average person who wants to use it. As such, shouldn't users be protected from inadvertent crime, especially since the inclusion of the image is not particularly important to the article in question? (Reading the democracy article from, say, China might be illegal but -1- the reasonable Chinese user knows this and -2- the democracy article is objectively important whereas the image in question is not). Whether or not you AGREE with the laws forbidding "simulated child porn" they are laws and breaking them has (or can have) consequences - a reasonable person in many of the jurisdictions in which they are in place simply cannot be expected to know clicking on lolicon can land them in trouble. Consequently the debate about whether the image is offensive or not is irrelevant and so is the debate about whether the image "truly" constitutes porn, what matters is protecting users. Maybe I'm making no sense whatsoever, so I'll go sleep on it... Mikkerpikker 18:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Of course readers shouldn't be presented with pornography if they aren't expecting it. But, as it has already been stated on this talk page, a partially naked child does not constitute pornography by most people's definition - it's generally agreed that children can be partially naked without it being sexual. Saying the image is pornographic is akin to saying that it's pornographic to include a picture of a shoe in an article on shoe fetishes. It's pornographic status is dependent on the deviance of the reader ;). --86.135.179.53 18:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you're saying: "This picture of a child is not sexual, it's all in your interpretation." Reality: It's the cover of a lolicon doujinshi. The article is about pedophilia. If readers don't realise what they're looking at when they first pull up the article, after reading it they definitely will. This subject is too volatile for such an obscene image, and it's certainly different from foot fetish. Ashibaka tock 19:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm saying that in the context here, there is nothing immediately obscene about the image. On the cover of a book, with presumably depictions of actual sexual acts inside, then of course it would be pornographic. Here however the image is presented on it's own and has no immediate sexual meanings - as I said, it is generally accepted that children can be partially naked without it implying anything sexual. The sexual context provided by the article is purely academic and secondary; all it does is define the image as being an educational example. It is exactly the same as my example using an article on shoe fetishes: such an article may plausibly contain an image of a shoe - however such an image on it's own is non-sexual in the general view of society and is therefore not likely to cause offense to the average reader. The image in question, much like the theoretical image of the shoe, is not "obscene" if you only realize it's apparent sexuality after reading the text of the article; it only has those qualities if the reader immediately inteprets it in that way upon viewing. And that, as I said, would entirely be a result of the reader's preconceptions, not the image itself. --86.135.179.53 20:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a note to let you know I read your comment and I don't think it would be beneficial to pursue this any further. If anyone asks for another opinion on this subject please let me know and I'll be back. Ashibaka tock 00:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly edit war 

message: I'm just wondering where exactly this is illegal in.
Apart from Canada and Australia, where else?
:I started a section on this, please feel free to look up relevant obscenity statutes around the world. Ashibaka tock 03:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of countries it is illegal in 

message: The entire article doesn't touch on lolicon ever meaning anything other than prepubescent girls. 8-13 is a very poor and unusual definition for ephebophile. Keep in mind that since this is mainly illustrated lolicon isn't as ambiguous about age as real life is. An image won't be considered loli unless it is notably prepubescent. 
If loli-con encompasses pubescent girls then there should be some information somewhere on this page about that. Without it, it's just incongrous to call lolita ephebophile.
Keep in mind that lolicon is separate from nobokovs' lolita and Gothic Lolita. Their ephebophilia has no impact on this term. Lotusduck 04:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pubescence 

