Jump to content

Talk:Child pornography/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

the word('s) men / man.

The word('s) 'men' / 'man' are used in this article in places where it should be written 'offenders' 'people' '([child]porn)viewers' etc somebody should change the wording here so this article so it isn't biased against men.217.132.95.133 (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I clearly understand your point; however, given that 99.99% of offenders are indeed men, it seems unreasonable to twist the language around to include a minority so small as to be almost non-existant. Still, thanks for contributing, your effort is appreciated. Doc Tropics 18:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Theres actually a very sizable number of women charged with CP... that's just from my exp having a brother as a computer forensics person. there's definitely very few reports, and no studies that i've seen that broke down cases. i don't think you could say that it's 99.99%, as there are just no reports that I know of. So i don't think its too unreasonable. 20:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.240.114 (talk)
First of all, why is this guy being charged with vandalism? "99.99% of offenders are men" ??? Where in the world are you getting that number? That's easily shown to be false. I will list examples.
(1) Nudist colony photos, often taken by the child's mother. Yes those are legally classified as child pornography.
(2) Nude modelling photography of children, done in a studio, where the parents are present. Yes these are also legally classified as child pornography. In some cases the person holding the camera is the child's mother!
(3) The thousands of pictures of clothed so-called non-nude models all over the internet where the mother is not only involved but she regularly appears within the frame along with the child.
I could argue that the materials (2) and (3) are more prevalent on the internet than material showing sex acts with men. Do you want to argue with me about this? Where are you getting your numbers? Would you like to put your numbers to the test? Just as a rough estimation - I would hypothesize that the two largest sources of child pornography material in the world is drawn japanese lolicon plus the material created by the child modelling industry. I would suggest these kinds of materials trump "records of child abuse" both in number of files as well as in sheer accumulated data size. I would also suggest that these material far outstrip child abuse records in sheer number of websites that feature the material. Would anyone here like to test their numbers against mine? I am calling any and all of you to task on this. paros (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


I'm getting sick and tired of reading this article. We need to kick Jack-a-roe out of here. He has turned this place into nothing but propaganda and a sounding board for his own journalistic opinions. When real examples are given which contradict his editorializing, he marginalized them with his catch-all justification by saying "Oh well that example is such a small percentage." Jack-a-roe cannot give a single citation to a single legal document making any kind of reference to "a depiction of child abuse". Yet he continues to demand that is how it is defined! There is no academic or legal accuracy to what he posts here.

I think what this article needs to emphasize is that the laws in English-speaking nations (the UK-Australia-USA-Canada nexus) are no longer even considering any kind of abuse whatsoever. And it goes deeper than that now. The legal language defining child pornography no longer even makes references to what actually appears in the material. Rather they are tending towards definitions which are characterized by how the material is consumed by the end-consumer. The current laws in the UK are the most liberal in this extent. What their legal documents are doing now is that they go on for pages trying to build up arguments about how the person in possession of the material is handling it. Just to give an example; a single nude photograph of a child by Sally Mann will not get you charged with a crime. Visiting a website about nudist colonies a single time is not grounds for prosecution. However, if you show regular, repeated visits to a nudist website - that could be used as "evidence" that you were going there for pornographic reasons. Also, if you have 2 gigabytes (or so) of photos of nudist colonies, the court could use the sheer size of your stash as "evidence" that you were accumulating this for pornographic reasons. I could actually give citations to this. One citation I would include is the recent legislation in the UK involving so-called Extreme pornography. I invite anyone to read the legal document defining Extreme Pornography and you will see that my depiction of the laws in the UK above is accurate. paros (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your point about definitions, but sadly it is not a new thing. In fact, the issues you describe are redundant and possibly even moot points, given that practically anything of the kind is still covered (in the same vague, subjective way) by the obscene publications act. Granted, that act is hardly ever used nowadays, nor for that matter are child pornography laws enforced in the way that they could theoretically be, but it's a mentality that's been a typical of obscenity laws for a long time, probably best exemplified by the now infamous phrase "I'll know it when I see it". --135.196.27.62 (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
: And what's about the Musicvideos of Alizée or JoJo -- they are sexy Childs and they are legal. But are they porn? --Manuel-aa5 (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
No they are not; please refer to our own article on pornography. Did you perhaps mean to ask whether they are obscene? --135.196.27.62 (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Canada

