Talk:Child pornography/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

restoring unexplained deletions of sources

I have restored several sections of the article recently deleted w/o explanation. If there is a specific reason for their deletion, please cite this. I also deleted an uncited def of CSA. If there is a reference for this, please cite. ResearchEditor (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the edit noted in this section. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup of this talk page

I've been at many talk pages and I have frequently wondered about this I ask now: Is it correct to perform a cleanup in the talk pages, particularly this one?

There are plenty of conversations and comments that don't contribute to anything, it's simply bulk and load to this page and its users.

There are, as well, many discussions about pedophilia and pornography that are interesting; but do not contribute to the article. Child sex, ideologies, laws, psychology, sexuality, pornography... all those are very interesting and pollemic fields, but simply discussing on them doesn't help if the discussion is not focused in the article and its quality.

Furthermore, a too populated talk page gets tedious and difficult to read and use, and scares people away.

So, I'm proposing, if it is correct according to our guidelines, to clean up this page, leaving relevant discussions and removing irrelevant ones.

Thanks in advance!

Alf —Preceding comment was added at 02:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

comment moved from top of page

REDOING MAJOR REWRITE: children is not a proper term, as a 50 year old man is still his fathers' child. couldn't get minor law to work as it has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_%28law%29 and I couldn't link the word minor to minor law.

cutting out the rest of the old intro, at pasteing it here, you can't say CP is a multi-billion dollar industry when everyone arrested for it is getting it from p2p.

""" sexually abused. Children are sexually abused in the production of child pornography when sexual acts are photographed, and the effects of the abuse are compounded by the wide distribution of the photographs of the abuse. Legal definitions of child pornography generally refer to any pornography involving a minor, varying by jurisdiction and with regards to the age of consent and other laws. For research purposes, child pornography often refers to any recording (photograph, video, or audio) of sexual activity involving a prepubescent child.

According to the United States organization The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and other international sources, child pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry and among the fastest growing criminal segments on the Internet. Recent investigations include Operation Cathedral that resulted in multi-national arrests and 7 convictions as well as uncovering 750,000 images with 1,200 unique identifiable faces being distributed over the web; Operation Amethyst which occurred in the Republic of Ireland; Operation Auxin; Operation Avalanche; Operation Ore based in the United Kingdom; Operation Pin; Operation Predator; the 2004 Ukrainian child pornography raids and the 2008 US child pornography raid. New technology that aids those who produce this material include inexpensive digital cameras and Internet distribution has made it easier than ever before to produce and distribute child pornography. The producers of child pornography try to avoid prosecution by distributing their material across national borders, though this issue is increasingly being addressed with regular arrests of suspects from a number of countries occurring over the last few years, see above. According to the NCMEC, approximately one fifth of all Internet pornography is child pornography. Child pornography is illegal in most countries with coordinated enforcement by Interpol and policing institutions of various governments, including among others the United States Department of Justice. Even so, the UK based NSPCC said that worldwide an estimated 2% of websites still had not been removed a year after being identified.

Child pornography may be simulated by the use of computers or adults made to look like children. For simulated child pornography that is produced without the involvement of children, there is some controversy regarding whether or not such simulated child pornography is abusive to children. The legal status of simulated or "virtual" child pornography varies around the world; for example, it is legal in the United States, it is illegal in the European Union, and in Australia its legal status is unclear and so far untested in the courts. """

don't know what to do with all this mess.—Preceding unsigned comment added by FyiFoff (talk • contribs) 00:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you say you don't know what to do with it, it would be best to go a step at a time rather than attempt "a major rewrite" all at once. Whatever you do add or change will need to have references, and must not remove valid referenced material already on the page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jack-A-Roe above. All data on the page needs to have valid references. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

the information as posted is not correct. the information I post was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FyiFoff (talk • contribs) 11:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That is just plain wrong. I suggest, givent he quality of your edits, that you do not edit edit the article at all but bring any suggested changes here. Your first attempt at rewriting was appalling and appeared very close to pro-pedophile advocacy which is a violation of our neutrality policy. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am here against my better judgement, as I prefer to avoid this article. But, if I may be frank for a moment, FyiFoff...are you out of your bloody mind? Your edits are tantamount to soap boxing, not objective reporting or writing. You offer no sources, no evidence, and you removed perfectly valid and sourced material. I smell past legal troubles around you, and while you woes may or may not have been deserved (as I don't know the circumstances), Wikipedia is most definitely not the forum to vent. I urge you other editors to restore the previous version.Legitimus (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

no, I've just seen cases in the courts. the statement that child porn is always sex abuse is wrong. i listed traci lords, and her wiki and that should be readded. she wasn't a child being abused, so the wiki statement is not 100% true. the sex abuse information should be put into the wiki sex abuse page, this is a wiki child porn. this whole child porn page should be no more the 100 lines. It should link the a gov page and say what is child porn, list a few landmark cases, list place like 1 800 the lost that you can report child porn to.

the opening "paragraph" should be just that, not a whole page. the top of the page should all be below in the content information. there is no need for almost 90 references, this page NEEDS a MAJOR delete and retype. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FyiFoff (talk • contribs) 13:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Uses political "newspeak"

"Abuse" in this context is not a neutral and objective word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.80.92 (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is, as CP is inherently highly abusive. We are not here to apologise for child pornographers. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be although it probably often is. If something isn't always true, it is not neutral to say it is, when not citing. If a neutral article on child pornography is "apologising for child pornographers", how can other articles be neutral without "apologising" for some controversial subject/action? What you are suggesting is basically that we shouldn't be neutral regarding controversial subjects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.80.92 (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh look it's Squeakbox. Hi Squeakbox. I must say, accusing 217 of being an 'apologiser' is rather inappropriate and I would say, disrespectful to that editor. It is inaccurate. You say it is 'inherantly highly abusive'. Not only do you throw in 'highly' without support, but 'inherantly' is similarly unsupported. You should not be injecting your unsupported decisions into Wikipedia decisionmaking processes and discussions. A question like this hinges greatly upon people's opinions (which vary in ALL kinds matters, including non-sexual) of what 'abuse' means. Statements like that on an article do not seem very accurate or encyclopedic. It would be better to use more descriptive and specific terminology. Tyciol (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, SqueakBox, prove that CP is "inherently" abusive. Prove it. Prove that not a single person in the world under 18 (or whatever) who was ever involved in porn production didn't find it a beneficial, or at least neutral, experience. Come on, let's see your sources. Please show me the study that interviewed 2000 CP participants where every single one of them believed that they were abused. --Foreverdamaged (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, only a complete moron cannot add two and two together when they see the word "child" in combination with the word "pornography". We don't need to say that Hitler was evil. --Foreverdamaged (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is absurd to say that everyone below an arbitrary age is being "abused". The word should not be used as it is in the article, the whole thing reeks of moral hysteria. --Tilmitt (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines state that editors need to represent views proportionally to their prominence in the research and media (see WP:UNDUE). CP is seen by a majority of the research and media as being child abuse. As editors, we need to report this. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, if that's the case I'll have to respect that guideline although I'll probably lose my respect for Wikipedia. What happen to "neutral point of view" and "not a democracy"?

