Talk:Child pornography
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Child pornography article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
For questions about the legality of child pornography, please visit Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer. |
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."
Proof?
- "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)
Illegal in most countries? (Early comments)
I changed "illegal in many countries" to "illegal almost everywhere". I am not aware of any country that allows production or sale of child pornography. Are there any? --User:AxelBoldt
- I wouldn't be suprised of some African countries allowed it, but of course I don't really know myself. O, wait. Now that I think of it, some countries like the Netherlands and Norway allowd porn as young as 16, but this isn't what would come to mind when you think of child porn. Jzcool
- Yes and no. There are countries that allow production and sale of what some other countries would call child pornography. I am not aware of any that allow really hard core stuff, but i don't claim to have checked the legislation in all 200+ countries. --Unknown
- The UK law concerned itself with images of under 16s. This was changed recently by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. As from April 2004 (approximate commencement date) images showing under 18 year olds will, if they are indecent, constitute "child porn" in the UK. --Lmno 17:10, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- interesting... the Sun has published topless images of 16 and 17 year old girls on page 3, and I believe some may still be available on the Page 3 website - does this mean that the Sun can be prosecuted as of April 2004 if they remain on the site? hell, that would even make possesion of certain editions of the "newspaper" illegal. -Hebereke 00:47, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Jzcool; Norway has set the age of consent to 16 - this does not concern child pornography. Joffeloff 23:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- I would recommend reading this publication http://www.icmec.org/en_X1/pdf/ModelLegislationFINAL.pdf (Child Pornography: Model Legislation & Global Review). It contains proposed model legislation as well as a review of the child pornography legislation of 184 Interpol member countries. Some countries may not have legislation because they may not believe it is a problem in their country.XOHottie 20:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)XOHottie
- Jzcool; Norway has set the age of consent to 16 - this does not concern child pornography. Joffeloff 23:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- interesting... the Sun has published topless images of 16 and 17 year old girls on page 3, and I believe some may still be available on the Page 3 website - does this mean that the Sun can be prosecuted as of April 2004 if they remain on the site? hell, that would even make possesion of certain editions of the "newspaper" illegal. -Hebereke 00:47, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The advent of the internet's facilitation
The advent of the internet has facilitated the trade in child pornography considerably, (is there any basis for this statement? - If so, it might be referenced by saying, "Acording to ... ") Can there be a question that the internet has facilitated the trade in child porn? Obviously it is easier to down- or upload porn than to physically exchange floppy disks. The fact that several trading networks have been uncovered is also evidence: if the internet didn't make it easier, why wouldn't those guys stick with exchanging physical objects? --User:AxelBoldt
- Yeah - in general I don't like "unsubstantiated" statements, but this one is a fairly safe assertion. Open any western newspaper and there are daily news reports. - MMGB
- First, the number of news reports is irrelevant - the whole child porn craze was started precisely because newspapers like to report crazy shit and child porn industry involving millions of kids in the US was the craziest shit they could make up. Newspapers ARE NOT the way to judge how common something is. Second, the fact that it's easier doesn't mean it is more common. Supermarkets surely make buying groceries easier, but I woudn't say they facilitate it - people buy as much as they ever did. Third, if we make the assumption in the article that there was an increase in trading caused by the Net (which, I feel, we may do) we need to touch on the nature of that increase. There was a report on child porn in Australia that said how many perfectly normal people, males in their 20s, middle-class, familiar with computers, programmers, doctors, bankers, etc. by occupation, download child porn simply because they are curious, do not have an unnatural aversion towards it and know how. These people were not paedophiles, nor would they get child porn if not for the Internet. I think we can call them casual child porn users. Paranoid 21:18, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I wouldn't use the term 'craziest shit they could make up' because they didn't make it up. Yes, the news does embellish and focus on zanier stories, I'll give you that. As for casual downloaders, maybe if someone does it by accident or if they're curious a couple times, but if they repeat it, I think it's acceptable to say that they do have paeophilic urges, which is perfectly fine, they just shouldn't break the law. Tyciol 19:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- First, the number of news reports is irrelevant - the whole child porn craze was started precisely because newspapers like to report crazy shit and child porn industry involving millions of kids in the US was the craziest shit they could make up. Newspapers ARE NOT the way to judge how common something is. Second, the fact that it's easier doesn't mean it is more common. Supermarkets surely make buying groceries easier, but I woudn't say they facilitate it - people buy as much as they ever did. Third, if we make the assumption in the article