Wikipedia Founder to FBI: “Wikipedia Hosts Child Porn”

wikipe-tan-schoolgirl-crop.png

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has reported the site to the FBI for knowingly distributing child pornography, pointing to the presence of lolicon illustrations as evidence of this.

Sanger, who withdrew from involvement with Wikipedia in 2002 in moderate acrimony and has since persisted in trying to develop a superior alternative, reported the site to FBI over lolicon imagery, calling this child pornography (links redacted at source):

I believe Wikimedia Commons, owned and hosted by the California-based Wikimedia Foundation, may be knowingly distributing child pornography.

The clearest instances I found (I did not want to look for long) are linked from [deleting link; it's a category about pedophilia] and [link deleted; it's a category about something called lolicon]. I don’t know if there is any more, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there is–the content on the various Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons and various others, are truly vast.

You can see on [the history of the category page] that the page has existed for three years. Considering that Eric Moeller, a high-level Wikipedia manager, is well known for his views in defense of pedophilia, surely the existence of this page must have come to the attention of those with the legal responsibility for the Wikimedia projects.

In my non-lawyer’s opinion, it looks like this violates 18 USC §1466A(2)(A). Perhaps the defense of this will be that the depictions are exempted due to §1466A(2)(B), i.e., the Wikimedia Foundation may argue that the images have some artistic value. I guess that’s for you and maybe the courts to decide.

I don’t envy the FBI the task of regulating the seedy underside of the Internet, and I doubt this is very high on your list of priorities. But I want to be on the record stating that this is wrong and should be investigated.

It is clear he is unaware of the treacherous legal limbo lolicon imagery enjoys in the US, but thinks it should be illegal all the same.

Wikipedia’s top legal counsel Mike Godwin gives his claims short shrift:

As is commonly the case when non-lawyers attempt to invoke a statute without adequately researching the relevant law and legal categories, Sanger has confused and conflated a number of legal doctrines.

First, he has referred to “child pornography” while invoking 18 USC 1466A, which is not a child-pornography statute but an obscenity statute. The federal child-pornography statute is 18 USC 2252-2252A.

Second, he is apparently unfamiliar with the obscenity test provided by Miller v. California and its progeny, which emphasize the importance of community standards in defining what qualifies as obscenity.

(The federal statute he cites represents an effort by religious-right activists to develop a per-se obscenity standard independent of community standards, but that doctrine has yet to be blessed by the U.S. Supreme Court, and it seems unlikely that the Court would overthrow the Miller obscenity doctrine in this way.)

Third, Sanger asserts that the Wikimedia Foundation is “knowingly” distributing child pornography.

Even if we substitute “obscenity” for “child pornography,” and even if we assume that the Wikimedia Foundation in some sense can be said to “know” that some material on the sites it hosts may be unlawful, Sanger’s comment is legally irrelevant, since the Communications Decency Act (47 USC 230) expressly bars hosting providers for liability for such content if it did not originate or develop the content, and further declares that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider [e.g. a user or subscriber who posts content].”

Federal obscenity and child-pornography statutes make similar distinctions.

He then goes on to suggest Sanger is in fact actionably slandering the Wikimedia Foundation and Erik Moeller:

The pattern of slipshod legal research and allegation in Sanger’s letter strikes me as convincing evidence that Sanger is reckless in how he chooses to accuse Wikimedia Foundation and Erik Moeller.

While I won’t analyze his letter in a way that would amount to republishing and re-emphasizing the defamation contained within it, I will say that I think any jury might reasonably infer that Sanger’s recklessness in posting his allegations, together with his clear intention to damage the reputation of an individual person, is the kind of thing that deserves compensation and ought to be deterred.

This exchange of fire continues in some detail, although Sanger is clearly uncomfortable discussing the subject there and elsewhere.

lolicon_sample.png

The actual article at fault seems to be the main lolicon article, which at present includes some tasteful art by noted Japanese Wikipedophile Kasuga, who also happens to be the designer responsible for the semi-official Wikipe-tan mascot.

In the discussion which allegedly prompted the accusations, Sanger argues for Wikipedia to banned from schools due to its “pornographic” and “illegal” content, to which he strongly objects.

He accuses Wikipedia of not doing enough to expunge or identify the material he objects to for censorship purposes, in no uncertain terms:

They should grow up and finally realize that they are part of the real world.

Naturally, he can’t resist plugging his own encyclopaedia as the alternative:

You should encourage people to work on a wiki encyclopedia project that needs fresh participants, is more responsible, and has a family-friendliness policy: Citizendium.

Sanger has long voiced concerns over Wikipedia’s failure to restrict contributions to non-anonymous “expert” sources, whom he views as the final arbiters of truth in any credible encyclopaedia. His own Citizendium (which he largely abandoned in 2009) thus largely restricts contributions to academics writing under their real names.

However, by its own admission the site only has 131 “approved” articles out of 13,470 in total, and remains essentially obscure. Quality is said to make for a lack of quantity, but a less than random examination of the content offered tends not to support this.

