Talk:Child pornography/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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." [1] 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)

Child sexual abuse

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)

I find the following edits of user:Moon_light_shadow to be a bit fishy:[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] - 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)

---

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)

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

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)

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

'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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This section is arguably conspiracy to commit a crime if it means what it seems to mean. It should be deleted. Signed Timothy Scriven.

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)

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)

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)