Talk:Child pornography/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Broad daylight POV

"In late 1970s, using dubious statistics"

I'm going to change dubious to controversial since it's clear that it's POV to call these statistics dubious. I think this is a pretty clear case of POV and I cannot understand why it was not picked up earlier. Signed Timothy Scrive.


Should we really have examples of "keywords" while they may not be illegial to have on the page they could aid in committing a crime and it seems to serve no legitimate purpose to have examples. Wikipedia should be an ethical encylopedia and make child porn legal!!

and there is more to that than simply not breaking the law.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 06:35, August 11, 2006.
The above was written by meTimothy J Scriven 09:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC), sorry I did not sign my name the first time but I wasn't aware of the procedures and didn't have an account.
One legitimate example I can think of is in order to filter these keywords in one way or another, from traffic through ones site or from search results (for example, while searching for legitimate/legal pornography, avoiding things that include these keywords). I agree that this information could aid criminal actions, but those who would perform them would know/find other sources for the information. -- 02:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with the first comment and as for the second comment, so what if Paedophiles would find other ways of accessing child porn, theres no need to make it easier for them by displaying keywords. I could not beleive it when I came across examples of keywords while reading this article. To me it just looked like an advert on how to access child porn, needless to say I deleted the keywords, although I imagine when I come to re-read the article the keywords will be back in place. I seriously question the motive's of whoever added the keywords. Comment written by Cole1982

Child pornography in E.U.

Since January 20, 2006, Council Decision 2004/68/JHA apply in all 25 member states. This decision define a "child" as a person under the age of 18 and "child pornography" as a real child or a real person appearing to be a child or a realistic image of a non-existent child engaged in a sexual explicit conduct... As all Council decisions, this one is binding... Maybe one of you would like to write a section about child pornography in E.U. legislation? I could write it myself, but my english is not as good as it seems. --Sam67fr 13:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Fox news poll

"On July 29th 2005, Fox News ran a poll asking if child pornography should be treated as art and therefore legalized. Out of 76,984 who responded, 79% were in favor, 5% opposed, and 16% undecided."


"Available studies show that the majority of viewers appear to be male adolescents, and many of them are minor adolescents themselves." Is this proof? since child porn is mainly underground and hard to find (except Japan) I'd say the people seeking it out are not minor adolescents themselves. I accidently deleted the Fox news discussion. If anybody has a backup plz restore it sorry :( --Unknown
Perhaps the studies referred to those searching for child porn rather than those able to view it? Furthermore, it's not really that underground, one accidentally finds a lot of that stuff on kazaa, and I'd assume programs like that would be the main medium rather than secret websites which sound like honeypots so I'm sure most adult pedophiles would ignore them. --Tyciol 19:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Computer-generated child porn advancing the art of computer rendering?

Some people point out that allowing computer-generated child pornography may contribute to advancement of computer rendering. Is that true? If so, are these people different from those who wrote the above sentence? Any pointer whatsoever to anybody who ever offered this argument? It seems to be braindead on its face, since computer rendering is already quite advanced by ordinary Holywood movies. --AxelBoldt

It sounds like a BS argument to me, and moreover a deliberate attempt to be provocative. Indeed, from what little I understand of the topic, clothes are *much* more difficult to realistically simulate than naked skin. --Robert Merkel
I agree. It sounds like nonsense. The only way we could include it is if it is true that "some people" claim this, and if those "some people" are in any way important people, as in activists, or lawyers notable in this area of criminal law, or what have you. --Jimbo Wales

There are actually many countries up in Europe that do not allow child pornagraphy yet still do it. I was surfing the net for dating engine thingies, stumbled appon a porn site that didn't sound like a porn site, and was bombarded by about 30 or so adds. While I was closing them they maximized and stuff and around 8 of them were EXPLICIT child pornagraphy. All of them from some country in Europe. --Unknown

Yes, and this proves that... people break the law! Even so, I'm surprised you stumbled upon it so easily, usualyl it's hidden or a honeypot by feds, perhaps it was simulated instead? Tyciol 19:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

United Nations Conference fails to define child pornography

A UN conference in (I believe) 1999 [citation needed] totally failed to define this term. It is loosely and poorly defined, and in some countries includes writings, drawings, collages of items clipped from newspapers (e.g. boys in underwear, a personal collage of which earned some poor clown in Ontario a criminal record). In Canada we joke that "all criticism of government is child pornography", and some anarchists put pictures of smiling naked babies on their political manifestoes as a protest - but they don't do this online.

Like "pedophile", the term is usually used to whip up pro-police sentiment.

Prosecutions generally target the actual photographic depiction of child abuse, which is abhorrent to pretty much anyone... but the definition of "child pornography" has variously been so broad as to create police state like conditions, e.g. pictures of a naked kid in a bathtub on the same roll as Mom & Dad's bondage play have caused children to be taken away from their parents in the USA.

I don't think the article as it stands really touches on all those issues and questions. --Unknown

The fact that defintions vary widely and that the US definition is particularly broad are covered. Child porn is not "loosely and poorly defined", it's just defined differently in different countries. AxelBoldt
and still subject to judicial interpretation, controversy of all kinds re: thought versus action. I don't think what you said is wrong, just incomplete. re definitions, it's the same issue as terrorism - a vague bad thing that the developed world uniquely hates because they expect a certain standard of safety to apply to a child or civilian life. Even though the vast majority of people in the world do not have that degree of security. --Unknown

I remember a fairly recent controversy in the UK over a photographer who took pictures of her children naked and exhibited them. Anyone have references? Newspaper articles (preferably not Daily Mail ;>) etc? --AW

Yes, I remember hearing about this though like you the name escapes me, I believe it's listed on this one girllover site I went to before though Tyciol 19:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
There are BBC articles about the photos at and and the Observer has something at,6903,450003,00.html . I'd write a bit myself, but I really should go to bed. btw, I thought shota-con was generally just called "shota" (I only know this because of some research I did for a film project once, honest...) --Camembert

On another note, added a link here to shota-con, a specific subgenre of hentai / yaoi which involves male children, is anyone aware of a specific term for the female equivalent, in order to add an entry and a link here? I'll happily admit to being a yaoi fan (so much more *artistic* than bog-standard porn...) and many yaoi sites link to, or reference, shota-con. the shortening shota does seem to be used quite often, but both terms seem to be acceptable. i'll add a reference to this on the shota-con page, if you haven't already. --AW

To my knowledge, the parallel term to shota-con is loli-con, and this term actually predates the term "shota-con". Loli-con (again, to the best of my knowledge) came from the phrase "Lolita complex".
Yep, that's the right one, lolicon is so cool :) The reason it is con rather than com has to do with how the japanese languages messes around with words. Tyciol 19:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Economic factors for voluntary child porn

I added some comments about economic factors causing children to voluntarily become involved in child porn. High unemployment rates without "social net" can make people really desperate, leaving them only a few options - starving, turning to crime or child prostitution/porn. Quoting a girl from Costa Rika "Everything I do is for my two little ones at home." she says. "They have to eat, they have to have milk, and I don't know what else to do." Thus child pornography can be seen in a similar light as Nike sweatshops - they are bad, but it would be even worse without them. Paranoid See User:Paranoid/Internet child pornography

A Rational Approach to Defining Child Porn (at last!)

Nice to see that some people have taken a rational approach to defining 'child porn'. Sadly, most people don't even want to discuss it. If we are understand ourselves and justify our morality, then object and clear definitions are needed. Still, in this article, 'child' is taken as a monolithic notion.

Most people would agree that a 2 year old and a 17 year old are not necessarily equivalant. In Australia, I believe that the law on child abuse does take into consideration the age of the victim. I think that a similar aproach is taken to child pornography (the ages 14, 16 and 18 spring to mind).

The interaction between notions of 'consensuality' and what should be illegal is interesting. In at least some of the countries mentioned, the age of consent for intercourse is lower than the age for 'child' pornography. This would create the interesting situation whereby a couple could take pictures of themselves having sex which would be illegal for them to possess.

I find the argument that child porn is wrong because it normalises or encourages child abuse to be dubious. We allow graphic violence and depictions of murder, perhaps this should also be banned. This leaves the argument that child porn is wrong because it requires the abuse of children (what then of simulated child porn, or images of consensual sex between, say, 16 year old Australians ie people above the age of consent).

From a moral point of view (and I love these knotty moral issues), I have always wondered what the position would be of someone who took pictures of themselves in a sexual state (masturbating perhaps) when they were young, and then wished to distribute these pictures (perhaps later in life, as an adult).

The issue of showing video tapes of murder and stuff is a relevant one, and one can show videos of simulated rape as well. I just want some uniformity in the law. If that means outlawing murder films, so be it. At least classed together it will draw more attention for serious discussion rather than being shrugged off discriminatorally Tyciol 19:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
To answer your question, a minor photographing himself masturbating is a crime in the United States. Notwithstanding the fact that a) the act of masturbating is not illegal and b) the photograph was created of his own volition for his own personal use, it is a felony for any person to create or to possess an image depicting a minor in an actual or simulated sexual act. To be accurate, child pornography laws in the U.S. are not particularly rational and therefore cannot be rationally defined. --Rkrause 04:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never understood why any age of consent is higher than 14, or why it's illegal to have porn of someone the age of 14 and over. By 14 everyone except for the rare few have gone through the larger part of peuberty and have breasts and pubic hair and such, so I'm not sure what distinguishes them from someone older except in judgment ability. Perhaps we should go by one county's law, I forget which, which has conditional consent at 12(whereas, the child would have to prove to be mature and capable of giving knowledgable consent.) and then unconditional at 16. The children can have sex among themselves, so why not people who are slightly older? And what's wrong with taking pictures? It's all just silly to me. When I was that age I would have loved to boff some of my younger teachers, and a teacher is more likely to remind one to use condums than someone else that age is.

POV claim on page

"In late 1970s, using dubious statistics, a number of journalists and researchers attracted attention of the public to child pornography."

Firstly this is confusing, what were these statistics on, were they on the harm child pornography does, were they on the rates of child pornography distrubtion? Secondly what evidence was there that these statistics were dubious, this looks to me like more pro child pornography propaganda. It's certainly POV because I doubt this is the almost universally held view on the subject. Signed Timothy Scriven —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 05:11, August 12, 2006.

Self-distribution of child porn

Why was the supreme court decision limited to simulated child porn? I can not think of a logical reason for that. Assume an adult has taken pictures of himself, when he was a child, while masturbating and now wants to keep possessing them or distribute them. The informed consent argument does not apply here. There are still reasons for prohibition, but they would all also outlaw simulated child porn. If nobody objects, then I will move the relevant text into an own section "free speech". Moon light shadow 14:19, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps because they found the scenario of a child taking pictures of himself with pornographic intent to be unlikely.
This girl took a few pics and created quite a stir: Teen Arrested for Sexually Abusing Herself -- The site is the first I came across, and may not be the most credible, but the story can be found elsewhere. It's really quite interesting. --DanielCD 18:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah I heard about that story on the news before too, it really does illustrate how stupid the law is, that a girl can be prosecuted for 'abusing' herself. Obviously if she's doing it willingly then she isn't going to be hurt by it. Now, if on the other hand she were forced or coerced into taking the pics and self-distributing, then you could prosecute the others involved. Proscuting the 'victim' is just assinine though. Tyciol 19:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Kiddie porn"

I'd like to suggest that by referring to child pornography as the "familiar term" "kiddie porn", some may say that giving it a nick name such as this in some way legitamises it, and makes it seem like it's an acceptable practice. Or is this just me? Anyone else in favour of removing this expression from the opening sentence? --Rebroad 17:37, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is perfectly normal for something to have nicknames. Heroin, contract killers, guns, types of torture, etc. all have nicknames. In no sense does it legitimise the subject of the nickname. Paranoid 20:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think the term should be there, for the simple reason that it's the term many people use. It certainly isn't just used affectionately or approvingly; I hear people spit the phrase out as if it were a curse. JAQ 13:14, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I found the phrase confusing when I first heard it. When I first started looking at porn, my Dad, somewhat sarcastically, asked if I'd been looking at "kiddie porn". I thought he was saying something about "kitty porn", like animals having sex, or furry porn or something like that. I think "child pornography" is clearer and more blunt.
Yes, I agree with Rebroad and the above post here - the word "kiddie" should be removed from the opening sentence. Such a familiar term does to an unacceptable extent legitimise child pornography, and (to put it mildly) is insensitive to its exploited subjects. I'm not aware of ";kiddie porn" as a widely-used term. Its inclusion is unneccesary and harmful. 17:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Blah blah blah. 560,000 Internets, 362 books, and 137 scholarly articles. It's still OK for Wikipedia to document political incorrectness. JayW 18:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we all know how a widely-used term is harmful to PEOPLE WHO WERE MOLESTED. Jesus christ. --mboverload 20:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Kiddie porn is in prolific usage. Skinnyweed 16:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ukranian ring, a trove of information

There is plenty of factual information in comments to a story on a bust of a "Ukrainian child porn ring" (i.e. a modelling studio that made child erotica). Can't be bothered to read it all, though. -Unknown

Needed Content

This page very much needs the pictures so i may understand this topic more fully.