There sould maybe be a special entry for Canada, since there was quite a bit of debate in the country about the tolerance for the practice in BC courts. Some politicians have even been attacked as pro-child pornography, especially members of the NDP and the Liberal Party. [1] [2] ADM (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that should go in the articles for the parties in question, because they are the main subject, not child pornography. In the same way I wouldn't expect the page on murder or terrorism to include discussions of inter-party politics on the issue in specific countries. Incidentally those news reports are from 2004, you may want to find something more recent. Ever heard the phrase "a week is a long time in politics"? ;-) --135.196.27.62 (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Causality

I've removed numerous references that implied causality with sex offending, which were not supported by the sources Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Unwarranted vandalism accusation

This is not vandalism. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Australian

The maximum penalty in Australia is not 10 years, this refers only to the state of Queensland's laws. In NSW and other states its 5 years for distributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.137.193 (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Dreadful article

Could someone please completely rewrite this article, better still start again from scratch. Wikipedia is NOT a propaganda vehicle. Someone is trying to make it so. If I want to read propaganda I go out and buy a daily newspaper. Get rid of this rubbish. Wikipedia should be setting the standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.143.61.142 (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Care to be more specific? There's been so many accusations of both pro- and anti-pedophile propaganda here over the years that I'm not even sure what side you're accusing and why. Articles like this do tend to attract a lot of POV-pushers, so the best thing to do is keep an eye out for any unsourced claims people try to add.
That said, this article is a hell of a lot better than it used to be. We no longer have blatantly falsified statistics (including percentages that summed to over 100%, I kid you not) scattered throughout the article in an attempt to back tenuous points, and there's been quite a crackdown on POV-implicit language. If you think you can rewrite it better, you're welcome to try, but as a general rule saying "this needs to be rewritten from scratch" without giving any constructive criticism or, better yet, a draft of the text you think it should be replaced with, doesn't ever get very far. --135.196.27.62 (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The big issue with this article is that the source it is quoting are very likely themselves wrong. There are also contradictions in the article: "At any one time there are estimated to be more than one million pornographic images of children on the Internet," and then "The United States Department of Justice estimates that pornographers have recorded the abuse of more than one million children in the United States alone". So they do take only one picture per children? Doesn't sound likely. Also when one can believe sources such as this, there is no child porn industry and certainly not one worth billions of dollar. I don't really have much of an idea how to fix this, as real data is hard to come by. Some numbers on how many people of that industry have been prosecuted and how many children have been freed would be interesting, as that would be real verifiable data, not some extrapolation. -- Grumbel (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The opening paragraphs of this article are extremely inflammatory and the rest of the article reads like propaganda. I suggest this version of the article be deleted or rolled back to an earlier version and locked from edits. --SoLowRockerMan (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Yap, also, it quotes ideological sources here, clearly a conflict of interest. 'According to this organisation bent to stopping child pornography it's a billion dollar industry', yah.. in any case, child porn is usually free and if it's not it's not really reliable to count it, I doubt the US federal tax bureau has a good record on nicely paid taxes and licenses over child porn entrepreneurship.
I personally think a rewrite should refrain from such things as stating US Law as some kind of universal fact. Child porn does not record child sexual abuse in all jurisdictions, as a lot of them have a lower age of consent than an 'age of consent to record consented sex'(???), for instance, in the Netherlands it's de jure 16 versus 18, which means that porn with seventeen year olds does not record child sexual abuse here. Also, I believe this holds for a lot of US states too. So it's clearly erroneous. I should be re-written from scratch with these guidelines in mind I think: 1: Clear differentiation between the legal case and the psychological/factual case. 2: No citations from either sources that are clearly pro ban or pro legalize (I myself am a supporter of complete free exchange of all information, so don't cite me.) 3: America is not the world. 4: Simply make a 'criticism' headline and restrain the term 'abuse' to that part and make it quite clear that it's not the statement of the article. The term 'abuse' is very much ill-defined. It's like saying that Mozart is greatest composer, no.. some authoritative sources hold him to be that. Rajakhr (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I would personally go for an opening resembling this:

Child pornography is both a legal and a social term referring in most incarnations to the visual recording of sexual acts involving children. Most jurisdictions have in some way or another a legal prohibition on either the production or spread of child pornography. The controversial nature of children and sex in most parts of the world make the definition of child pornography vary widely in different jurisdictions, with some holding that child pornography is simply the visual recording of sexual acts involving parties below the age of consent. And others holding different age limits for consent to sexual acts and partaking in pornography.