BTW, changing "sexually abused" for "used sexually" only makes the statement neutral - it does not introduce a new minority viewpoint and it certainly does not give any such viewpoint "undue weight". I'm not trying to defend sexual abuse here, but alot of people consider pornography with adults to not always mean sexual abuse and the definition of "child" in this context is purely political. If the age limit was set to 40 does that suddenly mean all pornography with 18 year olds up to 40, are now sexually abused - but not with people over 40? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.80.92 (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy, definitions must be according to reliable sources, not personal opinions. The term "abuse" is used in the references, therefore it is correct for use in the article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

All and well, but the article starts with using such a vague word, especially in this context, and never defines it in the entire article. This is like say 'Mozart's music is beautiful' in his respective article. If you give a proper definition of 'abused' in the article and can show us a scientific work which demonstrate via scientific means that this is so, then go ahead. For instance would abuse be defined as 'going against the participants will', then I doubt all cases of child pornography are as so, especially by that definition, a random seventeen year-old getting an erotic picture from his/her sixteen year-old romantic commitment qualifies as child porn according to this article, that's hardly against will, and that happens a lot, it also wouldn't qualify for 'leaving permanent damage', a lot—of arguably foolish people believing love cannot go into hate—have done it and do it. What other definitions save the obvious circular one's that have been placed into this whole sensitive theme have you left? I doubt the countless Japanese twelve year old girls who have been prostituting since times in that country are left any bad side effects or else a lot of women there are now crazy.. oh wait.. that's true. Rajakhr (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The talk page of the article is not intended for philosophical discussions or personal opinions, its purpose is to co-ordinate editing to improve the presentation of the topic. I recommend that you review the WIkipedia five pillars so that you have a solid basis for collaboration on improving the content of the encyclopedia. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jack-A-Roe, but that alone cannot be a sufficient basis for Wikipedia using the word "abuse". Just because a reliable source makes a value judgement, doesn't mean Wikipedia should too. Yeah, Wikipedia can say "child porn is considered abusive by X", but that's all. If Wikipedia has an article about a movie, and a majority of reliable critics have called it "breathtaking", that doesn't mean Wikipedia should. Wikipedia's job is to present verifiable facts in a clear and concise manner. Period. It's not its job to pass judgement. I have the impression that your motives here go beyond "improving presentation of the topic" as you say, since you are a member of what looks to me like a group of self-appointed moral crusaders. --Foreverdamaged (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The research is clearly biased and not reliable since this is an issue of semantics, not research. First of all research in controversial subjects like this can never be trusted, secondly, you can never objectively say that something is abuse towards any member of a group of subjects. Is it abuse to beat someone up? Sure, until someone turns out to actually like being beaten. To say that CP is always abuse is to say everyone under the age of 21 (which in some cases is the legal age and thus has to be taken into account) are predictable machines, always responding in the same manner. Again, the legal age is arbitrarily set by rulers, so to say CP is always abuse is to say the rulers have god-like powers to make people suffer from simply filing a paper. Set the legal age to 40 and suddenly 35 year old pornographers are abused. It is child pornography! We arbitrarily defined it to be! This is an issue of semantics, not research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.80.92 (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree with you that not all "CP" is abusive it largely is. Almost everyone on earth can agree that sex with a 7 year old is wrong and abusive. Once you get into the area of 15-16+ then it is open for argument. However, I have gotten the impression that most "CP" is with people far underage. --mboverload@ 15:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The definition of "child" is political and judicial, and the article states abuse as an absolute. This is not acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.136.253 (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent observation there 83. Furthermore, another error in his reasoning is the idea that 'almost everyone on earth can agree on'. This is an argument from popularity and not how Wikipedia should be judging truth. Tyciol (talk) 05:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Jack-A-Roe changed the first paragraph back to the moralizing "abuse occurs" from the factual "is considered abuse" ... and backed it up with a greater number of sources. The sentence now implies that abuse always occurs - it no longer lets the reader decide. The sources are exclusively one-sided of course; they are all from people involved in child protection services in one way or another. But no matter how many of those sources you can find using "politically correct" terminology based on value judgements, that terminology does not belong in Wikipedia. As I have explained above. I will change the sentence back, and just to be fair, I shall add two reliable sources that do not consider child porn inherently abusive (one a current political figure and one a prominent philosopher). Respect the five pillars please. Your intentions may be heartfelt, but they are contrary to Wikipedia's goals. If you want to be a zealot go join Perverted-Justice or something. --Foreverdamaged (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You’re new at this judging by you edit history, so you may not have known about WP:FRINGE, a concept that most definitely applies to your two refs, Murray Rothbard (who says in the same link you provided: “But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.) and Mary Ruwart, who argued that children can consent to sexual intercourse (an absurd view decried by the medical community). Further, they are ethicists, not scientists.

Of principle note here is that the wording that existed indicated that there was abuse “if sexual acts were photographed.” If sexual acts on children are abuse, then photographing that sexual act is part of that abuse. Period.Legitimus (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Murray Rothbard does not fulfil Wikipedia's criteria for being a fringe source. He a widely acclaimed political philosopher. His theories have been peer-reviewed exhaustively and are taken seriously by other political thinkers. He is one of the key figures of libertarianism and Austrian School Economics, two movements that are definitely not considered "fringe". He had great influence on founding the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a prominent think tank. He might represent a minority opinion, but it is definitely not "fringe". The libertarian party is the third largest party in the US.