Just what kind of "pictures" are you proposing? I might like to see a pic with the caption, "is this a kid in the bath/beach, or porn?" But it would have to be unquestionably legal. --DanielCD 18:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it was a joke.-- 11:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
This is exactly the problem. If you really want to know about the subject, you have to see child porn pictures. But if you are doing so, you are acting illegal and you will be punished (if you are caught). 07:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


I know to some people this may seem obvious, but no where on the page does it ever really mention WHY child pornography is concidered to be so bad. It's all about legal discriptions and past productions, when really, that was all I wanted to know. Why exactly is child pornography concidered so harmful?

Here are some reasons just of the top of my head that it should be illegial:
  • It almost certainly encourages a desire to commit sexual acts with children.
  • It's psychologically harmful to the children involved and can be physically harmful.
  • If it were legalised it would probably encourage a belief that having sexual encounters with minor's is normal and healthy.
  • The children involved are often economically and socially disadvantaged.
  • The children involved can not make an informed decision considering their age.
I'm sure there's literally dozen's more just as pressing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 06:35, August 11, 2006.
Consider this statement, "the children involved can not make an informed decision considering their age." Such a curious claim warrants more analysis. For purpose of comparison, why then is underage masturbation not illegal in the United States? Regardless of religious values, if minors specifically age 13-18 are legally defined as mentally incapable of consenting to any sexual act (including the creation of child pornography), then they should not be sexually gratifying themselves. Masturbation does not teach "self discovery." That's merely a twisted way we as a society attempt to condone youth's continued engagement in and fascination with "autoerotic fantasies involving explicit sexual acts" -- which itself is clearly morally corrupt. Are we attempting to preserve the chastity of our youth? Legitimizing masturbation in this way only encourages the misguided belief that sexual pleasure is in fact normal for adolescent development. I would not doubt that the establishment of such a moral premise only contributes to the rise in sexual intercourse amongst American teens. Therefore, I cannot accept the argument that child pornography is invalid because children are unable to make informed decisions before engaging in a physically exploitive sexual act. --Rkrause 02:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Well...I suppose that there should be some protection for the pre-teens (ie those under 12 or 13), I am not really sure if 14 and older needs that kind of protection, since they have sex anyway.
I understand that under United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child a 14-y old child would have the right to have sex, get an abortion, join the Wiccan church, etc, regardless of his/her parent's wishes...
But then, some people like to politicize things and gain power in process of this and similar things.MPA 18:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)MPA
Because politicians can use it to scare people into voting a certain way. There is little rational explaination that I can find (though there are legetimate studies that do prove the harm that can come from this inexcusable kind of exploitation when it's legitimate pornography). If Sally Mann wasn't as rich as a mint, she'd be sitting in prison right now (I know a bit about her; I've talked to her personally). No sane person could call any of her work pornographic.
In short, the reasons are hard to decipher through all the BS and emotional appeal. But it is there, and probably should be elucidated better in the article. When someone is used for another's pleasure, it is simple a violation of the inegrity of the individual. To not entirely know what is happening, and have someone do or make you do things you are powerless to stop, can be horribly traumatizing. But there are so many different situations and different people, that it's hard to draw a line.
But govt.'s like the US and Britian don't care, because they are basically totalitarian oligarchys that do whatever they please. The US has no constitution any more, and the government has no checks. The US just does what it pleases, and only the wealthiest can defend themselves against it.
Case in point. A certain American person I knew of took four nude photos of a 12yo nephew. No sex acts, just nude after getting out of the pool: insane to call it porn, period. He went to jail for seven years, and was killed there. A drunk driver hit the car the boy was in and killed both him and his mother. The drunk was out in two years.
The point? At least in the US, it's a severe crime to see a nude child...but its perfectly ok to KILL them. What is wrong with the picture? Most US Americans at least would say...nothing. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .
C. porn is bad for a host of reasons. #1 is that ...well, it's kids! They are being abused just by being used for other's gratification. Some stuff, like nude shots...the lines blurr, but if the intention is arousal, everyone knows it, and trauma can result. But more than not, they are coerced into it, and anything like that is automatically a violation of that child's rights, and it only gets worse from there. #2 is that it induces people to make more so they can trade and have a standling among their pedo buddies, like some kind of sick card trading game. #3 is that there are studies that show pornography warps a person's sense of what is realistic. CP is not realistic, but the mind of a person who watches it accepts it as something that's actually happening and begins to "normalize" it. This makes people much more likely to act out the fantasy in the real world. Force need not be used for abuse, but if the fantasy don't go right on acting (i.e. the kid doesn't do what's expected), which is prolly most of the time, force may be used...etc. need I go on? Perhaps the effect is not universal, but it's generally true enough that these ideas give a good idea of "Why". --DanielCD 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Each part of your argument is poorly reasoned. #1 - Saying, "well, it's kids!" is not an argument anymore than saying "just because, that's why!" is an argument, and it ignores the fact that "Child Pornography" also applies to 17 year olds. The rest of #1 you are talking about child molestation/child rape, which is terrible yes but not the same thing as child pornography. #2 - I've seen a few news reports about situations that vaguely resemble what you're referring to here, but even if that could be shown to be extremely widespread (which I doubt), I really don't see how that "induces" people who are already having sex with kids to have more sex with kids. There's a logic jump there that most people seem to make that I just can't follow, it's always struck me as clearly false. #3 - you can't make that argument without also calling for the ban of many other kinds of pornography, such as heavy BDSM porn and the like. If that was your intention, well, I disagree but I think that's a seperate debate.
This subject has always irked me. The laws in America (and elsewhere) are clearly stupid (see the case of the girl who was charged with victimizing herself). There's so much emotion, "moral panic" (that terms been thrown around a bunch in here, why not one more time) and political pandering/grandstanding on this issue that it's just so much empty braindead squawking at this point.-- 11:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry that you are irked; you are certainly not alone in that. The above comments were indeed made in haste, and I will make no attempt to defend them here. I feel there are valid points, and would challenge you on several, but ...I am weary of this topic. Thank you for providing some examples and making your criticism appropriate.
And we do agree on one thing: there are some very stupid laws on this in the United States, laws that have loose "blank check" definitions and that involve crimes of thought, but I will leave the issue for now. --DanielCD 19:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I live in the UK and lost my virginity at the age of 16 to my 16 year old girlfriend. If I'd lived in Arizona, for example, I would have been having sex with a minor. In the UK, no problem. What makes girls in Arizona so different from girls in the UK?

International Legalities

For those of us doing (or attempting) research on the topic, some notes on what countries specifically do allow involvement in and/or exposure pornography under the age of 18, and what other limits are imposed (such as acutal minimum ages, or certain restrictions on what level is permitted) would be helpful.

Supreme Court Desisions (links)

(moved from Category talk:Pedophilia)

Held: COPA’s reliance on “community standards” to identify what material “is harmful to minors” does not by itself render the statute substantially overbroad for First Amendment purposes. The Court, however, expresses no view as to whether COPA suffers from substantial overbreadth for reasons other than its use of community standards, whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague, or whether the statute survives strict scrutiny. Prudence dictates allowing the Third Circuit to first examine these difficult issues. Because petitioner did not ask to have the preliminary injunction vacated, and because this Court could not do so without addressing matters the Third Circuit has yet to consider, the Government remains enjoined from enforcing COPA absent further action by the lower courts. P. 22.

Held: The prohibitions of §§2256(8)(B) and 2256(8)(D) are overbroad and unconstitutional. Pp. 6—21.

Held: The CDA's "indecent transmission" and "patently offensive display" provisions abridge "the freedom of speech" protected by the First Amendment. Pp. 17-40.]

Can you give us an indication of what the connection is between these court cases and this category? Thanks, - Willmcw 23:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Supreme Court ruled that certain photos of children are NOT child porn. Your Articles about child porn / pedophila lack balance - ie dont discuss court rulings concerning the subjects and how they affect the subject.

This is interesting information, but it should be placed at talk:Child pornography, not here. I'll move it. -Willmcw 23:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

de:Benutzer:Mondlichtschatten, his english version - or at least one of them - is user:Moon_light_shadow. Here user:Zanthalon seems to play the main role. Checking their contribution lists tells easily which articles need a complete rewrite: List of self-identified pederasts and pedophiles, Childlove movement, pedophilia, Child sexuality, Child pornography, Child sexual abuse, Capturing the Friedmans, Rind et al.. I put the german articles on the list of articles that lack neutrality and need more care - the latter was immediately reverted by guess who. Please help taking care of the trouble. Get-back-world-respect de:Benutzer:Stardust. And be sure that I did judge their output. Get-back-world-respect

External links organisation

I'd suggest that the links right at the top of this section should be categorised like the others in subsections. Also, I'm not sure the Nudist/Naturist Hall of Shame link is appropriate for an encyclopedia.

Regarding the links to the 3 news stories (one BBC, two Guardian), unless these are directly referenced somehow (in which case put them in references) I'm not convinced they're worth linking to. If we started linking every article in the media regarding child porn we'd have hundreds of links, and these don't look to be particularly in-depth or original. At the least they should be clearly dated. WhiteCat 09:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Dcoetzee, directly harm?

I noticed on your recent changes you put in 'directly'. While I do agree that simulated child porn doesn't directly harm children, I also don't think it harms them period. What evidence is there for simulated child porn encouraging child molestation? Probably about as much as video games encouraging gun violence. I think it's an outlet that DECREASES the real-world transpirings. Let's say that crime-media encouraged criminals to commit similar crimes. By that method of thinking, shouldn't the news be censored in airing murders and terrorist attacks, as they would only encourage the crimes? Tyciol 19:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As to whether or not it increase or decreases anything is going to be nothing more than an opinon without references to actual research on the issue. My own opinion is that any child pornography is mentally toxic in any form, but I don't have anything to back that up at the moment.
Also sources like this sould be used with caution:,,1121315,00.html
The study here seems to have found a correlation, but not a causative connection; there's no temporal precedence, nothing saying increased porn comes first (a) and increased abuse comes after (b). Many variables can affect this correlation, the biggest one being the coming of the Internet, but also increased population and publicity (attention on the problem).
Also (from the source article): "It said that many paedophiles acknowledged that exposure to child sex images fuelled their fantasies and played an important part in leading them to commit physical sexual offences against children." This is just tagged on at the end of the article and is just poor; the original document doesn't even source this. I know there is actual research on just this topic out there that can be cited.
I'm not disputing this fact, and I don't intend to remove anything, but we need better references than this. End public service message. --DanielCD 00:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree. The Guardian source is not a source at all, it's just a place where a claim is made. Even if we disregard the fact that causality does not imply correlation, the fact remains that we don't know anything about how this research, if it was such, was carried out. They talk about "many paedophiles", but the sample was in fact people arrested for child sex offenses, not pedophiles. By far, most pedophiles are not and never will be arrested for such offenses, so talking about "many paedophiles" is unclear at best. Clayboy 20:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Adolescent Audience?