that there was an increase in trading caused by the Net (which, I feel, we may do) we need to touch on the nature of that increase. There was a report on child porn in Australia that said how many perfectly normal people, males in their 20s, middle-class, familiar with computers, programmers, doctors, bankers, etc. by occupation, download child porn simply because they are curious, do not have an unnatural aversion towards it and know how. These people were not paedophiles, nor would they get child porn if not for the Internet. I think we can call them casual child porn users. Paranoid 21:18, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I reckon that the only trustworthy sources for this would be law enforcement agencies. Because everyone else researching the topic would necessarily commit a crime and confess to it when publishing the results. Ados 08:32, 3 March 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 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1222981.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1215944.stm and the Observer has something at http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,450003,00.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)
'Most Countries' definition of child porn
In most countries, "children" are defined ... In these countries nudist magazines ... are widely available. Is it accurate in this passage to refer to "most countries"? There are some 200 countries in the world. To assert "most countries" means to assert "at least 101 countries" ... I think the implication being made here is "certain European countries -- as opposed to the United States, United Kingdom, or Canada, which are where most English-language Wikipedia users are!" --Unknown
- How is child porn defined in the UK and in Canada? AxelBoldt 04:02 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)
- There was no mention in UK law of "pornography" or "sexual content". With the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the phrase "pornography" is used for the first time. A person is involved in "pornography" when "indecent images are recorded" of that person. Under UK law, a "Child Pornography" image is an "indecent photograph of a child", and an image is an indecent image of a child if it shows a child, and is indecent. This means the the child need not actually be involved in the indecency. Also, simple nudity is sufficient for an image to be indecent. Similarly, "bikini" shots might be considered to be indecent. Whether a photograph is indecent or not is a "matter of fact" for the jury or magistrate to decide.Lmno 19:19, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- From the Canadian Criminal Code:
- 163.1 (1) In this section, "child pornography" means
- (a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
- (i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or
- (ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years; or
- (b) any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.
- - sik0fewl 22
- 02, 19 Jul 2004 (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)
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)
- 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)
Demonization of Pedophiles, adults have fond memories of sex as kids?
Murder, rape, exploitation, torture - these are things which not only children but adults as well. So in this case victims are both it matters little if a person is a child or an adult. Children are aware of their gender as do adults do. The matter lies on sexual preferences. A person can be fanatically heterosexual or ambivalent about his or her sexual preferences. There are those who are more comfortable being either gay or lesbian. The amount of 'adult pornography' available does not create hordes of potential rapists - in fact the opposite happens - sameness of the images results in indifference, because nothing new or different is being depicted. Human beings have tendency to complete ignore sensory overload, they no longer respond to what they see. It is very much like what happens to doctors, the first experience of a patient dying is horrifying but with years of experience they learn to accept death in many cases unavoidable. It no longer jolts their senses. Going back to the issue of sexual preferences, it has yet to be decided to whether children also have them too. There are adults who fondly remember their childhood experiences be it homosexual or heterosexual. To lump pedophiles along with pimps who have enslaved children is completely is ridiculous. All pedophiles are not pimps and as for pimps sex is their business, they have women under their control so much so that their children too have enter this sordid business of prostitution. Prostitution is the result of extreme poverty as is found in India and other poor countries. So people who look at child porn cannot considered child rapists. or pedophiles. The purpose of pornography is arousal - it fails eventually because of the similarity of images the purpose is defeated and those websites die. Pedophile as called sexual predators of children and children are called innocent victims. Recently two boys killed their father in the USA, when children are capable of murder, when children can be recruited as soldiers in Sri Lanka and several African countries, they are trained to kill - sex is a great less harmful and less dangerous. The movement to ban child pornography has more to do with the fact old pornstars are less attractive and younger upcoming pornstars more desirable an make more money - that is one conspiracy theory. The issue will never be resolved unless this issue is debated openly
you're kidding, right? That's the longest piece of self-justification I've ever read. POV here people. Please cite an instance of an adult who has fond memories of having sex while a child with an adult? I can't, but I can personally account for 7 individuals, close friends of mine, who were psychologically damaged by sexual contact with an adult while they were children. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.89.65.98 (talk • contribs) .