You seem to want to discredit Murray Rothbard just because you think his views are "absurd". That violates Wikipedia's guidelines. It is irrelevant what any of us here think of his views. All that is relevant is that he should be considered a serious source, based on the above.

Finally, the medical community itself decries Mary Ruwart's view not for scientific reasons, but for ethical reasons. The medical community has yet to come up with conclusive evidence that consensual sex between children and adults is inherently abusive. So why isn't an alternative ethical point of view, from a reliable source, just as valid? In any case, there is not 100% agreement in society whether child porn always equals abuse, so Wikipedia should not state this as if it was a solid fact, like the law of gravity. --Foreverdamaged (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• The Rothbard source does not even mention child pornography, so it's completely off-topic.
• The Ruwart report describes a political candidate who wants to legalize child porn. A political statement by a layperson is not a reliable source for defining child pornography or addressing the abuse that occurs when children are used in its production.
• The text you changed is supported by 9 or 10 mainstream references. Your changes cause the text to state something different than what the references state. That is simply an unacceptable misrepresentation of the sources.
• The rest of your comment, regarding the existence of something you described as "consensual sex between children and adults" has been widely rejected on Wikipedia as an extreme fringe theory and can't be used as the basis for edits in the article.
• If you would like a short section in the article about the political aspects of child pornography, that could be useful, with reliable sourcing, and a link to the main article on that topic at Pro-pedophile activism. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rothbard source argues that children are able to consent, which is fundamentally what this debate is about.

I do not want the text to contradict the sources. I simply want to make sure that the text says it is those sources that define it as abuse. Also, it's not a numbers game.

I do not want a section on politics, I simply want to avoid value judgements out of political correctness. --Foreverdamaged (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where Rothbard says that in the writing provided. It wouldn't matter anyway, as he has no psychiatric credentials to make such a claim (neither does Ruwart).Legitimus (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

From his book: "Regardless of his age, we must grant to every child the absolute right to runaway and to find new foster parents who will voluntarily adopt him, or to try to exist on his own. [...] The absolute right to run away is the child’s ultimate expression of his right of self-ownership, regardless of age". If you read the rest of Rothbard's book you will see that the ability to consent is part of his definition of "self ownership".

The psychiatric credentials of the other sources are irrelevant, since their definition of abuse is based on ethical consideretions, not on evidence. --Foreverdamaged (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

When talking about the legal definition of child porn, we can't say that all such images are images of abuse, because some countries include images of legal non-abusive acts (e.g., the UK where the age of consent is 16, but an image of a 17 year old would be classified as child porn). This isn't about making apologies for child pornographers, it's about the definitions themselves varying, and that not everyone agrees on what should be included (another example would be the debate on fictional "child porn"). Mdwh (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry, but you are mistaken on all of those points. Have you read the nine references? This is not a debate where we decide what child pornography means and if it's OK or not. This is about reporting what the reliable sources state about the topic.

Discussion of teenagers is a diversion - that is not what child pornography is about. The fact that the legal definition might include all "minors" is a red herring and is not the central element of child pornography. Child pornography is about images of children being sexually used by adults, or interacting sexually with other children, where the interaction was forced by the adult producer of the child porn. To discuss 16 or 17 year-olds is a diversion.

The issue of the "fictional" or "virtual" porn is also a diversion. The vast majority of child porn is real photographs of real children in sexual situations. The tiny percentage that is virtual may be growing, but it's still tiny. If you want to start a separate article on that, go ahead, but in this article, that diversion must not obscure the actual issue of the topic.

Your comment also misstates what the many references state. Child pornography shows images of children being sexually abuse. Not 16-year olds, children. You know, 10 years, 8 years, 6 years, 4 years, 2 years old. That's the reality, and that's why the mainstream references state that it is a photographic or video record of sexual abuse. The bottom line according to policy is that none of this is for Wikipedia to decide. These facts are verifiable, as shown by the many references in the article. There are no references stating that child pornography images of prepubescent children being used sexually are not recordings of child sexual abuse. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Then why don't we include that in the article? Go on, add the sentence "Child pornography does not refer to teenagers, it refers to prepubescents being forced into nonconsensual acts". Make it clear that that's what it's about and not consensual images of teenagers. Who knows, that might even send out a message of common sense, which I must say is badly needed around here these days. -91.121.159.46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC).

I'm pretty sure we can also find 'reliable sources' which say that child porn isn't always abuse, and we can both find authority saying The DaVinci code is the best film ever or the worse, that's because what constitutes 'abuse' and what doesn't is an opinion, what this article does is stating an opinion in the introduction already as fact. And besides, there are countless stupid fifteen-year-olds out there that make child porn independently to get reactions from others, so, they are 'abusing themselves' in that you say? Rajakhr (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There are thousands of reliable sources saying that slavery is a form of abuse. Yet the Wikipedia article does not start with "Slavery is abuse...". No, it just states facts. --Foreverdamaged (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with you in that I think child porn should only refer to such images of children, however, we can't ignore the other references that use child porn more broadly. I think you are the one having "a debate where we decide what child pornography means and if it's OK or not" and ignoring the reliable sources. What we personally think is irrelevant - we can't ignore that, for example, in law the definitions are often broader. Now having said that, I think the lead does a good job at distinguishing between academic and legal definitions - although I'm not convinced that the "common usage" refers solely to "prepubescent children" (e.g., you can bet that if someone is done for sex with a teenager, they are referred to as a pedophile). Mdwh (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Jack-A-Roe, can you please tell me what problem you possibly have with adding the phrase "According to the medical community," to the second sentence of this article? That phrase does not distort anything or contradict the sources. In fact, it gives the statement more authority if anything. How can more information be worse than less information? Please justify why you removed that phrase. --Foreverdamaged (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the references state, that's why it's not right for the article; the statements in the sources are not limited in that manner. Also, that's not the only difference between the versions. You wrote "Abuse can occur both when sexual acts are photographed,..." and that does not match the references. The sources state unequivocally that abuse does occur when those photographs are made; in other words, that it is not possible to create a photographic record of a sexual act involving a child that is not a photograph of child sexual abuse. Your version implies that there could be some way to photograph an adult having sex with a child that might not be a photograph of abuse. That implication is in direct opposition to all mainstream definitions of child sexual abuse (there is wide consensus about that on Wikipedia); and that implication is in opposition to what is stated in the references. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

