abuse by French illustrator Martin van Maele. Sanger's opinion was that the content violated section 1466A(2)(A), although the Wikimedia Foundation might argue that the media were exempted per section 1466A(2)(B), which refers to an image that has "serious literal, artistic, political, or scientific value". Sanger referred to an online discussion between educational technologists reporting that filtering software was not picking up the images, making them accessible to children in schools, and stated that this discussion was what first made him aware of the issue. Sanger said that he felt both morally and legally obligated to report the presence of these media, because the statutes implied that once aware of such content, one had to do so or risk prosecution oneself. Wikimedia's responses Mike Godwin, general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, dismissed Sanger's claims. Godwin said that Sanger committed a typical layman's error in trying to invoke statutory law without adequate research, confusing several sections of Title 18. Section 1466A, the section invoked by Sanger, does not deal with child pornography, but with obscenity, while child pornography is addressed in section 2252. Godwin further defended the Foundation by citing Miller v. California which, according to The Register, emphasizes "the importance of community standards in defining what qualifies as obscenity". He also pointed out that the Foundation's projects are created by web users, and cited section 230 of the Communications Decency Act – something he notes U.S. Federal obscenity and child-pornography statutes make a similar exception for. Wikipedian spokesman Jay Walsh said that the Foundation does not harbor illegal material and any such material uploaded by volunteers would be removed. Sanger's response Sanger, a self-described libertarian and moralist, stood by his actions and said, "pretending that it's just obvious, even for libertarians, that we have a right to publish such depictions is simply wrong, in my opinion". He told The Register, "If I [did]n't report this – and it's been up for years, apparently – who will? As the co-founder of the project, I believe I have a special personal obligation to rein in egregious wrongdoing when I see it. Or at least try. It bothers me that something I helped start has come to this." After the report, several allegations were made against Sanger and picked up by sites such as Slashdot: that this was an attempt to destroy the Wikimedia Foundation; that there was a conflict of interest in his