- you're kidding, right? That's another piece of self-justification. POV here people. --Unknown
- "Please cite an instance of an adult who has fond memories of having sex while a child with an adult?" So on your word, it absolutely doesn't exist? --Unknown
- 7 individuals - can you cite it, or do we just take your word for it? --Unknown
- With nothing but personal argument to go on, prolly not best to claim the upper hand. Especially when neither one of you even sign your entries. Watch me get called a ped; it'll underscore my point really well, as my point has nothing to do with either stated opinion. --DanielCD 18:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- I share your frustration Daniel, not only is this unsigned but it's full of typos, a lack of grammar, and flitting about with a barely comprehensible point. I've changed the title of this line of discussion to what I could gather these guys are trying to get at, perhaps we can try to decipher it? Tyciol 20:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- I read this and though I'm not taking sides, and especially don't want to take the side I'll be accused of taking, I must mention this. It was said above that no child has fond memories of sex with an adult. I was 15 when I first had sex with my 18 year old girlfriend. Due to state law, she was stautatorily raping me. I am now 24 and am married to that girl, with whom I have 3 kids, the oldest born when I was 17. I knew what I was doing and was not a victim. I know this isn't the example most people with common sense would use for kid and adult, but legally it would have been the same had she been prosecuted if I was 14 and she was 100. And I guess this drives to the point of my posting is that all over wikipedia articles on subjects such as these there seems to be a polarization of the types that think that there is no difference between an ephibophile, a pedophile, and someone who prefers a younger but legal partner versus the "18 and 16 is okay, so 80 and 6 must be as well" type. It's this polarization that inhibits discussion on what should legally and resonably constitute an adult for fear of being labeled a pedophile. Why is a young woman of 17 years in my state more or less adult then a 17 year old little girl in an 18 state? And the initial refuter is as guilty as the refutee in this detriment to open forum.
71.201.20.120Off my high horse, Butch
Opening paragraph circular rewrite?
The opening sentence ("Child pornography is pornography involving children.") strikes me as a bit circular. Anyone smarter than me want to take a crack at rewriting it? Tregoweth 20:32, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
- It's not really circular, because both pornography and children have independent definitions. But I tried to clarify. Paranoid 21:18, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Honestly it's sad we even have to define it, some titles speak for themselves after all. It's like writing under multiple murder "the murder of more than one person". Tyciol 20:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday I went to Berlin's meeting of wikipedians and spoke with the head of the German wikipedia organization, Kurt Jansson. He said that the problems with the articles related to pedophilia and abuse were well known for quite some time and probably started with a posting in a forum for pedophiles about wikipedia as a great opportunity to spread the message that sex with adults is helpful for children. He already mentioned it in an interview with a newspaper in order to increase awareness of the problem. In the German pages the most notorious abuser is 12:36, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- If there is anything that is not NPOV or not factual then correct it, whether it be from this person or other people. In general I do not think it a good idea to try and guess the motivations of people who contribute, it is best to judge their output instead. Frankly I am happy people are choosing to contribute to this issue, many choose not to because it appears unseemly. --ShaunMacPherson 12:58, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Given the long and continuing problem with the issue even in different languages I think that an unusual step had to be taken. Just look at the edits of the users I mentioned and then tell me again if you think it is appropriate. I tried to discuss as I normally do in the articles, but it does not make sense and is too time consuming. The questionable users behave in an aggressive way, even requesting comments on my user conduct, similar to a complaint about an admin in the german version. It is also relatively obvious that several accounts were created solely to discredit others or to edit about this one topic, e.g. User:Marlais, User:Madeline, 13:04, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- No more a problem then any of the other articles or on wikipedia in general. Correct their edits if they are incorrect, the edit wars here are less then edit wars in previous areas where the page has to be locked. As for accounts being created to edit on sensitive topics, that is a reasonable idea. Some over zealous users on a witch hunt can have a chilling effect, esp. with regards to a topic such as this. As I said, judge the output and revert if you think it a non-NPOV edit then discuss it here. Casting aspersions on other users is not wiki-friendly. --ShaunMacPherson 13:27, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- If the eleceted head of the german wikipedia community thinks he has to mention it in an interview I think it shows that pedophilia and child abuse related articles have much more serious problems than many other articles. I did judge the edits of the users in question, and several others agree with me that it is too time consuming to go the usual way of discussion with users who spread extremely partsian views in a number of articles and revert everything they do not like. Get-back-world-respect 14:11, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The topics are controversial. And I do spent quite some time in discussion. The problem is that many users do