In both common usage and for research purposes, the word "child" in the phrase "child pornography" refers to prepubescent children, and does not refer to post-puberty teenagers. However, legal definitions of child pornography can refer to a wider range of material, including anyone under the legal age, or fictional images, according to jurisdiction[1], and enforcement of such can vary even more between jurisdictions. Most possessors of child pornography who are arrested are found to possess images of prepubescent children; possessors of pornographic images of post-puberty minors are less likely to be prosecuted, even though those images also fall within the statutes.[1]

The majority world consensus is that child pornography is a form of sexual abuse of children. However the controversial nature of the subject and the high moral prominence makes a scientific assessment difficult and often researches regarding the effects of various legal definitions of child pornography on the children involved are ultimately contradicting. Child pornography is viewed prominently but not exclusively by those meeting the medical criteria for the paraphilic disorder paedophilia.[2][3]

It's clear, neutral, all parties had their share, it uses only reliable sources and just shows the facts, not a view. Rajakhr (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I modified your suggestion slightly. I'm honestly not even sure what Wikipedia policy is on this anymore, but my assumption was that the main focus of this article was the law as it exists in the US. I know for example that in Europe cases involving only people over 15 (average age of consent I believe) are not generally persued unless charges of rape are brought by the victim. Producing commercial porn is a whole different can of worms, which stems mainly from the tangled mess of laws about contracts and financial agreement (which is why in some places all commercial porn models are aged 21 and up), but I've yet to hear of anyone getting prosecuted for a mutually consusual act. Things like "sexting" have never been considered a problem outside of the US, and even in the US are no typically persued. I think your point comes down to "legislation versus enforcement" argument again, which has been brought up several times before with sadly no satisfactory conclusion. --86.5.89.228 (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
And what exactly is that majority world "consensus"? I don't see the word legal anywhere in the title so I can only accept a general world view. Sure by a law definition it is defined as sexual abuse but then as US law is not the final authority there are different definitions for what is actually child pornography. The world view is actually just opening up another can of worms. Where a person is in an identifiable setting the general almost unanimous opinion is that it's abuse and those are the sources often quoted, but looking at forum talk in particular or anywhere in an anonymous setting there's usually a dramatic shift from the standard sources. Even if this wasn't the case there's still the definition and that doesn't just constitute the age. Sure most would agree that under 13 is prepubescent making for the child part but then there are actually people who differentiate between nudity, erotica, and pornography and people who don't so there goes the pornography part out the window again. It's hardly surprising, as someone said this is what happens when the law has banned even the research on a topic.
Funny how the pro-pedophile movements' memberships declined with an increased public awareness. Did they have a change of mind? Not a chance. It's impossible to get an unbiased statistic or popular opinion. Just leave the article as it is and let the anti and pro groups or whoever add what they want as long as it's verifiably sourced. If someone wants to add a newly exposed syndicate trading in abuse or a case of some over zealous authorities not acting in accordance with childrens best interest then who cares. Biofase (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Protect children at what cost?

The goal of prohibition of child porn is ostensibly to protect children. Nobody argues with protecting children, but people argue on and on about what is and isn't child porn. I want something more concrete. I would like to know what the cost of protecting children is. How much is spent? How many children are "saved"? How many adults are culled from civilized population and subjected to imprisonment and civil death in furtherance of this goal? How many children are culled from civilized population and subjected to imprisonment and civil death in furtherance of this goal when the laws are applied to them, like with the recent "sexting" scandals? I suspect that this is turning into a repeat of the war on drugs, with similarly flaccid results, but I wonder if anyone has any facts to show for sure one way or the other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.54.203 (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You're asking for reliable statistics, and sadly for the most part there are none. The number of children "saved" by police per year seems to vary wildly, which suggests either incompetance or very poor and inconsistent record-keeping. The only part of your question I can answer is the part about sexting: such cases very rarely get to court and are nearly always thrown out or reduced to some "civil disobedience" offense, with a mounth or so community service given to the people involved (and even that is increasingly unlikely since it's resulted in very bad publicity, and people have taken to counter-suing prosectors who try that).
It's mentioned briefly already, but it might be worth making a new section discussing the lack of reliable or verifiable statistics? --86.5.89.228 (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Erotica

Child porn only applies to images, right? Because I've seen many written stories involving children as young as five. Please cite an actual US law in your answer. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

While the word pornography probably more often refers to images, I think it may include written erotica as well. In regards to the law, that's likely going to vary on an individual basis. Even in the United States, the States often have different laws between the states, so unless you're talking Federal law it may even vary there. Tyciol (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Naturists and Child Pornography