"Available studies show that the majority of viewers appear to be male adolescents, and many of them are minor adolescents themselves."

That is a pretty serious claim to make for it to be left so vague. I would like to see a mention of which "available studies" show that or at least see some resources cited for that statement. 03:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I found the statement to be a bit confusing too, I don't know how they'd gather data for any such studies. I'd agree with it, I looked for child porn when I was younger, because I felt that it wasn't wrong since I was the same age or younger than a lot of the girls in the pictures. Ah, to be young again, now that I'm 19 I must restrict myself to hand-drawn manga :( Actually... they're sort of better, probably because most children in child porn are being abused or are being unethically influenced, which is definately wrong. Tyciol 17:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
You may want to retract that. Admitting to such behaviour could get you into a whole lot of trouble, even if some years have passed. Looking at child pornography is not legal nor viewed as any more acceptable just because you are younger yourself. Also, note that your hand-drawings are illegal many places too, such as in Canada and Norway. Clayboy 22:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, perhaps it was a mistake to mention it, but you can't very well retract anything on Wikipedia so I may as well leave it. Actually, to be honest I had just typed in stuff like 'teen sex' which isn't necessarily bad (since 18 and 19 are teen yet legal). I'm really not sure what age everyone was, they did look more on the old side. The stuff where it was visibly bad was immediately deleted out of paranoia, and you can't be faulted for people who misname videos :p So wait... hentai manga are illegal in canada? But I thought they sold them in stores and stuff... or do you just mean the hentai manga that infer younger people or state an age below 18? Tyciol 07:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I assumed you meant hentai manga depicting minors, which would indeed be illegal in those places. If the "actors" aren't minors, there obviously aren't any victims, since the hand-drawn ficticious actors chose to participate of their own free will. Clayboy 10:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think your numerous entries and admissions in this discussion make it abundantly clear where your interests lie Tyciol. I think you'd do well to stop ego-buffing yourself as a member of the self-appointed intelligensia and hope that you grow out of these interests before you get much older. You are being watched.

Read more, judge less.-- 15:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember enough specifics to properly cite this, but I've seen at least one study that shows this to be true - in New Zealand if I remember correctly. Also, there's a "sexual deviancy rehabilitation clinic" (forgot the actual name) nearby that the local courts order sex offenders to get therapy at, and I went in and took a look in the lobby once. About 3/4 of the people in there were obviously under the age of 18. I saw people as young as maybe 10 or 11 years old, and I was really confused until I read that New Zealand study. I'm guessing some of those kids broke child pornography laws, or committed some other sex-related crime. Qwasty 23:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Social perception

I think this part of the article needs serious work. It actually has nothing to do with society's perception of child pornography. Instead, its a list of (unverified) exceptional cases where anti-child abuse laws have been criticised as taken to extremes. As such, I think it violates the NPOV code. I wouldn't say its defending child pornography, but I question the motivations behind publishing this kind of information in such a one-sided way. -- Jam987elephants 14:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's one-sided... it identifies that people don't like it right? Yeah, no one is really objecting to child abuse laws, but more to the extremes they can be taken where they interfere with art or expression or what not. I'd like to here what you'd add though... I'm not sure what you mean since I'm tired. Tyciol 17:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this section is POV to. While no particular statement seems to be POV on it's own the overall effect created is POV somewhat in favour of child pornography. In assessing whether an article or section is NPOV you've got to pay attention to the overall effect as well as the individual statements.


The article says that the Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition ruling allows for simulated child porn. But what about this: [1]? Sure he had real stuff on his computer, but he also got nailed for the mangas as well. Explanation? ----Jsonitsacsig.giftalk to me crimes against humanity22:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that he was tried under a new law, passed since the Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition ruling, known as PROTECT Act of 2003. The new act also criminalizes simulated porn but has not been challenged in court yet (so far as I know). He may well have a case to throw out the animated child porn charges but with the additional actual child porn possession conviction I don't think he would be able to escape a lengthy jail time. --Cab88 21:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


Themself is not a word. The correct word is themselves, and may be used as a generic singular in these instances.

Dutch police investigate Google Adwords Suggestion Tools

The following information is based on a story in the national Algemeen Dagblad newspaper in the Netherlands. It's all over the news in the Netherlands today. I'm wondering if it should go into the article (as the second sentence in the keywords para of the Commercial production and distribution section). There's no telling if anything will come of it, or how far it will go. Just dropping it off here for others to decide:

In 2006, the Dutch KLPD police service started an investigation of Google's Adwords Suggestion Tools in response to allegations that the service was providing such keywords.[2]

AvB ÷ talk 09:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

New User

  • As a new user, I am keenly aware that many childern use Wikipedia. I am also keenly aware that there are many places on the internet where ponography is free and accessable for children. I think that we as Wiki adults we should monitor and protect these kids and warn them not to "get together" with Wikipedian's who are still strangers personally... though they think they know them online. It is a scary world out there and its gotten worse since I was a boy growing up in Massachustts, and its our duty to make the effort to protect by stern warnings. I will do my part. Tell them not to volenteer any information that might allow someone to stalk them online. Please feel free to add comments in my user page if I don't get back here too soon. --merlinus 17:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC) --merlinus 17:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored in any way. It is an encylopedia for all information including the many various sexual subjects in our world. Wikipedia doesn't have any porn (except that which was produced centuries ago and is preserved for historical record only). Anyone is just 15 seconds away from porn at any time while on the internet. (Google = my hero) Wikipedia is the LAST place you should worry about. The shithole known as MySpace should be was worries you.
You not knowing about molestation does not mean it did not happen around you as a child. Molestation even just a few decades ago was a taboo subject. You do not need any extreme measures to protect your children. Don't tell people where you live, quite an easy rule to follow. I'd be more concered about a snack machine falling on them.
Thinking that Wikipedia is a place for pedophiles to contact children, where everything is 100% public is a very confusing idea to me. Again, snack machines, not pedophiles.--mboverload 02:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Wikipedia has very little social chatting. It's not a problem. -Will Beback 07:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was seduced and subsequently molested by Wikipedia back in the late 60's... True story. -Danald 06:41, 03 September 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Children viewing child pornography

Is it illegal for children to view child pornography? I get the impression it is reading through the talk page, in which case: is it illegal by laws saying "child porn is illegal, and that's it," or by specifying age-groups? (Is it legal for children to view porn at all?)

Could the answer be noted briefly in the article? It's relevant, seeing as teenagers do view the stuff. Njál 22:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I know it is to produce it (take a pic of yourself naked and you can be charged with kiddie porn production, just happened a few weeks ago). I've never heard of any exceptions based on age. Needless to say I can see why a 17 year old might want to see a 17 year old in a porn...but that's the legal consent age in some countries.
IANAL --mboverload 23:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course. The government would be on ridiculous ground if it prosecuted people based on their age. JayW 23:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I'm not aware of laws which prohibit viewing child porn. They generally prohibit creating, distributing, or possessing it. -Will Beback 02:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Unless you're looking over someone's shoulder or at a magazine, you need to download child pornography to be able to see it, and since computers don't normally "really" delete or remove downloaded files, it remains on your drive and prosecuters will successfully argue that, because of this, you were in possession of it. ("You" isn't referring to anyone here.) JayW 03:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Modern U.S. adult movie videos carry a warning that showing the porn to a minor is an offence. So if an adult showed child pornography to a child, the adult would be in violation. If the child never possessed the porn then he or she would probably be in the clear. Of course it all depends on the local laws and how they are locally interpreted. -Will Beback 07:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Will, is it legal to view child porn as long as you don't possess it? What is possession? -- copyright holders might argue that you don't own something if you haven't paid for it or because their EULA says so. JayW, people are prosecuted on the basis of their age all the time; there is the age of criminal responsibility (UK10?), and the age below which you can't be held responsible for raping someone (UK14?), and aren't there laws saying things like you can't prosecute someone for having sex with a 15-year-old if they are also 15? Njál 18:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. It depends on what jurisdiction you are in. -Will Beback 21:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
It is illegal for children to possess child pornography, and it is illegal for children to rape others, though some governments exempt children from punishment for their crime. Specific ages for exemption vary, but the youngest age I've heard kids being prosecuted at (for CP) is 14. Possession is having: whether you buy it is irrelevant. Canada also has laws against "accessing" child porn, so even if the data has been truly removed (i.e. using Deep Delete) you can still be prosecuted.
The arguments against kiddie porn apply to anyone, not just adults -- any legislation allowing children to view child porn would be unjust. JayW 18:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This Talk Makes Me sick!

I was molested at age 7 by a guy who had piles of ponography all over his house and a Nazi flag in his den. It was SICK, SICK, SICK, Dont come off and tell me its harmless as long as whatever. Normal Pornography, when in the hands of some asshole who is "infatuated with children" can cause him to do "EVIL" things that he might not have done otherwise. These asshole criminals should be "CASTRATED" while awake, "REAMED" and then sent to jail with tattos on thier heads that say "Child Molester!" There is a conection between pornography and child molestation... wake up and see it! --merlinus 16:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he was just a horny bastard? That would explain both the "piles of porn" and child molestation.
I don't see any solid evidence to back up your claim that porn causes CSA. JayW 18:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You claiming something does NOT make it so. Please do not make this into your own little freeweb. --mboverload 20:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think people should only have sex with people as old as them. Adult people who molest children are just as disgusting as old people who engage in sexual acts with young "consenting lol" people. Cuzandor 03:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So you think child sexual abuse is disgusting not because a kid gets hurt, but because you find age disparity repulsive? That's interesting. It's been a while since I heard someone parellel a "consensual lol" relationship with between a 40yo and a 20yo with the molestation of an 8yo. JayW 15:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
No, how did you conclude this? You should not try to guess things like that. It's disgusting both because the kid isn't fully developed yet and because of the age disparity, along with other disgustingness factors. Cuzandor 17:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
So you think things should be illegal because they are "disgusting" to you? Hey, lets ban throwing up! That's disgusting, too! --mboverload@ 21:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I never said anything about laws. Cuzandor 21:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
...A man of any age can legally have sex with (depending on the state) anyone 16-18 and above. What's so wrong with a 40 year old falling in love with a 23 year old? If they both consent, there is nothing wrong with that. I'm a little confused about what you're trying to say--mboverload@ 04:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Because it's ugly. Cuzandor 15:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Purely a personal opinion, which has nothing to do with a Wiki article. Keep it in your blog. Pan 19:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear merlinus, 1) The only conection made from parents who abuse there kids either with pain or sex, is that it happened to them. 2) Child nudes, or child porn is (reguardless of law) is always been more of of a "moral law" nothing is worse, rapist & child rapist are treated worst then a sheep 'humper'. 3)porn is sold on the stock market, (YES sex sells!) amazing net is one of those stores owned but that stock company. And many people "read" porn mags, child rape is a small compared to the number of slut out there. FyiFoff 20:56 18 November 2006 (EST)


There is a strong negative stigma associated with child pornography[citation needed];

You need a CITATION that there's a stigma attached to child porn!? lol. Can't somebody even write that lawnmowers cut grass without needing a citation?

I was going to say something about that, the 'citation needed' really needs to be romoved. -- 23:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, because you are browsing Wikipedo judging by this discussion. Maybe Tyciol should set up a sub-site?

freedom of speech

from the article:

Texts are not considered child pornography in USA, because, legally, any text has artistic merit...