not like the content of pedophilia and child abuse related articles, but do not point out studies that support their point of view. And I certainly do not spread a comment or links among a dozend articles. --Moonlight shadow 14:33, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Much worse than adding some links to half a dozen articles you twist all articles related to child abuse in two languages in an extremely partisan way, within the text as well as with an overflow of links to pedophiles' favourites sites on the internet, and in the German version tons of selected references and even mini-encyclopedias at the end of articles. Get-back-world-respect 19:37, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I am not sure how much an 'overflow' of links is, but it seems to be it is balanced to include links to both supporters and detractors of pedophilia, or am I incorrect? --ShaunMacPherson 02:26, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Your choice of words already shows that you are not neutral in this debate. Why do you write "supporter" on the one hand and the pejorative "detractor" on the other hand. Furthermore, this is an encyclopedia, it should be informative. Articles about "childlove" or self-identified pederasts and pedophiles do not need half a dozen advertisement links where pedophiles can best get in contact with others and children. That is as absurd as if this article about child pornography had links "where you can download child pronography cheapest". Or if pedophilia had links to "groups that think all the perverts need to be hanged". What the articles do need are links to organizations that help victims and organizations that help pedophiles who understand that their condition can mean a danger to themselves and others. Get-back-world-respect 10:33, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem in advertising places where pedophiles can congregate as long as it fits the criteria that it is 1. public and 2. anti-child molestation. People with these urges should have an outlet, surpressing the urge would probably encourage explosions of law-breaking. Furthermore, as the link would be public rather than traded privately, it would attract non-pedophiles to the boards as well, and facilitate communication and understanding Tyciol 20:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Have I become your favourite enemy or what? There is no conspiracy that I am part off or aware off. IIRC the links and references and mini-encyclopedias where all present when I joined Wikipedia in March. (Exception for the links: I added one that was removed a few weeks later.) --Moonlight shadow 20:40, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I do not regard wikipedia as a place where one has "enemies". I do have the impression that you are fighting some kind of combat against neutrality and consensus on the point that abusing children is a crime for good reasons. Close to every single edit of yours goes in that direction, with "abusers usually abuse very regardfully" as the height of impudence. Get-back-world-respect 22:00, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- You refer to the article de:Pädophilie:
- Your false quote "abusers usually abuse very regardfully" is made up from two sentences in the original article.
- I am not the author of them.
- I did not revert your changes to the article, but only defended the sentences in the discussion. I agreed that "regardfully" was too imprecise and said that I am going to reformulate the statements based on a scientific publication.
- I do not want any further escalation of this conflict. The only thing that initially made me a bit upset about you was the fact that you made redundant changes to a number of articles. I suggest that we replace the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Get-back-world-respect by a page for discussion of all abuse/pedophilia related articles (especially those topics which effect more than one article). --Moonlight shadow 09:08, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- You reincluded that paraphrased said exactly what I quoted. Furthermore, I am not trying to persecute anyone personally here. The situation is worse than just a case of an abusive user. There are a couple of dubious users who twist a whole range of related articles in an extremely partisan way. And this is not only my opinion, but that of many users, even such that the elected head of the German wikimedia organization Kurt.Jansson considered it important enough to mention it in a newspaper interview. Get-back-world-respect 10:33, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- You refer to the article de:Pädophilie:
- I do not regard wikipedia as a place where one has "enemies". I do have the impression that you are fighting some kind of combat against neutrality and consensus on the point that abusing children is a crime for good reasons. Close to every single edit of yours goes in that direction, with "abusers usually abuse very regardfully" as the height of impudence. Get-back-world-respect 22:00, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Your choice of words already shows that you are not neutral in this debate. Why do you write "supporter" on the one hand and the pejorative "detractor" on the other hand. Furthermore, this is an encyclopedia, it should be informative. Articles about "childlove" or self-identified pederasts and pedophiles do not need half a dozen advertisement links where pedophiles can best get in contact with others and children. That is as absurd as if this article about child pornography had links "where you can download child pronography cheapest". Or if pedophilia had links to "groups that think all the perverts need to be hanged". What the articles do need are links to organizations that help victims and organizations that help pedophiles who understand that their condition can mean a danger to themselves and others. Get-back-world-respect 10:33, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I am not sure how much an 'overflow' of links is, but it seems to be it is balanced to include links to both supporters and detractors of