However, there was never any research done into it, you're making the argument of authority here, if a Ph.D. in physics suddenly says 'Light travels infinitely fast', that does not make it as so until the physicist can show it with research. And obviously one cannot perform research on this as the term 'abuse' remains ill-defined, especially in this article. Best to stay with clearly defined terms such as 'Child porn is always made against the children's will.' or 'Participation in child pornography will always leave children with negative side-effects.' and also: research into it. You really seem as if you want to press a political opinion through here, sorry. Rajakhr (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I agree about removing the "can", and by the way, there was no "can" in my last version! The sources that you have cherry-picked state unequivocally that abuse "does occur". I have provided one reliable source that implies abuse does not automatically occur. That was just to prove that your definition of child porn is not an absolute, nor considered such by scholars. But it is not even my intention to mention this in the article. This is not about defending pedophiles. In fact, I couldn't care less about pedophiles. This is about upholding neutrality, even on thorny issues, because I think those are the true measure of neutrality. In fact, neutrality is the best weapon to discretid pedophiles. Writing this article in a preachy, imperative tone is not going to swing the reader who is undecided about whether CP is abuse. It will only antagonise him. Adding the phase "According to the medical community" does not violate the consensus reached on this topic. And anyhow, consensus does not come above neutrality. --Foreverdamaged (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's good to see we're making some progress here (I had not noticed that you removed the word "can" from your last version, thank you). Including the attribution of "According to the medical community" though would be incorrect, because the sources are not all medical. The sources in the article that describe child pornography as sexual abuse of children include medical and forensic researchers, clinicians, law enforcement experts, attorneys, elected officials, child welfare organizations, individuals who were abused as children to make child porn and mainstream journalists. Those are not only from the references in that one part of the article, but from the range of references throughout the article that consistently echo that same refrain. There's no need for in-text attribution when a concept is so mainstream that there is no-one saying otherwise beyond extreme fringe theory advocates. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We've already established that the Rothbard source mentioned above is not WP:FRINGE.

It is irrelevant how mainstream the description "abuse" is. What is relevant is that it's a value judgement. It's also the mainstream opinion that Hitler was evil, beyond an extreme fringe. Yet Wikipedia does not need to call Hitler evil.

Why do I need to repeat myself? Based on what you said, I suggest adding "According to experts and mainstream opinion,". --Foreverdamaged (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, the Rothbard source does not have direct information to the subject at hand, and taking his words to mean what you seem to think it does is WP:Syn. Also, for the last time, the concept of abuse is not a value judgement, but a statement of fact. We don't say "Hilter was evil," but we do say "Hilter had millions of people murdered." Legitimus (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Using the Rothbard source would only constitute WP:Syn if either a) it was used in conjuction with other sources to arrive at a conclusion, or b) it was open to different interpretations on this topic. But this is not the case. The unambiguous conclusion from the Rothbard source is that CP is not inherently abusive. There is no other way to interpret that source when applied to CP. Also, it deals with consent in general, while the subject at hand deals with consent in a specific case.

The concept of abuse is far from a fact statement. It is a faith position. Why don't you state the evidence to support the concept that "CP is always abuse"? Like "Hitler murdered millions" you should say "An X percentage of children is traumatised by CP". Or something of sorts. --Foreverdamaged (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Another thing which must be added is that the source is inherently not reliable per scientific standard if it uses a term which isn't defined. I still challenge any-one to come up with a good definition of 'abuse' other than 'occurs against the participants will' or 'leaves lasting damage to the participant', like I said, neither of these are true in the case of a random seventeen year old making nude pictures for its equally seventeen year old romantic commitment. Which is defined as child porn in this article. So if the 'reliable source' is using any of these definitions, then obviously it cannot be reliable as it states quite simply absurdities. I still wait for some-one to give me any other semantically correct definition of 'abuse' and at least define the word in the article that uses it, as the word especially in this context is highly vague and describes nothing, provides no factual information and does nothing more than simply giving a political opinion about the concept which isn't even universal, I aim a Japan here, naturally. This word is little more than voicing a political opinion about the concept, and note that I got angry when being seven years old at a discovery documentary titled 'The most evil men in history' about Adolf Hitler over the word 'evil' there. Opinion, no matter how common need not mean fact. Rajakhr (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Pathetic. Who do you suggest as alternative experts? Your colleagues? John Nevard (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You would have sounded slightly less zealous into spreading a view here if you actually went into my arguments. Rajakhr (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Better source may be needed

I think we need a better source for Bob Balfe's remark, because either his calculator is broken or Linda Satter made a goof: 83% + 40% + 19% = 142%? Is there another explanation? Legitimus (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive the discussion page

this page is getting huge, can someone archive it?--Megaman en m (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Request seconded, we're in August, we don't need June and July anymore. I'd do it myself but last time I archived on a topic like this I got accused of some things, so now I fear to edit constructively. Tyciol (talk) 04:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Many countries lack laws addressing distribution"

Why is this here?--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 18:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Lolita

Is there a section on literary stuff that could mention the controversy of Lolita? There was plenty of criticism calling it pornographic. Maybe "generated images," although it isnt the most accurate. Lihaas (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted info

The following edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Child_pornography&diff=235667767&oldid=235666155) was removed without discussion here. While it may be outdated law, it is still part of the legal process that started a clampdown and that was eventually superceded. The law info and sources should be here just before the new update. Likewise (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Child_pornography&diff=235672070&oldid=235668841) has sourced that were removed, again without discussion. Lihaas (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Jack's edit looks good to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The law has changed and the short mention in the virtual porn section now correctly describes the current statusn of the law. In addition, in the section on Legal Issues, subsection for the USA, there is a full paragraph about the PROTECT act, including the prior law, info on the Supreme Court decisions, and wikilinks to both the prior law and the PROTECT Act of 2003. No significant information was removed, updated information was added, and there are links to other articles that have even more in depth coverage.