I'm pretty sure that the "artist merit" of written materials isn't involved. Such texts are protected under "freedom of speech", right? 16:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The Supreme Courts justification for excluding child porn from 1st amendment protection was that it involved the abuse of children in it's production. Since text "child porn" does not involve the abuse of children in it's creation, it would likely be ruled protected by the 1st amendment. Since no federal or state child porn laws have ever covered text so for as I know, the courts have never had to address the issue. --Cab88 12:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Where does free speech truly end?

It would be great if this article could explain this inconsistency. If virtual child porn per the statutory definition (depictions of a minor, whether real or imaginary, engaged in a sexual act) has supposedly been "proven" to contribute to the act of child sexual abuse, then why does text describing the very same acts of sexual exploitation with a minor not have a similar psycological effect?

Was some government-funded evaluation performed to determine if inducement to engage in a criminal activity is relieved when it is experienced in textual rather than visual form?

What about auditory child pornography. Is that protected by free speech? And what about a role-playing fantasies whereby an actor molests a blow-up doll of a child in a stageplay. That would appear to encourage child sexual abuse. However, in this scenario there is technically no visual depiction of a minor involved because it is a live stageplay which itself has artistic merit. Is this also protected by free speech?

Clearly, the U.S. law in this respect still has a lot of loopholes and inconsistencies that need to be remedied.

--Rkrause 03:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. From what I've seen in the news lately, most of the hard core child pornography has long since been eradicated, and all that remains to fuss over is "fringe" areas. In those areas, which are by nature difficult to define, it seems courts are making personal judgement-calls rather than professionally applying the law (or not). Some of their judgments are questionable, but others not so much. In the latter case, they really need new laws before new judgements, otherwise it's just kind of a big guessing game as to what will happen next. I've spent enough time observing cases in a courtroom to be really unnerved by the awkwardness with which these cases are sometimes handled. Since most of the obvious problems involving hardcore pornography and unquestionable abuse have already been greatly reined in, the courts are now busy exploring new territory that clearly is not well-understood in a consistent manner. The fact that this article is a complete mess seems to be a reflection of the actual state of affairs. From an article writer's perspective, this is a toughy since the subject matter is about as vaguely defined as can be. That's partly intentional (on the part of the law), since we're all talking about things we're not allowed to see. To be perfectly honest, I'll be surprised if this article EVER makes sense. We might as well be writing an article on alchemy. Qwasty 03:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The reason reallife child pornography is especially icky, is because it depicts commiting a crime. It is not the equivalent of watching a violent movie and becoming a violent kid. It's the equivalent of a beheading/terrorist video, the equivalent of following around a gang of youngsters and witness how easy it is to steal stuff. There's no punishing the criminal in the end, no "crime doesn't pay", no out-of-daily-experience motive for violence given or an advisory about the difference between fiction and reality. -Ados 05:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement section

There should be a section on enforcement ( i.e sting operations, international cooperation etc.)

Signed Timothy Scriven

I agree. Sting operations (online in particular) are becoming far more prevalent by law enforcement for tracking down people in possession of child pornography (as well as tracking down people who solicit minors for sexual acts). --Rkrause 22:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for NPOV dispute tag

Word selection in various sections reveals POV i.e "Most people are prosecuted MERELY" ( capitals added). Merely carries connotations that this treatment is unreasonable and/or that their crimes are minor.

The content tend's to favour child pornography ( or at least a more liberal attitude to it) quantitively. For example placing a few ancedotes about unreasonable reactions to the threat of child pornography would not be POV but almost the entire section on the social perception of child pornography is constituted by this. Quote's given in the article are almost all the sorts of quotes that would be cited by those who are libertrain towards child pornography and those in favour of child pornography.

Sorry I forgot again. The above statement is signed by Timothy Scriven.

these edits by Qwasty (talk · contribs) seem to introduce further POV to the article. The new sections are fairly well written and have a few references, but overall take a very anti-current-state-of-affairs tone. Cleaning it up is a big job that I don't have time for, unfortunately, but I wanted to point it out. Powers T 20:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliments on my writing. If you could go into more detail about what you think needs to be revised, I'll take a stab at fixing it, though I'd rather move on to polishing older sections of the article first before I begin rewriting new material. Qwasty 03:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
But that's just it -- most of it needs to be revised wholesale. The quality is not the issue, it's the POV it displays in sum. I can't point to a single sentence and say "This sentence is not NPOV"; it's the whole thing taken together. Powers T 13:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I think there's a few phrases that could use a cite or be slightly revised, but I don't see a wholesale Point Of View problem. The new sections contain very detailed and very clear primary-source references straight from the courts themselves. It doesn't get much better than that. Qwasty 14:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, you're confusing having reliable sources with maintaining a NPOV. Powers T 15:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know there's no source more authoritative than the courts. If you think that something else needs to be added to balance the article, you'll have to be specific about what it is. Qwasty 17:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
About the usage of the words "mere" and "merely" - They seem to be the de facto standard terminology when referring to possession offenses ("mere possession"), and maybe more things that I haven't bothered to search for yet. I don't think the word downplays the seriousness of the offense, it's mostly used to indicate that possession is the only requirement for a conviction. Qwasty 20:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Examples section

And you've put back the frankly perplexing 'Example' section that I reverted, giving no reason why. The comparisons between the Trang Bang photograph and the description of a pornographic image in that Utah case (despite being inappropriately applied to this famous picture no matter what statement you're trying to make) are POV. And for the last time, Wikipedia is not censored: there is no need to put a ridiculous 'warning' for the reader in an encyclopaedia. I'm going to remove this section again, and please don't put it back until you respond to these concerns.-- 16:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You have blanked the section without providing justification, other than saying it's "inappropriate". The description clearly matches the image, and as far as I know, it's the only de facto government-approved example of child nudity that also happens to perfectly match a recent court ruling on child pornography.
As far as the warning goes, I wont object if you remove it, but the policy states the following about illegal material:
"some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content...provided they do not violate...the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted."
If you want to make the judgement call that the image is not illegal, that's up to you. I'll remain neutral on it since I think it's valuable as an example, even though it may meet the definition of child pornography.
Qwasty 16:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add that there HAVE been censored examples of actual child pornography published and apparently approved by the government, but recent rulings have criminalized those as well, and while there may be some "merit" argument for publishing them here, I'm not going to touch it with a 10 foot pole. As it is, I think the Kim Phuc example is pretty good by itself, and is not likely to get anyone in prison. Qwasty 17:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Please don't disguise my reverts as vandalism by referring to them as 'blanking'. I did give a reason; your comparisons are POV. Whether or not the description does or doesn't "clearly match" the photo is subjective. As it is, the links you are drawing are extremely tenuous, as the description itself originally refers to a photograph for which the intent was erotica. I have just searched for these so-called 'Dost factors', that were defined in United States vs. Dost, and the first result that came up gave this explanation:
Those factors are (1) whether the genitals or pubic area are the focal point of the image; (2) whether the setting of the image is sexually suggestive (i.e., a location generally associated with sexual activity); (3) whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose or inappropriate attire considering her age; (4) whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude; (5) whether the image suggests sexual coyness or willingness to engage in sexual activity; and (6) whether the image is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.
As far as I can tell none of those criteria were satisfied by Kim Phuc, apart from her nudity. Yet, you have extrapolated completely different reasons from the case you quote. For example, the court said "the child, who is looking into the camera, is obviously posed for the photograph". Somehow, as we can see in your list, you have decided that the only part of relevance is that "the child is looking into the camera". This would mean thousands of everyday photographs taken of children satisfy criteria for child pornography decided in court! Do you not find this unusual? Regardless, this isn't my main point: the whole section is a POV comparison anyway.
You are correct in that the policy states Wikipedia content must be legal in the state of Florida. Well, is it? You haven't stated so yet. I'm not an authority on Florida state law as I live 3000 miles away, you see.
And as for this comment, if you think the photo won't get anyone in prison, why have you censored it?
You have replaced the section I asked you not to without giving satisfactory reasons and allowing my response to them. Care to explain? -- 22:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh look, someone agrees with me. -- 22:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, it's unusual, it's Utah. Looking into the camera was the criteria the court used to decide the child is posed. The comparisons are factual, not a biased point of view. I personally agree with you, I think it's nonsensical myself, but you are arguing with the wrong person. The court decides what is child pornography, not me. Take it up with them.
By the way, the photo was not erotica like you assumed it to be. It was an ordinary nudist photograph. Yes, I have seen this court case and hundreds of others just like it, but I will never admit that I have seen the actual photograph during the hearings at the state courthouse on the corner of state street and 400 south in salt lake city, where the Trax train stop #5 is at (in the free fare zone), even though I implied I may have seen it, in order for me to know that it is in fact a benign nudist photograph, just like how the court described it.
Qwasty 01:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to note my participation here: yes, the section is clearly in violation of WP:NPOV, and even more clearly in violation of WP:OR. And Qwasty, your frivolous accusations of vandalism do you no credit. DanBDanD 02:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Frivolous accusations of vandalism won't get you very far. Please review WP:OR. Your comparison of the child pornography standards to the Vietnamese photo is an original analysis, and hence inappropriate to Wikipedia. DanBDanD 02:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It's akin to saying the russian space shuttle looks like the american one. It's obvious, no research is required. Qwasty 02:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if you think it's obvious or not. If it's your own original idea, it's a violation of the OR policy. DanBDanD 02:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not an idea, it's a fact. The features match point-by-point. Qwasty 02:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Bottom line: you can't source the comparison to anyone but yourself. That makes it OR. DanBDanD 02:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
If an article says Bruce Springsteen is a musician, and an edit is made that says that Will Smith is a musician too, the fact is that both are musicians, and you don't need to find a source that compares the two since the fact can stand on it's own. Qwasty 02:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I am not at all sure of the propriety of cutting and pasting a whole series of someone else's comments from personal user talk to the talk page of an article. Of course I have no reason to mind my words being here. However, moving them was extraordinarily high-handed.

Secondly, you are misleading in referring to the Dost factors while not listing them or providing background - and most of all in listing only four of the six, when mention of the other two would have immediately revealed the falseness of your comparison.

Thirdly, an acknowledged problem of standards of pornography discussed in the article is that their application to any given image is extremely subjective. Plainly you are making an evaluative judgment, and not a simple statement of fact. Your pretense otherwise is disingenuous.

So, that's why I'm going to delete your POV OR again. (note: I apologize for marking this deletion as a minor edit - it was accidental)

DanBDanD 03:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I didn't refer to, or leave out any of the Dost factors, the court did. Take it up with them.
  • If you want more info on the Dost factors, click on the wiki link I made and write it (I can see you've already done that elsewhere in the article.
  • I have made no evaluative judgements, only publication of facts. The court is very clear on the features they consider pornographic, and their descriptions require no interpretation.
Qwasty 03:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, everyone should obey the Three revert rule. Non-neutral point of view nor Original reseach are usually considered vandalism, so I don't see an exception to the three revert rule here. That said, I do think the section is original research, and have removed it. Courts are there to interpert the law, Wikipedia will report on their interpertation (or the verifiable interpertation of experts), but it is not up to us to decide if something meets a legal standard or not. --TeaDrinker 03:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere in the section is a decision made about meeting a legal standard. It is only shown that the identical criteria is met. The decision is still up to the courts. Qwasty 03:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Dost factors

the Dost factors now have a decent treatment under the american section of the definitions, but perhaps it's worthy of it's own article? Opinions? Qwasty 03:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really - as the article says, they are only one of several precedents that are using in judging whether an image is pornographic, so considering them in isolation is misleading.
A redirect to this page/section would be appropriate, though. DanBDanD 03:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Examples section original research content dispute

I submit that original research is not something which is immediately obvious. So, which part is original research? I'm sure I could find a cite somewhere for each feature of the photo.