pedophilia, or am I incorrect? --ShaunMacPherson 02:26, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Much worse than adding some links to half a dozen articles you twist all articles related to child abuse in two languages in an extremely partisan way, within the text as well as with an overflow of links to pedophiles' favourites sites on the internet, and in the German version tons of selected references and even mini-encyclopedias at the end of articles. Get-back-world-respect 19:37, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The topics are controversial. And I do spent quite some time in discussion. The problem is that many users do not like the content of pedophilia and child abuse related articles, but do not point out studies that support their point of view. And I certainly do not spread a comment or links among a dozend articles. --Moonlight shadow 14:33, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Given the long and continuing problem with the issue even in different languages I think that an unusual step had to be taken. Just look at the edits of the users I mentioned and then tell me again if you think it is appropriate. I tried to discuss as I normally do in the articles, but it does not make sense and is too time consuming. The questionable users behave in an aggressive way, even requesting comments on my user conduct, similar to a complaint about an admin in the german version. It is also relatively obvious that several accounts were created solely to discredit others or to edit about this one topic, e.g. User:Marlais, User:Madeline, 13:04, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I find the following edits of user:Moon_light_shadow to be a bit fishy:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] - Mark 13:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The onus is on you to quote the relevant texts that are 'fishy' and explain what, if anything, is wrong with them. There are no shortcuts to discussion. --ShaunMacPherson 02:26, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Believe it or not, I was actually adding to the conversation above, pointing out to User:Get-back-world-respect the only edits I could find of User:Moon light shadow over a couple of pages which seemed questionably POV ("fishy" means "dubious" in English). If you bothered to follow the links, you would have seen that they are diffs, so it is quite clear which passages/edits I was referring to. I placed these links here to aid those who wanted to investigate the allegations by User:Get-back-world-respect. I am not making allegations myself, and have no wish (or responsibility) to express any more of an opinion on those edits. - Mark 05:12, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I looked at *all* of your links before making my comment. My point is: if there is anything wrong with the edits then say your peace about them here, and quote exactly what the problem is. Making suggestions on how it could be reworded too would help. That is how its done everywhere else, I see no reason why this topic should be any different. Since my edit history is now polluted with edits on this topic I might as well help rewording now too ;p (although I find this article NPOV and really of excellent quality as it stands now). --ShaunMacPherson 05:33, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Okay. Sorry. Bad mood, you know the drill. Anyway, all I was really drawing attention to was the removal of entire sections with edit summaries like "removed redundant section". But most of these edits, if you could call them POV, were balanced out by equal and opposite POV edits, leaving a fairly NPOV article, in my opinion. I was not questioning the actual state of the article. - Mark 05:40, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Please be aware that the problem is not just about some dubious edits by one user, see above. Get-back-world-respect 10:33, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Okay. Sorry. Bad mood, you know the drill. Anyway, all I was really drawing attention to was the removal of entire sections with edit summaries like "removed redundant section". But most of these edits, if you could call them POV, were balanced out by equal and opposite POV edits, leaving a fairly NPOV article, in my opinion. I was not questioning the actual state of the article. - Mark 05:40, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I looked at *all* of your links before making my comment. My point is: if there is anything wrong with the edits then say your peace about them here, and quote exactly what the problem is. Making suggestions on how it could be reworded too would help. That is how its done everywhere else, I see no reason why this topic should be any different. Since my edit history is now polluted with edits on this topic I might as well help rewording now too ;p (although I find this article NPOV and really of excellent quality as it stands now). --ShaunMacPherson 05:33, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Believe it or not, I was actually adding to the conversation above, pointing out to User:Get-back-world-respect the only edits I could find of User:Moon light shadow over a couple of pages which seemed questionably POV ("fishy" means "dubious" in English). If you bothered to follow the links, you would have seen that they are diffs, so it is quite clear which passages/edits I was referring to. I placed these links here to aid those who wanted to investigate the allegations by User:Get-back-world-respect. I am not making allegations myself, and have no wish (or responsibility) to express any more of an opinion on those edits. - Mark 05:12, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The onus is on you to quote the relevant texts that are 'fishy' and explain what, if anything, is wrong with them. There are no shortcuts to discussion. --ShaunMacPherson 02:26, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Simulated child pornography such as paintings, drawings, and computer generated images has recently been included in some country's definition of child porn (See Simulated child pornography below).