The other edit remove that source for two reasons: - it was incorrectly used to argue against a point that was not making the claim addressed by the quote; and even more importantly, because the quote was taken out-of-context from a long complex document and misrepresented the position as stated by the source. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Question for Lihaas: You made this September 1 edit, indicating that the Supreme Court had struck down the provision making virtual child porn illegal. But you already knew at that time that there is a new law that has addressed those concerns and that virtual child pornography is now prohibited in the USA, because you had previously made this edit on August 19, to the article on the PROTECT Act of 2003, where you removed the external link to this Washington Post article discussing the changes in the law. At the time you made that edit, the PROTECT act article included this statement:

Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code).

Since you already knew that the prior law was replaced by a new law, why did you edit the Child Pornography article to make the obsolete and incorrect statement that "that 'Virtual child pornography' is not illegal in the United States. ", and yet not even mention the new law that turned that around and that now virtual child porn is illegal? Thanks in advance for clearing this up. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense now what your saying, I admit. But I wasn't editing for content, but more for guidelines. I edited the sept 1st for copy editing; and the 19th aug was for external links. (my bad on the this, i didn't quite put a good edit summary). you'll note the 1st sept edit was not my input, someone had added it in already. Lihaas (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the above summary of the effect of the PROTECT Act by Jack-A-Roe is incorrect. It did not overturn the Supreme Court ruling that virtual child porn was (in theory) still protected by the First Amendment. (Congress doesn't have the authority to do that.) It simply criminalized virtual child porn that is also obscene (i.e. it fails the Miller test and is therefore not protected by the First Amendment). If (for example) the creator of a movie in which virtual children had sex could demonstrate that it had artistic/literary value, it would not qualify as "obscene", so it would be protected speech. PROTECT was an effort to criminalize as much virtual child porn as the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment would allow, but it certainly didn't criminalize it all. Only the Supreme Court specifically overturning Ashcroft vs. Free Speech or a repeal of Amendment I could do that. - Agency17 (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

revenue edits

For this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Child_pornography&diff=235837111&oldid=235833103):

For the edit, general english convention (academically) says you should start with the intro part "according" to. but ya'll ended that way. any ways, this has been said in english classes across america (maybe the world) but what you can say with less words you should do. try and avoid adding more words if need not be. How has the sentence changed meaning?

Furthermore, the times of india source doesn't corroborate what is claimed. Both facts are not claimed. the first instance of child porn has to do with children surfing for porn not posing. the second just says how many child porn website there are on the net, not with the revenue.Lihaas (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the sources more carefully before complaining. This is the second time in a row you've gotten it wrong. The Times of India reference is used, together with several other references, to support this fact: "Child pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry". The Times of India article states in paragraph 4: "Child pornography alone generates $3 billion annually". Plenty solid. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and TOI describes what it means by so, the definition is not the same as it is on here.

Anyhoo, what do you mean 'wrong.' you asked me for my opinion, i said by your logic it was okay, but it still had the REASON of the edit. which was to patrol which was not content but other guidelines. Lihaas (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

at any rate, you still havent queried the edit itself.

Graphical representation of the data from ICMEC

I've created a graphical representation of the data that can be found in the Global Legislative Review chapter of the review by the ICMEC that is mentioned in the Legal status: Elsewhere section of this article. It can be found via this page (mirror). If Wikipedians choose to use this image, it will be very important to empathize that this review only looked for legislation specific to child pornography. That's why I added the note on the image that several of the 'green' countries "DO HAVE a GENERAL ban on ALL pornography". It is true that more than half of the countries have no laws that address child pornography - at least according to this review, but those countries may very well have general bans on pornography (which automatically includes child pornography). Think of for example countries in the Middle East. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

On the lower right it says I used the BlankMap-World-Subdivisions.PNG. That's not true, I used BlankMap-World.png. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Virtual Child Pornography

In 2002, a statute declaring Virtual Child Pornography to be the equivalent of the real thing was struck down (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition). A new law was put on the books, but has not been tested. While any material, whether it is of adults or of minors, may be made illegal if it falls within the definition of obscene, the portion dealing with virtual child pornography that is not obscene has not been subjected to legal challenge. Based on prior decisions, it is probably likely that part would not survive a court challenge, yet the article as written fails to recognize the current state of the law and simply misstates it by flatly stating all virtual child pornography in the U.S. is illegal. This is the case in other jurisdictions but is not the case in the U.S. and the article needs to change to reflect how the law was changed in order to improve the accuracy of that section. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Canadian definition -- something important is missing.

The law in Canada includes a little phrase that makes a big difference, specifically, "or is depicted as", so even if those depicted in the material are clearly too old, the depiction section can pull them back down to the child level.

Child pornography: "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 18 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 18 years" -- Criminal Code of Canada, Section 163.1

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_IV::bo-ga:l_V//en?page=4&isPrinting=false#codese:163_1

Although I don't have references for it, it has also been applied to purely textual material, and material that doesn't contain actual subjects, such as cartoons and paintings. There is the potential for a drawing of a 90-year-old dressed as Baby New Year to be considered child pornography in Canada.

Colin Pye (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

no pics?

I couldn't help but notice this article is severely lacking visual aids. As a longtime fan of wikipedia I would be willing to contribute some home made digital pictures for free. What would I have to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.43.100 (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Charts, graphs, and statistical maps only. No "examples."Legitimus (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Biased US Legal status section

"It has been stated that the Supreme Court’s decision has been criticized, yet it correctly enables legal personnel to fight crime networks where child pornography is made and sold." ... Correctly???! Wow, that's so NPOV. "The demand for more and newer child pornography is believed by most to promote the sexual abuse of children." Weasel words. Besides, the source shows no data on what most people believe. 87.116.190.71 (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously if asked, most people with a broad enough exposure to western media would agree that the demand for more and newer child pornography promotes the sexual abuse of children. But I agree in that the use of the source is spurious. Since the source basically amounts to an opinion blog by some attorney, I also attributed his opinion on "networks". forestPIG^(grunt) 18:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Marsh is not just "some attorney" - he's a widely cited expert (CourtTV, CNN, Fox TV, Washington Post, Washington Times, Albany Times Union, New York Post, Boston Globe, American Bar Association Journal), and founder of the Washington DC Children's Law Center, among other qualifications - a solid reliable source for this topic. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Japan