  1. The child is nude
  2. The child is in a setting where nudity would not normally be expected
  3. The child's weight is on one leg
  4. The child is looking into the camera, and thus appears posed

Qwasty 04:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I would think that adding it as an example is indicating that it does meet the legal definition of porn. Context is important here. Calling it porn, however, is a legal decision and not one we can make. In fact, your point seems to be that it is obviously not porn, yet seems to meet the technical criteria. That is certainly passing a judgement on definitions that you consider too broad. --TeaDrinker 07:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I would think that adding it as an example is indicating that it does meet the legal definition of porn. Context is important here.
Is there a problem with this? It does meet the definition cited. This complaint, in-and-of-itself, is no violation of wikipedia's original research policies.
  • Calling it porn, however, is a legal decision and not one we can make.
This is where the text of the section could cross over into the realm of original research, according to wikipedia policies. However, no such subjective insinuation or overt declaration is made. All that is written is the matching definitional features - it's 100% objective.
  • In fact, your point seems to be that it is obviously not porn, yet seems to meet the technical criteria.
This must be your personal interpretation, since no such point is made, or even hinted at anywhere in the section. You're reading into things in the section that aren't there.
  • That is certainly passing a judgement on definitions that you consider too broad.
This is clearly your personal interpretation. There is nothing even remotely resembling this in the section.
Now, down to specifics of wikipedia policy. Since the banner of wikipedia's no original research policy is being waved around - yet no one is willing to offer specifics - I'll have to argue your position for you so that I can refute it. Consider the following policies concerning original research:
  1. ...any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position...that would amount to a novel narrative or historical interpretation.
  2. This...(referring to an example) original research, because it is the editor's own synthesis of published material serving to advance his definition and opinion...
  3. Primary sources present information or data, such, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview...
  4. Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data from other sources.
  5. Research that draws predominantly on primary sources is generally discouraged, in favor of research based on secondary sources. However, where an article (1) makes only uncontentious descriptive claims (which are) easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely or primarily on primary sources.
  6. Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from the no-original-research policy...(because) (p)ictures are generally used for illustration and do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments...(and because) Due in a number of countries...there are relatively few publicly available images we can take and use.
And my refutation:
  • #1 does not apply, since no narrative or interpretation exists. #2 does not apply since the definition and opinions advanced are that of the cited court, not of the section's author.
  • The primary source is the original image, which is not publically available, so the section's research is based on a secondary source, which is the court's "generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation" (policy #4) of the image they ruled on.
  • The only primary source used in the section is Kim Phuc's photograph, which is exempted from "discouraged use" on wikipedia since, from #4, "only uncontentious descriptive claims (which are) easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge" are made about it. For example, Kim Phuc has her weight on one leg, and that is easily verifiable simply by looking at the photo.
  • And, on top of this, the image is also specifically exempted from original research scrutiny by #5 because it is only used for illustration and does "not propose unpublished ideas or arguments", and also under #6 because no other examples are legally available.
Those refutations pretty much mop up the entire No Original Research policy. Any questions?
As for any other complaints, the opponents to the section originally claimed their were Point Of View problems with the section, but that seems to have stopped. Just in case someone wants to bring it up again, no "point" is offered, and no "view" other than the court's is recorded. Since the section is entirely factual, with no commentary whatsoever, there can't possibly be any point of view to dispute. In fact, the best argument offered was that mere inclusion of the information represented a point of view (and original research too, according to TeaDrinker, see above), which is like claiming Galileo is opposed to the Catholic church because he dares to say the firmament moves.
Since so little argument has been offered by the opposition, I will move for mediation, and then arbitration if anyone wants to dispute this further. I'll wait a bit for responses before I add the section back in.
Qwasty 17:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
No court has called the image porn, and in fact is highly unlikely to do so. Your section, regardless of what you say above, does make the implicit claim that the image is porn, or at least would be interperted as porn by a court. I ask, you titled the section "examples," what is it an example of? You have taken a selective reading of a single court case, applied a standard which the court used primarily for reference (not a "strict test") to a photograph which is not analyzed by the court, and had it been in all likelyhood would have been decided differently. Whether you inteneded it or not, the section reads like a reductio ad absurdum (using a strawman argument no less). Argument has no place in Wikipedia articles, per WP:OR. You may claim this is my interpertation; I ask you what information are you trying to convey with the section? What do you want the reader to take away from it? --TeaDrinker 17:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No court has called the image porn
This is exactly what makes it legally acceptable as an illustration under #6 of the wikipedia policy listed above.
  • ...and in fact is highly unlikely to do so.
This is your personal opinion, and is not relevant.
  • Your section, regardless of what you say above, does make the implicit claim that the image is porn, or at least would be interperted as porn by a court.
Nothing is claimed or implied, the section is 100% factual. This has already been covered, so unless you have something new to add, don't bring it up again.
  • I ask, you titled the section "examples," what is it an example of?
I'm not sure what the purpose of this question is, it should be obvious, but I'll address it anyway. The section contains a cited textual quotation and a visual illustration of the 4 criteria used by the cited court to define child pornography.
  • You have taken a selective reading of a single court case...
I cited all 4 of the criteria used by the court, located between the words "Firstly" and "Lastly" in their ruling, which the example photo illustrates. If you would like additional examples for other criteria used in other court cases, feel free to add them.
  • (You) applied a standard which the court used primarily for reference (not a "strict test")...
It was the actual standard used by the court. The court tested the image according to those criteria cited, and subsequently upheld the defendant's conviction. That should be very clear - I don't see a problem with this.
  • (You have used) a photograph which is not analyzed by the court...
This is acceptable for an illustration, according to policy #5 and #6 listed above.
  • ...(had the image been) analyzed by the all likelyhood (it) would have been decided differently.
This is your own personal opinion, and is not relevant.
You really should be specific and quote something from the section. In any case, how it reads is your personal opinion. However, back to the relevant issue, no reduction is done. The court's ruling is treated directly.
  • ...using a strawman argument no less...
Where? There's no argument whatsoever in the section's text. This is weak. If you're going to make specific complaints like this, they should be supported with specific quotes from the text so that I can properly refute them.
  • I ask you what information are you trying to convey with the section? What do you want the reader to take away from it?
This is a repeat. I'm not sure what the purpose of this question is, it should be obvious, but I'll address it anyway. The section contains a cited textual quotation and a visual illustration of the criteria used by the cited court to define child pornography. The purpose is for the reader to have a better understanding of the definition(s) of child pornography.
Qwasty 19:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
What are you on about? "Points"? "Views"? That's not what the phrase "point of view" means. I claimed the section was non-NPOV because the section is not entirely factual: you are using your own opinions, i.e. your original research, to draw comparisons between the court transcript and Kim Phuc, as described by TeaDrinker. I may not be able to put my arguments as eloquently as him or DanB but let me state my opposition to the inclusion of this section. -- 19:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding "points" and "views", I was just being creative. You are correct that interpretations of primary-source transcripts can constitute original research, however, the cited court's ruling is not a transcript (it's a published ruling), and I make no interpretations of it (policy #5). Qwasty 19:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Improved examples section

Although governments rarely publish examples of what they consider to be child pornography, they sometimes provide detailed descriptions:

We find several of the Dost factors are met. First, the child is completely nude. This satisfies the statutory requirement that the photograph depict a "nude or partially nude minor." Second...for a child to appear in such a setting completely nude is clearly inappropriate...Third, the girl's weight is on one leg, thereby emphasizing her genitalia. Lastly, the child, who is looking into the camera, is obviously posed for the photograph." - State of Utah v. Raymond Dean Morrison, Utah Supreme Court, paragraph 21

The above description is for a photograph that cannot be published, however the 4 parts of the ruling can be illustrated by the Pulitzer prize-winning nude photograph of 9 year old Kim Phuc, in a peculiar pain-induced pose from injuries sustained during the Vietnam War. The photo meets all 4 of the primary criteria used by the above court to determine whether an image is child pornography:

  1. The child is nude
  2. The child is in a setting where nudity would not normally be expected
  3. The child's weight is on one leg
  4. The child is looking into the camera, and thus appears posed

However, it should be noted that there are no known instances where the example photo has been officially considered child pornography.

Qwasty 20:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Instead of repeatedly adding your personal opinion/original research that this is indeed child pornography, if you could point to a reputable source which claims it, then it would be accpetable to add it to the article. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Even though I wrote that, I'm having a hard time finding where it says the example image "is indeed child pornography". I even did a search for the phrase, and found nothing, so please quote it for me when you find it. Qwasty 21:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Um, what? Isn't it you who wrote The photo meets all 4 of the primary criteria used by the above court to determine whether an image is child pornography:? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
If you disagree with one of them, you'll have to say which one. They all look accurate to me. Qwasty 21:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not up to you or me to "disagree", that would be original research. And why did you deny you said it's child pornography, when it's clear you did, and when I point to the quote you are now saying you agree with the quote? Methinks I smell a troll. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
According to policy #5 above ("descriptive claims"), it can be "up to you and me" without being considered original research. I said it meets the 4 criteria, I didn't say it is child pornography. If I did that, it could possibly make it original research. Qwasty 22:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Four people have spoken out against this already. Can't you see that this is a contentious point? And in that case #5 has been violated?-- 12:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
So far there are no specific points that have been contested versus policy #5 on descriptive claims. If no one has anything more substantial to add, this discussion needs to draw to a close. Qwasty 16:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
If I may interject... I don't believe the Kim Phuc image meets the four criteria. The third criterion in the legal decision specifically mentions emphasization of the genitals. It's not the distribution of weight that makes it pornographic, its the result that distribution has on the visibility of the genital area. In addition, the fourth criterion mentions being "obviously posed"; again, the fact that the subject is looking into the camera is merely evidence that that particular photograph was posed, not that any photograph with a person looking into the camera is posed. It's obvious, in fact, that the child in the Vietnam photo is not posed. Therefore, the court's four criteria are not met by this photograph. Powers T 23:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The third criterion in the legal decision specifically mentions emphasization of the genitals. It's not the distribution of weight that makes it pornographic, its the result that distribution has on the visibility of the genital area.
The court ruled that weight on one leg constitutes a method of emphasizing genitalia. It looks like you agree with them.
  • ...the fourth criterion mentions being "obviously posed"...
No it doesn't. The fourth criterion is "looking into the camera", and the conclusion drawn from that is that the image is "obviously posed". It's easy to confuse criteria and conclusions, especially when I did it myself in the section we're discussing ("#4... and thus appears posed"). I'll fix it, sorry about that.
  • ...the fact that the subject is looking into the camera is merely evidence that that particular photograph was posed...(it's not proof) that any photograph with a person looking into the camera is posed.
This your opinion. It isn't relevant, even if it might be true. The only criteria the court used to determine if the photo was posed was the fact that the child was looking into the camera. The court clearly indicated that looking into the camera was sufficient criteria for them to conclude that the child was "obviously posed". The court didn't treat it as mere evidence, they considered it proof.
  • It's obvious, in fact, that the child in the Vietnam photo is not posed.
Since the image illustrates only the criteria used by the court, and not the conclusions they draw from them, this is irrelevant ("Looking into the camera" is the criteria, "posed" is the conclusion).
Qwasty 00:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The court's criteria were explicitly based on the Dost factors. The spurious "criteria" you're listing are how those criteria were found to be met in the specific instance under review. If we look at the Dost factors (from Child pornography#United States):
  1. whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area
  2. whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity
  3. whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of a child
  4. whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude
  5. whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity
  6. whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.
You will see that the actual criteria refer to exactly what I said they refer to. In the court case you quote, the court found that "the girl's weight is one leg" in this specific instance is evidence toward "emphasizing her genetalia" (Dost factor 1, 3, or possibly 5 and 6). Nowehere did the court claim that having the weight on one leg is itself a criterion. You can't ignore the court's reference to the Dost factors, which they explicitly mentioned; their subsequent statements on how the photograph meets them require it. Powers T 14:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The court's criteria were explicitly based on the Dost factors. The (court's) spurious "criteria" you're listing are how...(the Dost factors) were found to be met in the specific instance under review.
That is correct. The image does not illustrate the primary source Dost factors, it illustrates the court's "generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation" of the Dost factors, which constitutes a secondary source according to policy #4. I see no problem here.
  • You can't ignore the court's reference to the Dost factors...their subsequent statements on how the photograph meets them require it.
No, that is discouraged under policy #5, and it might be original research if you used the illustration to refer directly to the Dost factors (you'd have to be careful). Specifically, it would be a violation of policy #5(2).
Qwasty 19:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the photograph does not meet the criteria. But that's not the issue at hand here: Qwasty is using his opinions and original research to make a point. -- 14:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to address the troll comment quickly: I've spent a lot of years collecting the information I've been contributing to wikipedia, and although I'm not particularly sensitive to disparaging remarks, this particular one irks me since it implies I'm a pest rather than a valuable asset. Much of the information I take the time to add to wikipedia is from non-web sources, or is otherwise extremely difficult or tedious to find. Perhaps that's why much of it seems so controversial at first glance - it's not well known. However, I do it soberly and seriously, as much for my own personal enlightenment and enjoyment, as for the general intellectual improvement of humankind. I may be unduly flattering wikipedia by saying that, but at the moment, that's how I feel about it. Qwasty 22:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The "troll" comment has to do with your flip flopping on this page as to what you claim and what you claim that you claim. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about. In either case, can we focus on the specifics of the article that we're in disagreement on? Qwasty 00:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Examples section reinsertion