message: I just spoke with someone in IRC who claims to be a law student in US and who said that this article is incorrect in suggesting that cartoons depicting sexual abuse of children are not illegal in US. He pointed me to following links regarding a recent conviction for possession of such material: , , . He also suggests that distribution of the picture in the article may be in violation of U.S. law, though it doesn't seem to me to depict sexual abuse, per se. Babajobu 05:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see some evidence, please.  What statute?  Someone on IRC claims to be a law student in the US - and that's supposed to make me believe what  he/she says?  The links point to articles about a repeat offender who got the book thrown at him for obsenity, but there's not a single mention of the statute he was convicted under, thus no way to verify it. 63.238.214.110 11:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Legal or not, there is a question of choice. I don't know that Wikipedia needs to choose to include this image. Why should it? Any reason not to delete it? -Will Beback 11:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This has been hashed out here time and time again.  Unless there's a consensus, leave it alone. 63.238.214.110 12:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The third link states that he was convicted under the PROTECT Act of 2003, which criminalizes trafficking in drawings or CGI depicting minors involved in "explicit sexual conduct". I don't think this picture involves "explicit sexual conduct" at all, and I have no problem with keeping the picture in its original place. I just thought I should let you know, considering the guy was correct that the legal information in the article was dead wrong. Babajobu 14:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: A case need not be brought to the Supreme Court to count as a real judgment or to set a real precedent. It's possible that in time the relevant provisions of the PROTECT Act will be overturned, but in December, 2005 they were used to convict a man who had received and sent cartoons over the internet of seventy-four counts of trafficking in child pornography. His status as an ex-offendor is not relevant...he was not judged in violation of a special provision of parole, he was convicted of violating a child pornography law. As I said, I have no dog in this race, I don't have a problem with the picture staying where it is and I wish our servers were hosted in space so that we weren't subject to any country's laws. But the guy was right...the legal info in the article was dead wrong. Plus, this sentence is pure original research: "it is highly unlikely that if a case involving the PROTECT Act were brought to the Supreme Court, the previous ruling would be overturned." I'm removing it. And the Supreme Court need not "overturn" its previous ruling, it would need to judge that the PROTECT Act was itself unconstitutional. This has not yet happened, the Act has already garnered successful prosecutions, and Wikipedia is not in a position to claim that eventually it will be overturned. We can't know that, and if we give someone the sense that it is legal to traffick in hardcore Lolicon in the U.S., and they are then convicted under the Protect Act, we'll have a problem. Babajobu 05:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no. The PROTECT Act says the same thing as COPA; the Supreme Court would have to totally flip-flop to call that enforceable. There's no problem with pointing that out-- Wikipedia does not provide legal advice anyway. Ashibaka tock 14:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality of cartoons depicting sexual abuse of children 

message: I have uploaded deleted image which I found on Danbooru. Looks like the same damn thing? Yeah, it is, if I uploaded a picture of fluffy bunnies it would no longer be an informative addition to this article. But it is a bit less explicit, which will probably resolve complaints. At least, it's well enough for me. And it might be legal in some of these various countries we are talking about. Ashibaka tock 01:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I explained my rationale above. It's nudity vs. less nudity. Ashibaka tock 02:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's outrageous! The new image is a thousand times more overtly sexual and hints of pedophilia mixed with S&M dominance fantasies, which is a sick combo!!! The other pic at least looked more like the Coppertone girl! Wow!! This new one is NASTY!!! Babajobu 02:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're telling me that the old one was neither sexual, nor pedophilic, nor a million other things? Are we talking about the same picture here?  Ashibaka tock 02:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It hardly demonstrates the age of the person.. she looks postpubescent to me. // paroxysm (n) 02:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Looked at the image & (again) increased the chances of being sent to jail! I think it still constitutes simulated child porn ito South African law but don't know about other countries... Mikkerpikker 02:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Note that the actual (U.S.) cover art is similar, though. Kirill Lokshin 02:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oy, let's just use that as our header image.  Ashibaka tock 02:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  South African law is utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia, since none of our servers our hosted there. In Turkey it's illegal to speak critically of Kemal Ataturk, fortunately we don't have servers in Turkey, either. Babajobu 02:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's irrelevant wrt whether wikipedia can be sued to remove the image but it is not irrelevant wrt users being held responsible for viewing particular pages... If I'm in South Africa (or Canada/Australia etc.) and I view the lolicon article I'm committing a crime. Am I the only one that sees a prob with that?? Mikkerpikker 02:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mikkerpikker, half the content of this encyclopedia is illegal in Iran or Saudi Arabia, some of it in China, and parts of it in every tinpot dictatorship everywhere else in the world. If we don't cater to those places, why should we cater to South Africa? Babajobu 02:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because if you live in Saudi Arabia and have a brain you won't go read vagina. If you live in China and have a brain you won't go read democracy. Reasonable people in these countries know (a) they don't live in a liberal democracy and that hence (b) some types of information can be illegal and hence (c) they know to watch their step. The same is not true in democracies like SA/AUS etc. The reasonable South African does not (and cannot be expected to) know clicking on that wikilink lolicon is illegal. You only know it's illegal when it's too late! I must be missing something because nobody has yet provided a coherent argument against what I'm saying and yet nobody agrees with me! :) Mikkerpikker 02:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Alas, the link Kirill provides doesn't really look like lolicon manga, so I'm not sure if it's relevant here. Babajobu 02:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I got that complaint when I tried another replacement earlier. So, it looks like I'm 0 for 3:
# Doesn't resolve legal issues
# Cannot be misinterpreted as an innocent drawing
# Not pedophilic enough (thanks Paroxysm)
Better luck next time. I'm marking this for speedy deletion. (nah, I'll wait a few hours first) Ashibaka tock 02:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: haha, Ashibaka has got a pretty good sense of humor...Babajobu
Kodus to Ashibaka for trying WhiteNight T | @ | C 02:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ashibaka's New Lolicon Image