Why isn't Japan's legal status listed as one the countries? Dumaka (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Presumably because no one has researched it and added it. Be bold. - Agency17 (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh halo thar witchhunters

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html

All this guff needs a scientific explanation section in the first place. "Updated.. laws to match those of the west" uh-ha-ha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.110.187.10 (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this article resembles an ideological text more than an encyclopaedic entry. How it starts is a joke, using various vague terms like 'abuse' which have no technical value whatsoever but only a semantic load. And it also never defines what 'child abuse' is. 'Children of all ages, including infants,[21] are abused in the production of pornography internationally.' this is how you start a 'TAKE ACTION!!!' commercial on TV, come on. It doesn't take a brain that if the article defines child porn as sexual depictions of minors and tonnes of minors send nude pictures of themselves to their high school crush around the world that child porn does not mean 'abuse' in every case, also, it's still not a technical term, it has a semantic load, nothing more, it doesn't add any factual content but an opinion over the act. This is not an encyclopaedic article to inform people about the facts surrounding this problem, this is some appeal to emotions. Come on, rape is bad, ergo child rape is bad, filmed rape is worse, ergo filmed child rape is worse. I'm sure you can find an 'authoritative source' that says Mozart is the greatest composer ever, it still says 'widely regarded as the greatest composer' on his article, because you can also find 'authoritative sources' that claim he isn't, just as you can find them which claim that child porn is not abuse per se. Like the case I mentioned, and the term is useless in an encyclopaedic article as it has no technical definition, it's just a semantic load. Rajakhr (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Commentary

I thought my edit summary was pretty clear, but since someone erverted it, I'll bring it up for discussion:

The "Legal status" section is littered with various quotes, commentary, and vaguely newsy items.[1] As interesting as it may be to know what Pundit A thinks about the legal status of child pron in Country B, or how much of a problem Agency C sees in Country D, that's not really relevant to an article outlining what the legal status is. Including third-party commentary - ie. opinions from anyone who isn't a judge actually ruling on the legal status - just grants a license for anyone with a POV to push to find an expert who shares it and insert quotes from him into the article. For example, the Marsh quote opining that the Supreme Court's decision was correct... it doesn't provide any further info about the legal status; it's just the expression of a POV about it. Maybe a respected, mainstream POV, but it's still a POV that I'm sure some people dispute. I suppose we could open it up for an extensive debate presenting all POVs, but it would be far simpler to stick to the facts ("The law says this, and the Supreme Courts applies it such way, and the police enforce it thusly.") and leave out the opinions ("And so-and-so thinks this is right/wrong.") What value does this kind of side commentary add that makes it worthwhile to set aside NPOV? - Agency17 (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit of) Effect on child sexual abuse prevalence in society

Here I will attempt to defend my editing of this section. Before my edit, the paragraph was a total misrepresentation of the PDF referenced by (28). (Wolof, Finkehor, Mitchell, Ybarra) The referenced publication says nothing at all about "stimulation". The referenced publication says nothing about "heightened desire" or "urges". The referenced publication most certainly says nothing about "practicing in the imagination". I don't know which one of you edited this wikipedia article, but you basically just made up a bunch of claims and then attributed them to a publication on the internet which does not actually contain those claims. If you attempt to add this baseless pop-psychology to this article again, I will come back and remove it again and tell everyone why. Given the continually-widening definition of child pornography in the legal system, these claims beg all sorts of questions about what is precisely being "practiced" in the mind? Does all child pornography depict some sort of act? Certainly not, as still images of children in small bikinis are now legally child pornography. (Cartoon characters were recently ruled child pornography by a court in Australia). This whole paragraph is asking the reader to make all manner of erronious, knudge-wink connections between things are not even established by the article itself. The article starts off by saying that Child Pornography differs wildly in its definition from locale to locale. But then it wants the reader to imagine what it would mean to "practice" something in the imagination! What would that be? It is as if the article is falling back to a defaulted, common-sense notion of "child pornography" narrowly defined as a video depicting a sex act. Certainly, in today's legal climate, you cannot expect such a narrow, antiquated definition to be applicable! I will remind everyone that the referenced publication PDF makes none of these critical errors. paros (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

DIscussion

These are quotes taken from above Jack-A-Roe: Child pornography is about images of children being sexually used by adults, or interacting sexually with other children, where the interaction was forced by the adult producer of the child porn.

That, sir, is just absolutely false. Perhaps (and this is a big maybe).. perhaps had you made this claim 15 years ago you would have a leg to stand on. This common-parlance notion of CP has not been legally applicable for the last eight years or more. And I could easily back this up with verifiable citations of actual laws in parts of the United States. The mere presence of an exposed nipple is now legally Child Pornography in many states, even if the photo was taken by the minor herself. There are absolutely no stipulations in the law whatsoever about an adult having to be part of the production. There are absolutely no legal stipulations that the minor needs to be "prepubescent". The word "prepubescent" does not actually appear in any law regarding child pornography in any of the 50 states in the USA. However, some state laws attach additional importance to the age of 13.

Jack-A-Roe: Child pornography shows images of children being sexually abuse. Not 16-year olds, children. You know, 10 years, 8 years, 6 years, 4 years, 2 years old. That's the reality, and that's why the mainstream references state that it is a photographic or video record of sexual abuse.

I find it fascinating that you say CP is a "photographic record" of some incident, while later on in this VERY PAGE you admit that child pornography is also legally covers virtual drawings made of fictional characters. Then you turn around and pretend like this is not a contradiction by saying that "It's a tiny percentage". You sir, have contradicted yourself. And we have it in writing right here on this page.

Jack-A-Roe: 'The issue of the "fictional" or "virtual" porn is also a diversion. The vast majority of child porn is real photographs of real children in sexual situations. The tiny percentage that is virtual may be growing, but it's still tiny.'

Any literate person on earth can see this is false. In fact, it's doubly false. Talk of the "Vast majority" is the same kind of bogus arguments made by police who say thing like people who possess marijuana are also committing other crimes. (There would be no way to test this hypothesis other than raiding the homes of law-abiding citizens). You are woefully ignorant of what the laws now actually state about virtual child pornography. Japanese Lolicon has recently been made illegal by the Protect Act of 2003, and the number of "children" depicted in this literature is far greater than could be reasonably counted. In fact, the act of trying to even decipher whether a drawing is a child is full of legal conundrums. Does a fairy count as a child? How much hair is to much hair to rule out the depiction of a human child? What if the fictional character has a child's body but is hundreds of years old? Etc etc....