Since this discussion seems to have been fully explored, I have put an examples section back in, with a few very slight differences from the one shown above:

Although governments rarely publish examples of what they consider to be child pornography, they sometimes provide detailed descriptions:

We find several of the Dost factors are met. First, the child is completely nude. This satisfies the statutory requirement that the photograph depict a "nude or partially nude minor." Second...for a child to appear in such a setting completely nude is clearly inappropriate...Third, the girl's weight is on one leg, thereby emphasizing her genitalia. Lastly, the child, who is looking into the camera, is obviously posed for the photograph." - State of Utah v. Raymond Dean Morrison, Utah Supreme Court, paragraph 21

The above description is for an illegal photograph that cannot be published. However, the 4 primary criteria used by the above court can be illustrated by the Pulitzer prize-winning nude photograph of 9 year old Kim Phuc, in a peculiar pain-induced pose from injuries sustained during the Vietnam War:

  1. The child is nude
  2. The child is in a setting where nudity would not normally be expected
  3. The child's weight is on one leg
  4. The child is looking into the camera

However, it should be noted that there are no known instances where the example photo has been considered child pornography[1].

Qwasty 23:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have once again removed the examples section. Thanks for noting that you added it here, although it seems abundantly clear that most folks oppose retaining it in the page. --TeaDrinker 23:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
My take on that Examples section is this: there is value in adding a section on what, exactly, courts have and have not found to be KP, and the first paragraph or so of that section is a good start on what such a section might look like. But then it goes off on a bizarre tangent that appears to have nothing to do with the subject of the article. It seems like POV-pushing of some kind, though I'm not entirely clear on what POV is being pushed. Certainly it's not of much interest to the general reader looking up this article. The Examples section, if it exists, should consist of examples (insofar as that's possible in this particular article without violating, in order of importance, the law, common sense or Wikipedia policy). It shoudl not consist of miscellaneous observations one editor chose to throw in. PurplePlatypus 23:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
There are no policy-related issues that have been articulated. All of the complaints seem to stem from notions, emotions, personal values, and points of view of the other editors. It now seems that, as TeaDrinker says, we have only vague democratic opposition.
I agree we need more examples, but I've had no progress in getting just one example included. This article is about images - it needs images. Am I the only one that thinks this is obvious? The example here is both instructive, and acceptable for publication. It doesn't get any better than that in an article about child pornography. A picture is worth a thousand words, and without pictures, this article is just words.
I must admit that I have become frustrated with this article. Every one of my edits have been removed either by defensive pedophiles, or by "protect the children" zealots. Where's the objectivity?
Qwasty 04:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Currently I am researching for the photos in the Jacqueline Mercado child pornograpyh case. They have been published in the news media and are available out there somewhere. The images met the legal definition of child pornography, but the case was dropped due to popular opposition. So, the images can be legally published. Qwasty 14:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Howdy, I wanted to let you know I did revert the examples section you re-added to the examples section in the Child pornography article. I was surprised by your edit summary: "no reason given for the revert on the talk page," since I read many people on the talk page giving what I find to be compelling reasons to not include it. What kind of reasons were you looking for? --TeaDrinker 07:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
A policy reason would serve your purpose better. However, I am certain there are none:
  1. NPOV was stated, but no reasons given, and it was never mentioned again
  2. Original research was stated, reasons given, and each reason given was not actually present and was refuted
  3. You did give a reason for your revert, which I noted, that essentially the section did not have popular support. This is a new area to be explored, but it carries no weight in the policies.
This conversation has been moved to the child pornography talk page (originally on my talk page).
Qwasty 14:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, reiterating what has been said before, your interpertation of a legal case and application to novel circumstances constitutes original reseach; the structure section reads as a reductio ad absurdum argument, which violates neutal point of view. Wikipedia operates on consensus, which is different from democracy (a guidline, not policy). --TeaDrinker 16:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • your interpertation of a legal case...constitutes original reseach
This has been refuted already, with no further comment. No interpretation is made in the section.
  • your...application to novel circumstances...constitutes original reseach
This has been refuted already, with no further comment. No application is made in the section.
This has been refuted already, with no further comment. No reduction or argument is made in the section.
You had several weeks to find a policy problem, you had the help of 4 or 5 other editors to do it, and you still have not advanced beyond merely linking to policy pages. There is no policy problem.
Qwasty 19:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This is somewhat exasperating; your continued disucssion does not consitute settling the matter. You clearly do not have consensus for including the section, please refrain from adding the section back until you have it. As far as the substance of the arguments, I would ask how is deciding an image is fits a definition not original research? The is exactly what courts do, and that is virtually always controversial. Interestingly, you even have people on this very talk page arguing that the photos do not meet the definition (people whom I agree with, although that is beside the point), but the contentiousness of the point underlies the fact the examples section is original research.
Regarding the npov claim, I think it is reasonable that people would be astonished if a pulitzer prize winning photo were found to be pornographic. The section strongly suggests, but does not claim explicitly, that a court would find the photo pornographic if the definition were followed. Thus the effect of the section is to claim an absurd or astonishing result of the law. Since there is no reasonable purpose for including the section other than to make this claim, the section is pov.
--TeaDrinker 20:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • is deciding an image is fits a definition not original research?
No such decision is made. There is no original research violation. This has been thoroughly discussed.
  • even have people on this very talk page arguing that the photos do not meet the definition...
They're arguing with themselves. I've never argued any side of that. This has been thoroughly discussed.
  • The section strongly suggests, but does not claim explicitly, that a court would find the photo pornographic if the definition were followed.
This is never suggested. This has been thoroughly discussed.
  • Thus the effect of the section is to claim an absurd or astonishing result of the law.
This is apparently what you conclude after reading the section. No such thing is actually present in the article. This has been thoroughly discussed.
  • Since there is no reasonable purpose for including the section other than to make this claim, the section is pov.
The article is about child pornography. The section is about examples of child pornography. There is nothing notable about that.
Qwasty 22:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed there has been quite though discussion and the conclusion of the discussants, yourself excepted, has been that the material is original research and not neutral point of view. We are indeed going over the same argument as before, which I am happy to do if you're confused about it. How do you want to move forward from here? --TeaDrinker 22:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Decide on what to mediate. Qwasty 22:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Mediation is facilitated discussion. I would certainly participate if a RfM were filed, but discussion is still relevant. Where do you want to take the discussion? --TeaDrinker 22:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. I would think we could sort and organize our arguments in a section here, agree on what we'll present to the mediator, and then ask for the mediator to get involved. Qwasty 23:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Qwasty: The basic message doesn't seem to be getting through, maybe because you've gotten everyone to argue the trees instead of the forest. The basic problem with your examples section, in the form in which you keep adding it, is not that it violates a particular policy (which is not to say that it doesn't), it's that half or more of it hasn't got a fucking thing to do with the article. And if that's not a good enough reason for you, I can only assume nothing would be. PurplePlatypus 07:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Those quotations