A quick comparison of the two sources reveals Citizendium’s pedophilia entry consists of a terse discussion of the subject as mental illness, with 3 references and 300 page views, whilst Wikipedia’s entry probably contains more than anyone would particularly want to know about every aspect of the term, with 90 references and a probably vast number of page views (it is the number one result in Google).

Whatever the legal merits of the case, the accusation itself resembles little more than a juvenile attempt by Sanger to smear Wikipedia with the label of being a paedophile haunt, born of sour grapes and with no valid legal basis – he in fact embodies the spirit of Wikipedia better than he realises.


    Post Comment »
    153 Comments
    Sort by: Date | Score
    Comment by Anonymous
    15:22 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    The witch hunt continues..

    Comment by Anonymous
    14:15 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Well, this espouses why the anti-pedosexuality bullcrap and the 'child pornography' laws are not meant to protect children, but about forcing the 'moral' beliefs (really personal likes and dislikes) of others on people who do not want to adhere to them.

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:14 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    If I was at FBI, I'd laugh my arse off.

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:16 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Pervert Wiki.:P

    Comment by Anonymous
    22:27 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Hahahahaha

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizendium

    Check out the picture of Larry Sanger on the right hand side.

    Avatar of Grim32
    Comment by Grim32
    01:27 13/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Does anything else think Larry Sanger looks like a 'typical' pedo himself?

    Comment by Anonymous
    20:55 14/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Citizendium is plain boring...a clear sign of FAIL

    Avatar of Miroku74
    Comment by Miroku74
    19:29 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    It's all smoke and mirrors to hide other people's dirty laundry and skeletons. Keep people divided so they can't threaten your power base.

    Give the vast majority something to focus their rage upon, and you can pretty much sweep a lot of things under the carpet.

    Comment by Anonymous
    13:10 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    they should go after Disney then. after all, The Little Mermaid is about a 16 yr. old girl swimming around in only a clamshell bikini top having erotic thoughts about a man.

    Comment by Anonymous
    18:49 15/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    wont happen, mickey mouse is the secret ruler of the world.

    Comment by Anonymous
    08:55 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Yes, wikipedia hosts what numerous countries in the world call child porn.

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Martin_Van_Maele_-_La_Grande_Danse_macabre_des_vifs_-_29.jpg
    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Martin_Van_Maele_-_La_Grande_Danse_macabre_des_vifs_-_33.jpg
    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Martin_Van_Maele_-_La_Grande_Danse_macabre_des_vifs_-_21.jpg

    Comment by Anonymous
    08:20 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    You mean articles like this?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:30 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    good thing he left or else wiki wouldn't have gotten this much attention. for all we know he would've turned wiki into shit if he had stayed.

    phuking moralfags. always trying to force their views onto others.

    Comment by Anonymous
    14:18 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Yes, that is exactly what this is. Bastards also don't realize that they are causing most of the 'problems' with pedosexuality in the world today, like they did with homosexuality and heterosexuality outside of marriage back in the day.

    Comment by Anonymous
    18:46 15/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    people who cry pedophile should be searched first, bet they find he's the one with it. Hes just another facist, one of many.

    Comment by Anonymous
    10:31 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    I knew Sanger was gonna try and get some sort of "revenge" ever since I read his article (on wikipedia) a couple last year.

    Didn't think it would be so underhanded.

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:52 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    LOL This is the first time i heard of Citizendium...it is working though on the advertisement cuz i am curious about it and searched for it xD

    Comment by Anonymous
    12:49 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    OH SHIET! I took pictures of my 1 yr old cousin. I have child pr0n on my PC!!!! /sarcasm

    Oh noes, even more child pr0n on my pc! I got a pic where you can see Kyon's sister!!! /deep sarcasm

    People, learn already:
    2D loli != real children
    Imaginary sexual acts != real thing <-- I wonder how they'd categorize tentacle sex if they claim 2D stuff is just like real...

    Comment by Anonymous
    14:26 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    It's just a load of bullshit because people are realizing that pedosexuality is becoming, no matter how much they protest, more and more accepted in society today.

    Comment by Anonymous
    14:49 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Keep dreaming bub. Just look at the firestorm hitting the RC Church for how accepted it is.

    You want to fuck kids? Become a muslim and move to Yemen or so. They don't mind there, meanwhile in the more civilized parts of the world, expect to do some hard time together with Bubba, who thinks you got a pretty mouth.

    Avatar of Azure Xuchilbara
    Comment by Azure Xuchilbara
    00:01 13/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    So much RAGE, friend...Eat some cake and settle down...

    We should stick together and not bicker amongst ourselves...

    Moralfags are the true enemy, after all...

    Once they are obliterated, peace will be restored to the lolidom...

    Comment by Anonymous
    01:01 13/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    To quote the anon of 12:49 12/04/2010.

    2D loli does not equate to real children.

    Chaps like 14:26 12/04/2010 are the ones who are giving you guys the bad name. So sticking together with them paints you with the same brush. It might not be fair, but a man is judged by the company he keeps.