How does law treat naturist movement in terms of possession and taping of nude male and female children supposedly enjoying nature. They often are found to be in company their parents and other guardians. They regulat picture themselves including children in nude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.79.97 (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal almost everywhere that naturism is legal as long as there is not an intent to create pornography. As a side note there was a man that took candid photos of naked children on the beach, he got convicted of misdemeanor invasion of privacy or something like that as most anti-cp laws require a photo to be posed to qualify so most pictures in a naturist setting would automatically be exempt. Biofase flame| stalk  17:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Swiss study

Would this be a good source for information? Or moreso, the study it is talking about, if there's a copy of said study that could be translated into English? Tyciol (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Added to the molestation section. Also changed the heading, correlation implies there is a determined link but contradiction in sources themselves say there isn't a clear one. Biofase flame| stalk  17:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Error in archiving of discussion!

Please note that the archives of this discussion suddenly jump from Archive_3 to Archive_10. This means that the two latest archives (10 & 11), which contain very valuable discussions, are currently orphaned!

Someone who knows how to fix these, please do it! 94.222.8.151 (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Somebody incorrectly configured the bot. Also increased the maximum archive size to 100k, it's usually 250k but since this doesn't get archived so much I think 100k is ok. Thanks for the heads-up. Biofase flame| stalk  04:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Pornography and child pornogrphy

I think a section may be dedicated to the reasons for special emphasis on child porn when pornography itself is not viewed as serious offence especially in the west. The social and legal background for this distinction culled out for child porn as opposed to porn in general.

The article fails to cover the treatment of child porn and porn in the middle east. How is pornography in general in middle east and eastern and non white countries? ANd how is child porn viewed by these countries? Is it viewed at par with porn or is it viewed as a form of aggravated offence and anti social behaviour?

This section important since child porn is a frequent topic in the western world in comparison with non western countries. Child pornography in european countries like france and nordic countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.79.97 (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure those issues are adequately and more extensively covered in the articles on sexual consent and the age of consent. Perhaps it would be worth mentioning briefly here, if just to link people to those articles. --86.5.85.22 (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
A link to child sexual abuse and the AoC articles is fine in terms of distinguishing child porn from adult porn; feel free to add refd material about the Middle East. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 03:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
you also feel free and add information on middle east to the article. This is because the article seems to be more of US centred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.77.183 (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Gay child pornography

The article ought to indicate to what extent the creation of child pornography is motivated by people of a homosexual orientation. Given that gay pornography is a prominent sector in pornography in general, it is quite probable that this causal relation also applies to the criminalized sector of child pornography. ADM (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please present reliable sources before further digression into this POV. -- Banjeboi 04:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a book here that mentions the use of child pornography by gay men. [3] ADM (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't support any of your statement. I don't think anyone disputes that some child pornographers are non-heterosexual. -- Banjeboi 05:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Saw someone got banned few years ago for asking this, but he did seem to be insisting on there being little girls. How about a picture of an FBI raid or something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.163.16 (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It would need to be clear from the picture that it was a raid due to child pornography and not something else. I can think of only two ways this would be possible - the first is that the child pornography would be visible, which the FBI (or equivalent organisation outside the USA) just wouldn't do and even if they did it wouldn't stand a chance of gaining consensus for display on Wikipedia (regardless of encyclopaedic merit or otherwise). The other way would be for it to be obvious that it is a picture of a notable raid for child pornography, and while this is theoretically possible I am not aware that such pictures exist (I am prepared to be proven wrong though). Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Was thinking like a well-known pedophile getting caught. Like picture, from article article.
Dunno, was just an idea, because the article looks too "clinical", as in doesn't really get the point accross. Saying that, I've just noticed that a lot of articles actually don't have pictures at all.[4], [5],... But I do think that an example of a nutorious case where people got arrested shouldn't hurt. Just my oppinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.163.16 (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Well we could only use that particular photo as fair use and I don't think (but I'm no expert) that fair use would apply on an article that wasn't significantly about him (and the current thinking around the biographies of living people policy seems to be that fair use photos of living people are almost never acceptable). I see your point about images though, and I agree it could do with one or more, but I don't think a photograph of a specific child pornographer would appropriate outside of a section here about them specifically - and that section would need to justify its existence in a general article. Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Record of child sexual abuse

Correct me if im wrong but doesnt legal definition in the US (or some of the states) cover any images depicting nude children with the intent of pornography as child porn, I remember reading about a guy who was put on trial for having two thumbnail images on his computer that showed nude underage persons(his last name was vosbergh or something. Ill check out the five (that many is kind of suspicious to me) sources for this.Scotty Zebulon (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

could you quote/ref the phrase(s) you're talking about? (assuming its something in the article) --vike (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Strange statement about accessing without evidence

In the United Kingdom, it is illegal to take, make, distribute, show or possess an indecent image of a child. Accessing an indecent image is considered to be "making" the image, meaning that a defendant can be charged under the Protection of Children Act if they accessed an image without saving it.