I agree with TeaDrinker that those cites Qwasty just restored are non-notable. They're also POV, in being chosen to illustrate a series of points in a persuasive argument. DanBDanD 04:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The quotations in question are those removed here. I don't see them as being needed; certainly not to the point where court transcripts are included. I am actually curious to see the full citation; the information provided really does not give the reader enough information to locate the case. A legal citation should at the very least include the court in which the case is argued (Cache county is a place, not a court), and rarely does the published court record include a transcript of the proceedings. While I'm sure this was simply an oversight, it might be useful to look up the fill record. Even with the full citation, however, I don't think it needs to be in the article. There must be a better source for the reliance on filenames than a court transcript. --TeaDrinker 05:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It was once again re-inserted. I am going to hold off on removing it again for the time being, but hope there will be some discussion here. My issues are
  • Quality of the source. It is the assertion of a prosecutor, not a judge, that the file name is a means of documenting the age of the subject. As such, I would think it would be insufficient documentation for the assertion that filenames are used to establish ages.
  • Along the same lines, the material is from a transcript of a court case, which is not usually precedent setting (as it is not part of the published opinion). If this is indeed a practice in court, there should be some documentation of it.
  • The quote is not needed to establish the fact, only citation to a court case (if that is indeed what the court case decided).
  • The citation is incomplete to the point where it is next to impossible to verify. This should be a minor matter to clear up if someone has direct knowledge of the case. A legal citation should include the volume and page number of published record of the case, by extension the deciding court (as published records are usually specific to a court), the names the parties involved, and the year the case was decided. If the quotes were found in a secondary source, that source should be cited instead.
  • The writing style tends toward pov pushing. Specifically, citing logical fallacies (see also) seems to imply that there is debate whether this line of reasoning is specious (when no such debate is noted). Additionally, the section serves only to highlight questions about legalities, rather than identifying positive legal principles which courts use.
  • The focus of the section is narrow, specific to Utah law.
Any further comments? --TeaDrinker 21:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Just that, again, I agree. It's particularly unclear in that we hear snippets of arguments in court, but aren't told on what basis the case was actually decided. So the arguments quoted may or may not have been important to the judgment of the case, which does not seem to have been an important precedent.
And I have to say, I'm enormously curious about that hidden text I removed earlier -- if the information was never published, how did the editor know? DanBDanD 22:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, presumably the editor had picked it up somewhere and knew it was a fact himself, but couldn't actually find a source to prove it to anyone, and so left it out. I don't think you should have removed it, as it was obviously a note left with a purpose, and the editor (or whoever) could always come back to it once he found a source.-- 00:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
That's not what hidden text is for. You can keep notes for future revisions in your sandbox, or just stick 'em in the article with a "citation needed" tag. Putting in invisible message is just strange. DanBDanD 06:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, does hidden text have ANY purpose? Are you going to stick the text back in with a {{Fact}} tag? Qwasty 06:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The most common use on Wikipedia I have seen is to alert people to common errors in editing (such as differing credible sources, when the fact has been resolved in the talk page), or warn vandals that their joke is really old (check out the top of Chuck Norris or Michael Moore's article). --TeaDrinker 06:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
It's used to guide editors through processes like nominations for deletion and other procedural stuff, telling you where on the page to post information and so on. Its for meta-wiki stuff. I'm not re-adding the info because I agree with Teadrinker that the cites are not super-notable and are presented in a POV way. DanBDanD 07:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Quality of the source. It is the assertion of a prosecutor, not a judge, that the file name is a means of documenting the age of the subject.
The cites don't apply to the judge, since it only refers to law enforcement (above the quotes).
  • As such, I would think it would be insufficient documentation for the assertion that filenames are used to establish ages.
I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that there's some supporting quotes from actual rulings in the section "Definitional issues" that show that circumstantial evidence can be used to determine whether it's child porn. Perhaps the two sections should be merged into an "Issues" section?
  • Along the same lines, the material is from a transcript of a court case, which is not usually precedent setting (as it is not part of the published opinion). If this is indeed a practice in court, there should be some documentation of it.
It's not only practice, it's law. The cited law does not require proof of the depicted people's ages, so you could say the prosecution is going above the call of duty when they offer the filenames as evidence of age. Also, rulings in the section "Definitional issues" section show that the precedents on circumstantial evidence have already been set.
  • The quote is not needed to establish the fact, only citation to a court case (if that is indeed what the court case decided).
I'm glad to see it's quoted, it would seem odd if it weren't, especially since it's not an online source.
  • The citation is incomplete to the point where it is next to impossible to verify. This should be a minor matter to clear up if someone has direct knowledge of the case. A legal citation should include the volume and page number of published record of the case, by extension the deciding court (as published records are usually specific to a court), the names the parties involved, and the year the case was decided. If the quotes were found in a secondary source, that source should be cited instead.
I did some searching. This is probably who you need to contact for a copy of the transcript (from the first hit of a google search):
Clerk of Court
Sheryl Morris
135 North 100 West
Logan, Utah 84321
Voice: 435-750-1310
Fax: 435-750-1355
If that's not the right contact person, ask them if they know who is.
  • The writing style tends toward pov pushing. Specifically, citing logical fallacies (see also) seems to imply that there is debate whether this line of reasoning is specious (when no such debate is noted). Additionally, the section serves only to highlight questions about legalities, rather than identifying positive legal principles which courts use.
Since it's about legal issues, I think it shows the issues pretty well. Burden of Proof is a fundamental legal concept in all countries that have child pornography laws, as far as I know, and the law clearly is at issue with that. I have to disagree for now, but if you could offer some more analysis of it as far as NPOV writing style is concerned, maybe the text could be tweaked some.
  • The focus of the section is narrow, specific to Utah law.
There's some cites from other places besides Utah in the section "Definitional issues". I think the two sections are really similar and ought to be merged into an "issues" section for clarity and continuity reasons. I'm sure we could expand it to include a few more areas, but I think Utah will probably rule in that section simply because it's the world's frontrunner in Child Pornography legislation. Since the laws are fairly new and untested, they're bound to have issues. As a side note, Senator Hatch is from Utah, and the article could probably use a section dedicated to him since he has spearheaded much of the USA's laws in this area during the last decade or so, and practically all modern laws worldwide have been influenced by his efforts.
Qwasty 15:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Quasty, since you added the quotes, perhaps you can furnish the information about the case. I am curious if there is a published record of it somewhere. Good information to assist in finding are the names of the litigants, the name of the judge, and the court which resolved the matter. I am curious where you found it, since you seem to indicate that you did not get it from the clerk of the court; is it possible to get it from the same source as you?
Sourcing matters, of course, are moot if the material is not relevant for the article (although for my own interest, I am still curious). I am not sure what fact it is defending. It is entirely insufficient to show that it is legal or common practice to use filenames for the purposes of prosecution. The questioning of a prosecutor and the response of a police officer, in one specific instance, is not exactly proof positive of much of anything. Doubly true given the obscurity of the case. I have no idea what you mean by the cites not "applying to the judge."
Specifying court cases or laws in general is problematic, unless there is an accompanying secondary source interpertation. One can find cases which have subsequently been overturned, laws on the books which are unenforcable, or words that have specific legal meaning that is not clear to the layperson. This is a prime example why citing primary documents is generally discouraged in WP:OR.
As far as the POV issues, burden of proof is indeed a legal concept, but that is not what is discussed nor linked. The links go to logical fallacies, and their placement seems to indicate the arguments are considered by some to be fallacious. There is no textual, much less cited claim that such is the case. This is part of a much larger problem: the contention put forward in the case that there is a lack of positive standards for deciding what is child porn. There is no citation which indicates that is in fact the case, or verifiable source to indicate that such a claim (factual or not) is commonly made. That, together with the opposing view in such a controvery (if such a controversy can be shown to exist) , to my mind is what makes the section pov.
--TeaDrinker 07:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and re-written the sections, combining them into one section [3]. Let me explain my reasons here:

  • Opening: I discussed the legal context of the interpertation of the law. Of course judges determine what is and is not pornography, since their job is to interpert the law and apply it to specific cases. Previously, the reader was left thinking that judges were making up law (as in applying novel common law crimes, which is forbidden in most of the US at least).
  • I found it was unnecssary to quote the source; citation was sufficient. I therefore removed the quote from the lolita problem article.
  • I tried to clarify the statement about free speech and child porn. I did not have a citation handy, and such a statement in either the original or my clarification should be cited.
  • I combined the sections by removing the legal issues header. I am open to retitling the section, but did not think, given the above discussion this would be overly controversial.
  • The discussion of identification seemed to need a fact tag, since it did not seem to be supported by any secondary source. Interpertation of primary source documents can be tricky, as noted above. I added a cite to a group which explains the need for identification of victims in many cases, contradicting the obvious interpertation of the law.
  • I have removed entirely the specific Utah case, based on the above discussion. There does not seem to be a source for the claim that filenames can be used as a legal basis for prosecution (it says "law enforcement may build their case" but the rules of evidence are the rules of evidence... I don't know the distinction that is being made here). The second claim, that opinions of the persons age are used for prosecution, does not say much and serves to obfuscate that the opinions are based on evidence.
  • I removed the issue of negative proof there is no cited source that this is a matter of controversy, or indeed a real problem or issue. As near as I could tell, the prosecution seemed to be the ones most keenly interested in identifiying the vicitms. I am interested to see more discussion of this point, but leaving it in at present seemed to argue for a point of view that prosecution formed a catch 22. I think if such a controversy exists, sources should be provided and all important sides presented.

Any thoughts? --TeaDrinker 08:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I should note that I am not opposed to removing the section entirely. I am somewhat concerned that a section on "definitional issues" sounds like "Problems with the definition," which in the context of the article structure is somewhat pov itself. As we all know, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It may, given the Americo-centric view point, also belong in the discussion of American law, rather than a section in its own right. I am hoping to meet people half way on this. --TeaDrinker 08:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I am opposed to removal of the section, but I think it is acceptable in it's current form for now. I'd like to make some changes, fill in some missing cites, etc, and perhaps argue some points, but I'll have to come back to this discussion later since I've run out of free time for this. But, I do have more information, and what I don't have, I bet I can dig up somewhere. See you in a few days or weeks. 17:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitional Issues section

"As with all cases, courts must interpert the law and apply it to the specifics of a case. As such, the final decision as to whether an image is pornographic is made by a judge. Since the context of the image may indicate the sexual nature of the image, the nature or even name of the website on which it is displayed may be considered [4]."

  • I guess this is OK, although (1) Of course judges interpret the law; that's what judges do (2) shouldn't it be judges or juries? Not sure. Otherwise OK, the last sentence is good and useful in my opinion.

"There have been instances where images have been ruled to be pornographic, even when there was no nudity involved [5]."

  • It's very clearly pointed out in the immediately preceding section that nudity is not the only or even the primarly indicatior of whether images fall under the law. Rather lascivous intent etc. is used. So this sentence is redundant as well as polemic and must go.

"Free speech protections do not necessarily apply to child pornography[citation needed]."

  • I think it safe to say the sole purpose of this sentence is polemic. Free speech protection has never been absolute and has never applied to state secrets, libel, incitement to crime, etc. -- and not to pornography as defined under the law. Sentence has to go.

"Even in nations where the burden of proof is ostensibly on the prosecution, rather than the defendant, there are still many child pornography rulings that are made without proving the critical issue of the age of the person depicted in the images[citation needed]."

  • I think this is bullshitting. Of course it's not possible to prove the precise age of the person depicted. To do that, you would have to track down the individual (who may live in Russia or wherever, and of course be deliberately anonymized and hidden from investigators) along with verifiable birth information. Should prosecutions that are unable to do this be dropped? That is clearly the unstated message of the sentence. But that would result in the dropping of almost all prosections, effectively legalzing the practice, which would thwart the intent of the legislation. Therefore prosecutors and judges make good-faith best efforts to arrive at the most likely age, duh. Anyway for these reasons this sentence has got to go.

While some laws seem to exempt prosecutors from being required to prove the age (and hence, the identity) of the person depicted (Utah Code, Title 76, Chapter 05a, Sexual Exploitation of Children (USA)), efforts are made to identify victims to bolster a prosecution [6].

  • See above. Much as the person who wrote this obviously believes and wishes that prosections could be made almost impossible by this horrible lack of requirement to prove age, this ain't the place to go on about it. Removed.

When the law prohibits the distribution of child pornography, the evidence of the case may be largely inaccessible to the defense[citation needed], and specifically unavailable for publishing to as-yet unknown individuals who may be able to identify the depicted person.

  • WTF? As far as I know no evidence my be presented in any case in the US where the defense is not permitted to examine the evidence. (An exception is being claimed for state secrets regarding terrorism suspects, I'm not sure what the status of that is right now.) It's just not clear what "publishing to as-yet unknown individuals who may be able to identify the depicted person" means here. What does "yet-unknown" in this case? I think the person is saying that there have been one or more cases where the defense was not allowed to show the images to persons who might have been able to identify and therfore help determine the actual age of the person in the image. That's possible, I guess. If so it needs to say that. Removed pending rewrite and, especially, citation.

OK that leaves the first paragraph only. Herostratus 07:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I heard someone say once that "all criticism of the government is child pornography". In keeping with that spirit, the cites you're looking for have already been removed. Qwasty 16:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure that person didn't say, "All criticism, of anything, is by nature POV and has no place in a Wikipedia article"? DanBDanD 17:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
One man's facts is another man's criticism. Qwasty 17:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Not really, no. DanBDanD 19:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


I heard somewhere that in the United States, they were revising if anime, or drawings of children, should be considered Child Porn. I was just wondering if Shotacon and Lolicon have been dubbed illegal or if this accusation is true.