Hmm. Does this include things like cherubs? If so a lot of famous paintings could be illegal. Reminds me of a Private Eye article: "Our celebrity pervert squad wants to get hold of Mr. Da Vinci and ask him why he seems so eager to paint pictures of naked kiddies." --AdamM 19:47, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merging of internet child pornography (completed!)
The former internet child pornography article was a combination of notes on the internet, notes on law-enforcement, and notes on the history of pornography and child-porn. It has been included here as the sections "On the internet" and "History of [il]legality".
From Talk:Internet child pornography
Archive 1: October 9, 2003 and before: Discussion about page moved out, legality and title
Archive 2: October 9-10, 2003: Further discussion on legality
Archive 3: October 10, 2003 Discussion on whether it comes under free speech
Archive 4: October 10, 2003 + deletion poll held between October 10, 2003 and November 20, 2003: More discussion on whether the article should be kept or deleted.
Archive 5: October 10-12, 2003: Should it be a part of Wikipedia?
Archive 6: Text from VfD October 9 - November 20, 2003: Text from VfD and further discussion on whether it is promoting pornography
Archive 7: November 21-22, 2003: GFDL and should history be deleted...
Discussion on legality
This was originally written as a writeup for Everything2. It received mixed reviews and was quickly nuked by the censors (gods). I rewrote the text and changed the writing a bit to fit the Wikipedia style better.
Please note that I do not advocate producing, selling, downloading or posessing child porn. But I believe that people should have free and unfettered access to all sorts of information and make informed personal choices afterwards.
Searching for child porn is legal in most countries. Downloading and posessing it is also legal in many. Providing information about ways to find it is legal practically everywhere, except, may be, for some islamic fundamentalist states.
- IANAL but... Providing information on ways to find child porn is illegal in the fundamentalist state of the United Kingdom under the Protection of Children Act 1978. It would be the specific offence of "advertising", or a common law offence of "incitement", probably "incitement to make an indecent photograph of a child" (see R v Bowden (1999) for what "making" means in this context). This offence would be committed by the original writer and anyone who let the information stand - potentially even anyone who edits the article but does not remove the information. Needless to say, it would also apply to Wikipedia should the article be left unedited. --Lmno 13:49, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the criticism. When I was writing it for Everything2 I purposely wrote a provocative article. I toned down it for Wikipedia and rewrote parts of it, but I am ready to admit that it isn't finished. I made some contributions to the child pornography already and may be this text should be integrated there as well (or renamed to Internet child pornography, as suggested here). The only thing that I am against is emasculating it by removing all objectionable parts. Making it neutral — sure. Neutered — no way. Paranoid 23:28, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Adam, the market is not being created by people downloading photos and videos for free, if anything, it is being destroyed. And I clearly warned in the text about paying for child porn.
Also more than half of actual instructions were for finding softcore child pornography AKA lolita art, which is legal in the US and does not involve abuse of the children, since they are posing, not having sex, and posing nude for Lolita Kingdom is not much different from posing in underwear for Sears catalogue.
I also disagree with a stance some people are taking. There is nothing in the policies, procedures, and mission statements of Wikipedia that mentions censoring/editing articles based on moral principles of the users. If anything, it strongly warns against it, when the NPOV principle is explained. Therefore deleting the article just because you think it's immoral is against principles of Wikipedia. Editing it ruthlessly to remove the bias (while preserving the facts) and provide a counterbalance in the form of information about anti-child porn operations would be the best way to resolve it, as well as renaming it into Internet child pornography. I also agree with Morven's suggestion of changing it into "how-they" (but keeping it neutral). The text was originally written for E2 and there is nothing wrong about adapting it for Wikipedia.