I think for this wikipedia article to be perfectly unbiased and accurate to reality, we will need to describe child pornography as a legal creation. Such an article would be easily earmarked with citations about how the word is defined in different locales. If this were 1985, no such precautions would need be taken. But this is 2008 and the definition of child pornography is highly contentious and woefully misunderstood (As the squabbling in this TALK section demonstrates). I would conjecture that the majority of Americans no longer have any accurate idea of what "child pornography" legally means even in their own jurisdiction.

I think for the purposes of an ENCYCLOPEDIA, this is the only way to proceed and remain professional about it. Instead what we see here on wikipedia is a like a journalistic propaganda poster of pop-psychology, and a litany of apologetics for a legal system that is running amok. paros (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Seconded, this hatred developed in the last 40 years against paedophiles to fill the void that came when homosexuality became accepted is the biggest joke the western civilization has to offer. This is propaganda, not an encyclopaedic article. See my input on the top for my rationale, this article direly needs a update. Rajakhr (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

POV

Not all CP is child abuse. The opening paragraph contradicts the Sexting section; some jurisdictions have called pictures taken by teenagers of themselves to be CP (cf. "Sexting"). Not all child sexual activity is abuse. Would erotic pictures taken by the children themselves be self-abuse? I'm not denying that most CP production involves child abuse, just saying the production is not inherently abuse. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

How exactly does it contradict the opening. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sexting has been classified as CP, but the opening says all CP involves child abuse. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No, sexting has not "been classified as CP". In a few cases, the CP laws have been used to charge teens for sexting, but those are isolated incidents. Mostly, those teens are being charged under lesser offenses such as lewd behavior. Sexting cannot be included in the definition of CP without reliable sources making that connection specifically, and that means more than just a jurisdiction or two charging some teens using CP laws for lack of other tools. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, in "Child pornography (sometimes abbreviated CP) refers to pornographic material depicting sexually explicit activities involving a child, a form of child sexual abuse.", does that mean "sexually explicit activities involving a child" are "a form of child sexual abuse", or that "pornographic material depicting sexually explicit activities involving a child" is "a form of child sexual abuse"? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It does appear that the lead was ambiguous, so I've edited it to clarify, based on the content of the sources. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest mentioning sexting in the opening. Saying not all CP is child abuse, though, should not be said. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sexting already has a section in the article. It should not be in the lead though, because that would be undue weight for a practice that actually has nothing to do with child pornography and is only related to the topic because law enforcement has no other tools to use to stop the practice. Child pornography is about sexual images of children, not teens. There are no worldwide law enforcement stings to catch teens making sexual images of themselves.

This article should not be diluted by undue focus on barely-related issues like teens photographing themselves for fun when the real issue is pre-puberty children being sexually abused to cater to the desires of adults. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

To both of you - I don't think anyone is suggesting we say "not all CP is child abuse" - I agree that isn't necessary. But the question is whether we should say "all CP is child abuse". The argument being made is that this is simply false. Fixing it up doesn't require undue weight, it just requires not making false statements in the first place. I also disagree that these issues are "barely-related", when the term is often used to refer to the law. If that's how we want to do things, the article should be disambiguated, with the clear distinction being made. Mdwh (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Another example would be countries such as the UK where images of 16-17 year olds are now "child porn", even though the age of consent is 16. I think the problem here is tackling both a more general definition, and the legal definition. It might well be that "Child pornography is about sexual images of children, not teens" is a common definition, but we can't ignore that "child porn" is also used often to refer to a legal status, which should be defined in terms of what those laws are. I also disagree that laws are only ever used to catch those with pre-teen children - e.g., some countries have even prosecuted people for fictional cartoons, and in the UK, the police chief of the organisation that tackles child porn has stated "teenagers are themselves risking prosecution by publishing indecent material of someone aged under 18." [2] So I don't think that these can be dismissed as irrelevant or unimportant issues, when they are things that Governments and organisations are dealing with.

I appreciate that the slant the article is defining is to give the general "common usage" definition, and then explain the laws are often defined more broadly. Though I wonder if this could be made clearer that the first definition is not the legal ones. In particular, if "record of abuse" is considered to be inherently part of the definition, then it's not merely the case that the laws cover a wider age range, it's also true that they differ in this respect. I'd also question "For practical reasons" - there's just as much evidence that defining the laws more broadly is intentional, and not merely a practicality. Mdwh (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are good points. We need to address them though without giving undue weight to the legal and political issues of lumping teens in with children. I did not mean to minimize that issue, such as the UK police going after teens as you noted, those are real issues that should be covered. But we do need to keep it in proportion to the much bigger issue of millions of pre-puberty children harmed each year in the production of child porn and the global social/political/legal efforts to stop that violence. I'm not suggesting we brush the other aside, just that we keep the proper balance.

I suggest we come up with a sentence or two about the teen issues to be in a secondary place in the intro, and also expand the section of the article currently titled "Sexting", that's so far just a paragraph, with a new section title and a full section to include other issues like the ones you outlined. That would be a way to address those issues withdue weight. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, to address the issue of "due weight". As someone who lives in the UK myself, I have never heard (nor has anyone I know... And trust me with the press in this country it would be known pretty quick) of anyone being charged with CP for anything involving someone over 16, let alone kids of the same age. The reports on CP cases in the papers always specifically mention that the defendants were found in possession of "indecent images of children under the age of 16". I also can't imagine a jury ever convicting someone brought under such charges ("his crime is... being attracted to girls his own age? Over the age of consent? How is he a child abuser? Not guilty"). I don't think the situation in this country, which you for some reason chose to mention, is notable or has much weight to it at all in this regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.27.88 (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As a previous posted already pointed out, there has never been a prosecution for CP in the UK involving over-16s, and given that 16 is the age of consent I highly doubt that any judge would convict someone in such a case. In addition, I believe that someone can only be declared a sex offender for crimes against a child (if I recall, there is some distinction between children above and below 13, so perhaps this only applies to the latter) if they are themselves an adult; while it's possible that some asshat prosecutor might try to persue a kid for pictures of someone his age, the maximum sentence he'd get is probably community service (god, the jails are full enough in this country as it is, I doubt they could find room for cases like that even if they tried). I get a feeling that even the craziest of conservative press would be in uproar if anyone ever tried a prosecution like that.