It is not currently clear. The supreme court recently struck down a law that would have criminalized such "art", but many states still have those laws, and they're adding more. Just to err on the side of caution, I would consider any such depiction of a child illegal until those laws are repealed or clarified. It seems that for every law struck down, there's many more to take it's place, and the overall trend is towards much tighter restrictions. There's a lot of debate going on about parents taking pictures of their kids at school, for example. I don't know of any recent instances where someone has been arrested for Japanese cartoons, but some laws allow it, and so if you're not 100% sure, it should be considered illegal for now. Qwasty 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
If you're looking for advice on the law to guide your actions, you may want to consult a lawyer. Another place to ask questions is Wikipedia:Reference desk, since talk pages are mostly for discussing changes to the aritcle. Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia! --TeaDrinker 16:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

re United States section

Although it isn't really necessary, there's no reason not to include an example. I, personally, don't really have a problem with including something like this at the end of the United States section (a separate subsection is not needed, I don't think):

In one typical example, for instance, a Utah court ruled:

We find several of the Dost factors are met. First, the child is completely nude. This satisfies the statutory requirement that the photograph depict a "nude or partially nude minor." Second...for a child to appear in such a setting completely nude is clearly inappropriate...Third, the girl's weight is on one leg, thereby emphasizing her genitalia. Lastly, the child, who is looking into the camera, is obviously posed for the photograph." - State of Utah v. Raymond Dean Morrison, Utah Supreme Court, paragraph 21

The following section referencing Kim Phuc is, besides of course being transparently polemical in intent, is just odius. I thought I'd seen it all, but I guess you learn something new every day. Herostratus 20:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree about your "odious" and "polemical" opinions, I agree with everything else. Unfortunately, two of the editors here are bent on keeping all of the information out entirely, both the textual example and the visual illustration of it (Kim Phuc). I have no idea what would motivate them to do that. They've never discussed why they delete the textual description. Qwasty 22:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the example as being particularly relevant, since it is more or less a listing of the Dost factors. I do not have a problem with it in terms of policy, but it strikes me as unnecessary, since all of the factors are already listed elsewhere in the article. Other thoughts? --TeaDrinker 22:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
As Teadrinker says, without the photo it's just an unnecessary partial relisting of the Dost factors, which already get what may be excessive focus for a single precedent in a single country's legal history. However, if you want to say something like "The Dost factors have since been used in cases such as [casename] [link]," that would be fine. DanBDanD 22:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I tend to think that Dan's solution is an acceptable compromise. What do you think Qwasty? --TeaDrinker 22:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not a listing of the Dost Factors, it's the court's interpretation of them. The Dost factors are a primary source, and it's isolated usage is thus discouraged under the original research policy. The Dost Factors shouldn't stand alone without the court's interpretation of them, especially in an area so subject to varying interpretations.
No matter how you look at it, it's highly relevant, since this article talks much about surrounding issues, but scantily about child pornography itself. Dan would prefer a worldwide definition of child pornography, instead of "excessive focus for a single precedent", but no such thing exists. So, specific examples are required.
Since this is a Supreme Court case that draws on other cases throughout the USA, it is notable. It is especially good for use here because it's very specific in it's descriptions, and because it doesn't do much in setting new precedents. Utah is the world trend-setter in child pornography rulings, so anything that happens there is notable.
This is due to the efforts of Utah Senator Orrin Hatch. He has so much worldwide influence in this area that I think the article deserves an entire section on his work. But that's another topic to be explored later...
I agree with Dan that the text loses much informative value without the image to illustrate it, but, since the text is so specific, I think it can still stand alone. We'll resort to dispute resolution only on the image issue, if we can agree to allow the text in the article.
Qwasty 23:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
So Dan2's suggestion is not an acceptable compromise? I have some distaste trying to compromise here when anything you don't accomplish you reserve to negotiate for later. --TeaDrinker 23:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Certainly not. Dan's suggestion isn't a compromise. He's basically saying if we cut out the image, then we can cut out the text too. Yay, we're back where we started. Why are the two of you so opposed to examples? It's bizarre. It's like writing an article about the Mona Lisa's smile without a single image of it. Can you not see the oddity of an article about images WITH NO IMAGES? Qwasty 02:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
What compromise would you suggest? I certainly would not expect an example image in an article about child porn, but that is not the issue. The issue is specifically with your section. The issue is original research, neutral point of view, and some issues of style. Those issues are what need to be addressed. --TeaDrinker 03:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't suggest any. So far, I've been making compromises as requested, and still the entire section is being blanked. It's someone else's turn now. You have a go at pleasing me. And phooey on your policy complaints. They are absolutely 100% baseless, point by point, item by item, over and over again. Nobody has anything specific to say, so I'm going to call it a red herring from now on. You have other issues with the section, not policy issues. I have shown in fine detail that the section does not violate a single scrap of the original research policy, despite your perpetual vague insistence that it does. Start the dispute resolution process if you're so inclined, I've had enough of this. Qwasty 03:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
You're disagreement with everyone else's reasons for disliking the section is quite a different matter than simply not giving reasons. You may not like the arguments made against your section, however they are quite specific to my mind and most assuradly based soundly in the content and policies. I suggest the first place would be an request for comment, rather than mediation. --TeaDrinker 21:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link referring to a number of cases in which the interpretation of Dost was established. Just sticking it here for referral purposes. DanBDanD 23:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"Council-owned properties"

I have edited the phrase "certain council-owned properties" to read "public swimming pools" under the "Social Perception" section. The article cited clearly states that the photography bans applied to pools, which is noteworthy considering how little clothing is worn by the athletes involved. I think it would be dishonest to not make this distinction in the text of the article. 11:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Make with the cites, plz.

There's lots of language here that asserts a particular point of view is supported by "studies." It would skirt POV even if it were sourced, but without sources it's even more so. In a couple days, I'm going to be cutting stuff left with a fact tag. DanBDanD 02:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's been a couple of days - I'm gonna start snipping stuff with fact tags. DanBDanD 02:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I left in unsourced factual statements, and cut only a POV section that was vaguely attributed to unnamed "studies." Many problems with the article remain. DanBDanD 03:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

To chime in here, I tend to think we should move the unsourced statements to the talk page, but delete from the article. Thanks for getting the ball rolling on this big task. --TeaDrinker 03:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Why "hussyfan" redirects here?

I stumbled onto the word "hussyfan" and came to wikipedia for triyng to discern his meaning, but it redirects me to the child porn page. I searched for this word, but it seems it isn't even mentioned in the entire page. Why a word redirects to an article that not makes mention of it? I still not know what or who "hussyfan" is exept that it aparently has to do with kiddie porn. If the word redirects here, don't should it be mentioned at least once with a minimum explanation of his meaning? I guess a single sentence saying "convicted child molester" or "raided child porn website" or whatever will sufice. Or if because the delicate nature of the subject, the meaning of the word cannot be explained without risking legal problems, should'n be the redirect removed? It seems odd that a word takes you to a page where you cannot find information about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child pornography search terms contains the relevant discussion. You may have a good point, though. Powers T 00:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I had the same problem with raygold. didnt want to do a google search and all that cuz I knew it was sketchy, but didnt know how. now I still dont know how. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

hussyfan was as i believe a website, if you search it under limewire, you can see other key words like kiddie p., loi.. etc.. (key words shortened) -- FyiFoff 3:40 19 November 2006 (EST)

can't be true

"Child porn was de facto and de jure allowed in most American and European countries before the 1980s. During this time porn magazines were published featuring photos of naked children and of children having sex with other children and with adults. These magazines operated somewhat openly and even solicited photos from their readers' families."

Is this Above sentence true? I can't imagine that it is. In fact, it sounds like someone here is trying to strech the truth. thus, I am deleting the above off the page.Stevo D

Social mores have changed more than you might think in the last 30 years or so; discussing and depicting the sexuality of children has not always been the extreme taboo subject it is today. I'm positive the above is at least partly true, but too buried in schoolwork at the moment to check up on it properly. I know there's at least one academic work on the subject that documents this to a certain extend but, naturally, I'll be damned if I can remember the title or author; it's been years since I've researched this stuff. PurplePlatypus 02:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I've done a quick check on this because said schoolwork was driving me up the wall and I needed a break. In the US, child pornography law began with a widespread panic in the late 1970s; according to legal scholar Amy Adler, prior to 1977 only six states had laws specifically prohibiting the use of minors in pornography and other sex-based entertainments. Federal law on this began with the Protection of Children Against Sexual Expliotation Act of 1978, which saw child pornography as a facet of child abuse, and was considerably tightened in 1982, when a decision called New York v. Ferber defined child pornography as a new class of speech exempt from First Amendment protection. (After the Supreme Court upheld Ferber, federal legislation modelled on the New York state law in question was quickly drafted.)
Now, what I'm not clear on is how this relates to the sometimes-alleged easy commercial availability of kiddie porn prior to these decisions. As far as I can see, by all trustworthy accounts there never was all that much commerical child pornography (though sensationalistic news reporting tried - and is still trying - to make it sound as though there was/is). So to that extent the passage you snipped may have been misleading. PurplePlatypus 04:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to hear of an incident with to 5 or 13 year olds appearing in "Playkid"(as you stated), but aside from Japan, I haven't heard porn was ever legal when it manipulated children. Stevo D

Hey, I was around during the 1970's and 1980's, and I've been in the porno shops down in the red-light district (of a major, and liberal, American city) during that time, and I sure didn't see any child porn. I recall one mag dedicated solely to nude pics of pregant women; several dedicated to pictures of bruised women; and a lot of other kinky stuff. But no children. I expect that, like other USA federal laws (drugs etc.), this was only actually banned when its existance came to the attention of legislators. But even if it was technically legal before that, I seriously doubt that it was widespread. For one thing, porn shops have to stay on the right side of the police; granting that the material might have been technically legal, the state can usually find a way to shut someone down. Maybe the stuff was kept under the counter and you could get it if you knew a code word or something. That doesn't really sound like de facto legal or widely distributed to me. Herostratus 18:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what one mean with child porn a bit. According to current legislation -- yes, child porn was probably legal in at least some parts of Europe in the 70/80's. At least the Dutch Seventeen magazine produced videos where 16/17 year olds were acting in pornography, which would be illegal now. Of course, most associate "child porn" with like 7 year olds, and that's another subject I haven't really bothered to check on. -- 17:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


The following material was just added to the Germany section:

  • "In reality, child nudity and what in other countries would be considered child pornography is widely accepted and tolerated in Germany. Such images often appear in German mainstream media, in cinema and on TV. To mention two internationally known examples: The Guenther Grass novel "Die Blechtrommel" (Tin Drum)and Oscar winning movie by the same name contains several scenes with child sex (leading to the latter to be banned in Oklahoma). The bi-weekly mass magazine for teenagers "Bravo" (and its official website has had quite explicit nude photographs of minors in sexual situations since 1965, in its "Dr Sommer" section, all in the interest of sex education, and accepted by the public, the educational establishment, the German government and even the churches. The nude models on and in their general interest mass illustrated weeklies are frequently under 18, as young as 12."

I fact-tagged the heck out of this, and I find it dubious in the extreme. Is it true that laws mentioned in the Germany section are basically ignored? If true, that should be made clear. The Bravo web site looks like it publishes magazines similar to Sixteen and Tiger Beat in the USA - material about various teen-oriented pop stars and so forth. It would seem odd to me if this magazine also published child porn, but who knows about Germans. Is the "Dr Sommer" section a health section, or a how-to sexuality section for preteens and young teens, or just prurient, or what? What about other "mainstream media" and "TV" mentioned? Do they really show on TV what would be considered child porn in most countries? Or is the poster confusing child porn with depictions used for medical and health reasons, or what? Herostratus 18:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I clicked around the site, and it certainly wasn't porn. It would raise eyebrows in the U.S., but didn't seem at all unusual for most of Europe or Latin America. I can't imagine it leading to prosecution anywhere. DanBDanD 00:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I actually stumbled upon some Bravo magazines in our school once, and it's not child pornography. It's children posing all nude (showing genitals and all). The pose in question is usually just standing up, arms crossed, or something like that. The poses are all done with parental permission. I don't know if that would be legal to have in youth magazine in the USA, but that's what it is anyway. Hardly what at least Europeans associate with child porn anyway. Not more porn than what you may see on a European beach. I can't really see the poses for "medical reasons" though. I guess it's part done to see what a fellow kid may look like (the mag is at least officially sold for kids), and part because although not sex, nudity sells. -- 17:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Tanner Scale

(FyiFoff 22:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC))I'm in a child porn case right now. The pictures come from a real website, of 18 + females, rather then get the records, the police and ADA on the case used the tanner scale and the doctor said they are 10 to 12 years of age. they are 10 plus years off. Many people think child porn is little kids, but police turn barely legal porn into this kiddie porn. If I didn't know where the pictures came from I would be in jail. The police website says you can tell child porn by looking at it, like every person can just tell a woman or girls age espically from a photshopped picture!FyiFoff 27:26, 15 November 2006 (FyiFoff 22:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC))

Wow, that's kind of disturbing and the first time I hear about this Tanner scale. I thought they needed age proof for these things, at least if it's not blindingly obvious from e.g sex development. With 100% genital shaving down to the last straw and the occasional slim AA cup model, you'd wonder what use that scale would be of anyway. -- 17:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)