Other arguments like "no one has a legitimate interest in this subject" are completely wrong and evil. You can't decide whether anyone has a legitimate interest. You were not appointed as censors and you have no right to censure the materials according to your personal moral agenda.
Finally, I don't like at all the idea of complete deletion. 50% of the article is history - completely moral and legit. 20% is finding softcore porn - it's ethical, although immoral according to moral values of some people and still legit. The remaining 30% is about finding hardcore porn. This is a grey area, I agree, but it's only 30% and it can be fixed by reediting. Searching for child porn is legal in most countries (although outlawed in some). Downloading child porn is not outlawed anywhere. Posessing it is illegal in many places, but I wouldn't go as far to say all English-speaking countries ban it outright. IANAL, but here is a quote from one of the New Zealand LEOs: “Our concern is not really to stop people looking at pictures; it’s to stop the abuse of children involved in the making of this [hardcore] material,” and where there is a clear case of child sexual abuse, no jurisdiction will defend it, he says." [8] Finally, speaking, writing or reading about child porn and about finding it is completely legal in all developed countries. GRAHAMUK is clearly wrong about "aiding and abetting" - check the legal definitions. Paranoid 09:42, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Words, words, words. If you were interested in contributing valuable information, you would spend your time making your text neutral and inoffensive (preferably before uploading it), instead of defending it in its current state. Writing "I am not a troll" is easy. Why don't you go ahead and proveit? Kosebamse 10:10, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Other old comments
Excised from the text: (quotes inset, reasons for changes double inset)
- Child pornography used to be very difficult to find for the average person; in recent years due to the ease of posting any information on Internet websites, a large amount of child pornography has become easily and quickly available. The ease and speed with which this material can be now be found and accessed has caused a proliferation in the creation of and viewing of child pornography.
- No evidence is offered for the (highly dubious) claim that CP "used to be very difficult to find". Astonishingly, nor is any evidence offered for the rather hysterical claim that the Internet has "caused a proliferation in the creation of" CP. The entire paragraph is pure speculation, and reeks of fantasy.
- Many police forces and non-governmental campaigs have attempted to stamp this phenomenon out, and some have had some high profile successes. These efforts have made online child porn less available, but have not wiped it out completely.
- This para, unlike the one above, is perfectly sensible, and fits with the facts (as reported by a range of news services over the past few years).
- Some experts see the hysteria about child pornography and internet pornography as overinflated. They warn that by going after child pornography one risks tightening restrictions on free speech in general.
- Which "experts"? How do we know they are "expert"?. Evidence please. (There is, of coure, no doubt that the CP hysteria we see from time to time is a classic example of a moral panic. Unfortunately, our moral panic article here at WP is so vague and poorly written that linking to it is pointless and probably counterproductive.
The entire article needs a solid re-write, and it's not an area I'm interested in spending any length of time on, but I hope that some kind soul will come along and do something about the rest of this very sub-standard article. Tannin 09:41, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that child molestation decreased after the arrival of the internet, but the use & availability of child porn has vastly increased. Citizen Premier 03:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- There are paintings and drawings, which include Japanese hentai about raped and dismembered 5-year olds.
I took this sentence out as an unjustified example to be presented. If there should be an example of child pornography, its purpose should not be to shock people with an extreme example by a country. While those made by illeal means, meaning actual criminal acts such as kidnapping and rape, are not pointed to a specific country, the example like this that is morally wrong but legal, is pointed. Also, the article never mentioned that this kind of material is never printed or publicly broadcasted by a company and it could not be done so legally. It is instead made by individuals wo make them for a personal use. Revth 06:46, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Is it smart to link to http://www.little-virgins.info/legal.html in Internet child pornography#Sources? The legality seems dicey. Tregoweth 20:42, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
- The claim they make is valid. Artistic child nudes are indeed legal. And the company that makes the claims is a legal business that supposedly gave some thought to the page in question. I think there should be no problem with linking to them. BTW, I changed the link to the WebArchive version to ensure availability and invariability. Paranoid 21:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Artistic child nudes mat well be legal, no problem there. But note that this site's title is little VIRGINS. That is implicitly a sexual reference, so the stated position of the site may be at odds with its real intentions. Just thought I'd point that out. Graham 23:35, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Technically, this is an asexual reference, that is one can argue that "Little Virgins" means girls who are so young, they are still pure and non-sexual. Of course, this says nothing at all about the real intentions, which are clearly to provide legal child porn to customers. Paranoid 08:33, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I suspect you're right about the site's intentions. However "virgin" is by definition a sexual reference, since a virgin is someone who has never had sex. It says nothing about a person's age - a virgin could be any age. However by coupling the term virgin with the photographs and other elements on the site, they are making a link between children and sex, which is why the stated reason for the existence of the site is at odds with their real intentions. If it were called "little darlings" or some other non-sexual reference, their argument might stand up a bit better. I don't think it lends the WP article any credibility to link to this or any similar site; that's just pandering to those who are reading this supposedly serious treatment of the subject for their own titillation.Graham 00:23, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Notes that need work
Here are some bits that didn't fit anywhere: with a little more work, this could become another section in the main article.