message: How about changing the image to a link to the image? I don't get the feeling that most people who casually click a link to this article to see what something's refering to would appreceiate a pic of a semi-naked cartoon girl being slapped onto their monitor. However, if someone wants to see a graphic that illustrates the article's subject, they only need to click the link. This would also solve the problem of people inadvertantly stumbling upon illegal content, if the link was labeled with a "this image may be illegal to view in your country" or similar warning. = Silent War = 12:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only people who usually come through this page either a) know about this particular subject, b) know about anime/manga, and c) know about pedo-subculture. Except for a handful of troublemakers and other nosy bastards, I well imagine that anyone who finds this page would be intelligent enough to swallow any moral outrage they may or may not have. Sweetfreek 02:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It used to be like that, but then got changed...yet again. I'm not sure why. Vimescarrot 20:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Random, anonymous users keep changing it back. Ashibaka tock 00:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A link to the image should be sufficient. -Will Beback 02:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is legal. Wikipedia (and thereby wikipedians as well) are not the judges of decency. However, I have read your userpage's discussion section, and I'm just wondering how many other people have. Sweetfreek 02:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweetfreek, there has been a 2-year argument about the image. The consensus and compromise is that we will keep it as long as it is not displayed inline. There are too many people with differing opinions for you to simply say that your way is the best. Ashibaka tock 03:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been no such consensus like the one you describe.  The "consensus" (actual votes on more than one occasion) has always been that the image stays.  Have I not made myself clear on this matter, Mr. Comstock? Sweetfreek 20:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: m:Votes are evil. The consensus is what everyone except you is reverting. Ashibaka tock 22:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: We are all the judges of the content, and what should be contained in here. -Will Beback 05:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sweetfreak, you saying "the image is legal" makes me think you haven't even read the article. Please realise that linkimaging is a compromise btw those who believe the image should be deleted (me, Ashibaka, etc.) and those who believe the image should be included inline. Linkimaging is a compromise neither side is particularly happy with which tends to indicate it is a healthy compromise. Stop reverting and DISCUSS if you think we're wrong... Mikkerpikker ... 06:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm just trying to lay out some of the reasons not to change the picture.  I don't think that this discussion has reached the point of necessitating the action taken with Autofellatio.  In that case, it was done because Jimbo decreed it.  Jimbo has not decreed it here, and it should not be done on a whim.  Also, the picture is not unacceptible for most readers to view.  It may be disturbing, but we shouldn't run from things just because they're disturbing. EthanL 04:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we ask Jimbo for advice, then, if that's all you'll take? Ashibaka tock 07:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: EthanL, have you read all of the talk page? Please do so before making arguments here. Mikkerpikker ... 15:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes -- twice, in fact, and that's saying something!  I still don't see why my arguments aren't good enough for you.  Let me add this:
*We cannot comply with all the laws around the world, and to attempt it is to disregard someone's laws.  The best policy is to comply with the laws in Florida, USA, and leave it to the reader to decide what to do about his own laws.
*In the Autofellatio article, there is an illustration of the act right up front.  A reasonable person who is not a native English speaker should not be expected to know what autofellatio is, and could therefore inadvertently break the law in his/her jurisdiction.  Yet nobody is edit warring over that.  In this article, we also have an illustration up front.  What's the difference?  Color?
*Removing the image and changing it to a link uglifies the article.
*A picture speaks a thousand words, thus one may find out what Lolicon is very quickly via the picture.
*Similar articles (e.g. BDSM, Catgirl, Tentacle_rape, Shunga, Pederasty, and especially Shotacon, the "brother" of Lolicon) have similarly placed relevant images.
*A person who is curious about Lolicon manga can easily satisfy their curiosity without having to go any further or click any links.  Someone who lives in a jurisdiction where such images are illegal could, if discovered, always plead innocence in this matter -- they would have a good defense -- whereas if they clicked the link to see the picture, it could be said that they were actually looking for illegal material, which in many such laws adds to the penalty.
*Most of the laws mentioned in the article are dealing with virtual, simulated, or realistic child porn, which looks like the real thing.  This is not that at all. 
I'm sure I could come up with more reasons. EthanL 07:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another suggestion about the pic 

message: Since there is an obvious disagreement over what the consensus/majority is here, let's hold a straw poll. Ashibaka tock 17:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: #Polls suck, but alas.. // paroxysm (n) 18:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For displaying the image inline

message: # Ashibaka tock 17:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For displaying the image as a link