(Also, the case cited in the article you linked is completely different, it talks about people who make and receive shows for money and as he himself says, falls under child porstitution laws.)

>there's just as much evidence that defining the laws more broadly is intentional, and not merely a practicality

I suppose you refer to the oft-stated idea that lawmakers and prosecutors prefer to define broader laws so that they can go after borderline cases to bolster statistics? Thare may be a case for that (if you can find sources), but In don't think it's really an argument for this article but rather something that applies to crime more generally; maybe take it to Crime or English law? --86.5.85.22 (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether the law has been used or not is beside the point - we are talking about what the laws cover. The law was changed in 2003, and I don't recall an uproar from the Daily Mail (or much place else) about increasing the age limit. Just as there seems to be little uproar about the current plans to include cartoons. Also note that people have been convicted for fictional images, with little in the way of an uproar. Having said that, I think the article is pretty much fine as it is now, but we do need to keep in mind the distinctions between the "abusive" definition and the legal definition. We cannot ignore the legal usage as being a "practicality", or handwave it away based on some unproven and dubious speculation that courts would not convict - and even if that was true, it would still be true that many people (e.g., those who support these laws) consider "child pornography" to include these wider ranges of images.

You can be a sex offender for a range of crimes, including those nothing to do with children (you can now be a sex offender for possessing images of consenting adults). And the bit that I referred to in the article is about child porn law. How could posting an image of yourself be anything to do with prostitution? Lastly, I'm not referring to anything - I'm just pointing out that the claim that this is due to a practicality is bogus, and as you say, should be taken elsewhere. Mdwh (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. Sadly, the problem of excessively broadly defined (albeit rarely applied in the way they could be in theory) laws is neither new, nor exclusive to this sort of case. If you dig through archives, you'll find hundreds of absurdly ridiculous laws and by-laws which still exist, despite the fact that no one would dream of applying them. I don't doubt that there's a law that would make every citizen of this country a criminal, if it were applied, but generally judges and prosecutors know how to draw to line at common sense and good reason, taking into account the reason for the existence of a law rather just taking it by the letter. It's nonetheless an unsettling issue. The problem is that this is a broad issue, we have no sources, and it's a far wider reaching problem than would be relevant to this article (the obscene publications act is a far worse case of this). If you can find sources, I'd suggest going to legislature or criminal law with it, and seeing if you can include it there.

I will without a doubt get some flak from the libertarians for saying this, but the difference between cartoons and this case is that people are against the idea of people being sexually attracted to people much younger than themselves, and those who seek out lolicon fall into that definition. The arguments is that these people are potential rapists and predators, because of their attraction to younger people; I agree that it borders on thoughtcrime, but the idea falls in line with the popular view about adult-child sexuality, therefore the reaction is not unexpected. The view is that people should stick to their own age range, and prosecuting someone in a case like you describe would be directly contra to that. If someone did try something like that, it wouldn't be long before someone threw out a headline like "Youngsters told to be attracted to older people", and turned the activist crowd firmly against the prosecutors of that case; the most common anti-pedophile (I'm using that term loosely, before anyone criticises me on that) argument people use goes along to lines of "they should be attracted to people their age, not taking advantage of kids X years younger than them", and a court ruling saying that it's wrong for a 15/16 year old to be in possession of pictures of their same-aged girlfriend, but not of someone in their mid-twenties would be tantamount to encouraging kids to be more sexually attracted to adults than to people their age, which is exactly the situation the average person on the street doesn't want.

The article linked seems to refer to child prostitution; he's talking about girls getting paid for giving strip-shows on webcam. I disagree with that poster in that I'm still skeptical that a jury would convict in such a case, the prosecution would have to make an argument about feeding some "black market" economy rather than anything to do with abuse, and I expect the defense would also appeal to human rights, claiming that its someone's right to do what they like with their own body as long as it harms no one, and that the state is in effect breaching the defendant's human rights (although the financial aspect would possible be an issue here). --135.196.27.62 (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Some places class even "doodles" as CP. Also " Abuse of the child occurs in the production of child pornography when sexual acts are photographed"? So raping toddlers is fine as long as you don't photograph it? Taking photos is the LEAST abusive part of CP (okay, no, watching it is. But taking photos is a close second). 128.146.46.2 (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That sentence is poor phrasing at best, deliberate trolling/vandalism/POV-pushing at worst; edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.85.22 (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above objections to the statements about always calling child porn, abuse. While it usually does, that is not always the case. As an extension, so is the discussion about lasting emotional effects. Let me provide an example. I am a child psychologist and I recently had two parents bring their 9 year old daughter to me. For her birthday, they gave her a video camera which she practically fell in love with and used constantly. About three months later the father found a disturbing video on it. Apparently she had recorded herself masturbating with a candle stick. Children experimenting in this fashion is not at all uncommon, though I admit this is the first time I have heard of one recording themselves. By ANY definition, even the most strict, this is explicit child pornography; but there is no rational argument that could be made calling this abuse. If someone took the video and put it online, that would be a different story, but thats not the case. Only two people have seen it and it was subsequently destroyed. So, again, while the vast majority is abusive, not all child pornography (even the most sexually explicit) is abuse, nor does is always cause emotional damage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.181.227 (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an isolated case to me. Of course, it's worth remembering that in a minority of girls puberty does begin at or even before that age, but in the majority of cases involving little girls in sexual situations, it's safe to assume that an adult was involved in production. There are exceptions, which is, in theory anyway, why we have judges.

Sadly, this is yet another expample of lazy lawmakers failing to write watertight legislation. From an acedemic standpoint, I can see what your issue is with that, however from a practical legal standpoint I doubt that anything like that (even if it did get onto the internet, as long as the parents wheren't involved) would ever get to court. If it did, there isn't a jury on Earth that would convict someone for that, and a counter-suit would probably be filed against the prosecutor for filing a malicious prosecution. --135.196.27.62 (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)