Random notes
Law-enforcement:
- Law-enforcement organisations (FBI, Interpol)
- Methods of tracking child pornography users and finding actual child abusers
- A discussion of the largest operations (such as Stardust, Blue Orchid, Operation Candyman, Operation Ore)
- LEO successes in closing first offline and then online BBSes
- ISPs (such as GeoCities) developed practices for instant reaction to child porn hosters (bandwidth limits, rapid reaction to abuse reports)
- Monitoring of the Net by law-enforcement and vigilante organisations
- A survey of psychological research about effects of child pornography
- A section on political implications of child pornography
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.
"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.130.88.186.4 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)
Cartoon child pornography?
What about cartoon child pornography, i.e. hand- or computer-drawn cartoon images depicting children in a pornographic fashion, that don't even try to look real? There are many sex sites that offer such pictures openly. Does this fall under "simulated child pornography" or is there a legislation all of its own for it? — JIP | Talk 07:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I added a link to lolicon which provides more details on this, if anyone wants to incorporate that into the article, well, I ain't reading it too closely. Ashibaka tock 04:13, 15 December 2005 (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.--24.190.122.122 11:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Why?
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?
- 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.
- 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 156.101.1.5 (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.--24.190.122.122 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)
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)
Shown in court?
I was just reading through "David Peach v. Craig Henry Griffis," concerning someone being charged for possession. It says at one point: "Each one of the charges relates to a specific [child pornography] 'movie', which was played in court." Do they actually do this? Are they allowed? // paroxysm (n)
00:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be surprised. If the police aren't allowed to see them any more than absolutely necessary (yea, right) then why would they play them in court? Cops aren't supposed to even look at them, but they freely distribute them on the Internet while trying to catch people. If they did, it just shows the sad state of affairs regarding laws like these. --DanielCD 15:25, 26 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: http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0,,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)
Accidental deletion
I accidentally deleted the article when I intended to delete a redirect to it, clumsy n00b that I am. I'm very sorry. - Haukur 22:27, 7 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. 24.93.151.25 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
Simulated
The article says that the Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition ruling allows for simulated child porn. But what about this: [9]? Sure he had real stuff on his computer, but he also got nailed for the mangas as well. Explanation? ----talk 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)
Pronouns
Themself is not a word. The correct word is themselves, and may be used as a generic singular in these instances.
Why there are no images for this article?
I see no reason why not. 88.155.176.98 19:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe someone could add a link in the External Links section. 88.155.176.98 20:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Let's not and say we did. -Will Beback 21:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- How about some of Lewis Carroll's work? It's public domain, it has historical and scholarly significance, and it features naked little girls.--User:67.185.129.168
- ..and it's not child pornogaphy. Aside from that, I've never seen any of Carroll's nudes on the Internet. 24.224.153.40 22:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- There are about four surviving images, and they've been the subject of a number of scholarly papers. Some of those papers are available on the Internet. --67.185.129.168 04:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- ..and it's not child pornogaphy. Aside from that, I've never seen any of Carroll's nudes on the Internet. 24.224.153.40 22:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- United States law strictly forbids possession, exhibition, or distribution of any sort of child pornography. Please see Wikipedia:General disclaimer#Jurisdiction and legality of content. --Ted 18:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
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.[10]
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- ...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)
Footnotes.
I have created footnotes but there are still some links that are not formatted. Skinnyweed 17:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
?
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. --70.53.99.166 23:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
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? 70.20.147.17 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)