    14:26 is as much the Enemy as Agnes Chan and Equality Now are.

    Oh and the cake is a lie, you might want to believe Glados, me.. I'll just go check out Black Mesa instead. :P

    Signed: 14:49 12/04/2010

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:32 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    This isn't an Onion article, is it?

    Avatar of Azure Xuchilbara
    Comment by Azure Xuchilbara
    23:58 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Sanger...His name sounds like a bloody ad-ware...

    Jealous hypocrite~

    It would be funny if he ended up being a major loli doujin hoarder in the future...

    Comment by Anonymous
    18:50 15/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    the future? check him now and i beat your right.

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:24 28/07/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    The U.S. is really going down the toilet.

    Avatar of tyciol
    Comment by tyciol
    05:13 15/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    It's just a plug for his encyc. I wanted to note this on ED but can't edit now =(

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:31 13/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    LOL, fucking loser...

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:51 13/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    i juz think that persons is wasting his own life...

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:09 13/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    CP is so CP. >_<

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:55 13/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    He's just saying it's loli porn because he was aroused by the image. He's trying to hide his loli desires by bashing and blaming wiki.

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:05 13/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Misuse_of_terminology

    well, I learned something today...

    Comment by Anonymous
    06:09 14/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Wiki doesn't host child porn. I should know I've checked.

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:24 14/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Americans are idiots. They have no idea what is small chested adorable OF AGE girl. Or a child. They need to be educated properly on this.

    Comment by Anonymous
    08:50 23/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    That's how most of the entire world sees it. Not just the Americans, moron.

    Comment by Anonymous
    19:46 13/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    guessing wikipedia should be charged with murder since it has links an history of that description also.

    Comment by Anonymous
    00:26 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    If he has so many problems with these kind of things why doesn't he mention the articles on wikipedia about ejaculation, vagina, penis, pubic hair, not to mention numerous depicted sexual positions. All of this can be considered explicit porn depending on the mind of each one. You fail at social life mister.

    Avatar of deadbeat
    Comment by deadbeat
    00:28 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    the first group of people going to protest the scrapping of the Wikipedia project isn't going to be the lolicons but the high school and college students.. Where would the majority of their 'sources' and 'inspiration' come from then?

    Comment by Anonymous
    15:51 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Not to be sarcastic but Wikipedia is a very valuable source of information- not because of the individual pages, but due to the multitude of links attached to each page. Any uni student that understands the fact that it's costing them thousands of dollars is going to damn well follow those links, cross reference, and find out how accurate those articles are!

    :D

    Avatar of Fonzer
    Comment by Fonzer
    23:13 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    kinda,but don't think wikipedia always tells the right information about things,sometimes researching a little more finds actual more believable data then just believing that since it's on wikipedia it must be true(which is not always).

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:28 29/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Thats why there are refferences. if the information actually matters, you check them.

    Wikipedia is a failsafe source for that reason: No citation, dont believe it

    easy

    Comment by Anonymous
    00:10 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Baw some moar butthurt fag

    Avatar of Pinocchio
    Comment by Pinocchio
    00:06 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    that just horrible ,
    it's natural for putting those picture for examples, wikipedia supposed to have detailed information about anything as much as possible i think

    Avatar of X_FANG
    Comment by X_FANG
    00:06 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    What a pity... a single human being fighting the god of information...

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:00 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    As been said, knowledge is power. Be it penis, vagina for entertainment or porn for research on societal behavior, if they don't want kids to learn then they should abandon internet in schools and stop educating children after 12. The mark of a used brain is curiosity and satisfaction of that unending thirst; like a trip to tvtropes for curiosity will always be found.

    Avatar of Fapping Time
    Comment by Fapping Time
    00:06 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    I believe I'll go do some drugs rather than listen to that retard...

    Avatar of cooldown3
    Comment by cooldown3
    00:41 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Hi All,

    I fail to see what they are carrying on about. Pictures do not cause pedophilia, pedophiles may well cause pictures. Spme pictures are from non-pedophiles

    Now pictures are different from sketches and illustrations. Who is injured from the illustrations? I can think of many paintings of "old masters" which depict nudity, young and old. These are not cause for alarm apparently.

    If you want to curtail sexual abuse of children where is the hospital treatmnt for those who do these things to children? Where is the careful monitoring of offenders?? I see some assault almost every week on tv news programs involving a repeat offender.

    Without some form of engagement the child molester will continue to molest. Sadly, they are not free to choose their format for sex.

    Cheers,

    Patrick

    Avatar of Night
    Comment by Night
    01:42 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Most hilarious article I read in a while.

    Avatar of savantique
    Comment by savantique
    01:43 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Seeing intelligent people in the judicial system every now and again restores my faith in humanity just a little.

    Avatar of Hellmen
    Comment by Hellmen
    01:44 12/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Internet fight between two old geezers.

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:29 29/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    "We didnt start the flame war..."






    Post Comment »

Popular

Recent News

Recent Galleries

Recent Comments