I fail to see how it can be shown that someone accessed an image if they didn't save it. Unless they were "browsing" it in which case their browser automatically saved it. In either case a saved or recovered image has to exist for evidence as isp logs or even surveilance are not enough to convict or even lawfully arrest a person. Biofase flame| stalk  17:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. I reviewed the ref and rewrote that sentence; the version you quoted was essentially based on an original interpretation. Hope this helped. Doc Tropics 18:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks a lot better now. Obviously the confusion was with the last paragraph in the source which I assume simply takes for granted a copy must first exist for it to be viewed and didn't really imply it can be viewed without a copy being made. Biofase flame| stalk  01:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

(Preferred) Terminology

i have heard in lectures and read in some texts (mostly non-english) that people battling this issue would prefer a term like "documentation of child sexual abuse" (or similar), can anyone confirm/correct this and if so i think it could be significant enough to mention in the article.. any thoughts? --vike (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you indicate exactly what should be termed "documentation of child sexual abuse"? Else it may just be me being daft again. Biofase flame| stalk  16:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm also unclear on what the term should specifically be applied to. Possibly we're having a double-daftness bonus day? Is "Documentation" perhaps similar to contemporary American usage of "alleged" when refering to unproved accusations? Doc Tropics 16:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Simple Wikipedia Article

I found myself rewriting the beginning of the simple.wikipedia.org article on the subject - RFC (specifically around the ref:s) and please expand --vike (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Child pornography laws

Due to ADM's new flurry of spinoff "in location" articles, I think it would be appropriate to redirect this to Child pornography#Legal status since that's where the list of legal issues is, with links to those regions which have articles at the moment. If anyone seconds that then please take the initiative, as I have agreed not to create them anymore. Tyciol (talk) 06:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that's a good idea so I've created it. That section could probably do with a short (couple of sentences) introduction saying something like the laws vary considerably around the world. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation 44 not realible

The citation ends up leading to a very unreliable Internet Watch Foundation annual report- which actually only says how many more sites were reported to them, which logically would go up rapidly as they grew, rather than the assumption that none of these sites existed in the first place and thus the industry must be expanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.163.181.104 (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Under the legal status, subsection for Philippines, the description does not follow the convention of explaining the current legal status in that country. Instead it just talks about some incidents in the 1970's by american GI's. Does not seem very precise or on topic for the stated subsection. I'd recommend it be rewritten.--68.51.72.144 (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

1989 Source is not reliable

Just because a piece of data appeared in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't mean it's automatically a reliable source. For example, the data that was published saying that post-pubescent children images tend not to be prosecuted is cited by Wells Finkelhor, et al. from a paper published in 1989. It is unacceptable to report in an encyclopedia article information that was gathered twenty years ago. It's obvious child pornography has changed vastly since then. Please delete this statement until you find updated info.

This brings up another point. Yes Final Report said child pornography is child rape and is child sexual abuse. No one has still proved that either Final Report or the statement that child pornography is child rape is an objective point of view. Carbon copying that into an article and slapping on citation marks doesn't make it objective. True it is commonly associated as child sexual abuse and the visual evidence of rape. That is not what either Final Report or Mr. Tate said and the artile makes no mention to either of them. Further, it is already certain that child porn cannot be definitively and only the visual depictions of child rape. Read any legal definition of child porn, nowhere will you find where it says it must include nonconsent or rape of any kind.

Pedophiles are not the only collectors of child pornography. Again with the reliable sources. This is inaccurate. Pedophilia refers to an adult attraction to pre-pubescent children. Child pornography encompasses generally up to adolescence. An adult or middle aged man attracted to a 15 year old girl is not a pedophile, or else this country is full of perverts. And does it occur to anyone that teenagers are interested in seeing other teenagers naked? Please don't just take as true because you saw it in a newspaper or journal, especially with this already heavily biased topic in today's age. Use your judgment whether this belongs in an encyclopedia; you're supplying the rest of the world with this information so be as accurate as possible please.

However, I am not going to change it as I see fit without discussion with the community as a show of respect to the articles' contributors, and I am open to persuasion. Please do share your thoughts. Jerrykim (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As a new editor, you've chosen a difficult topic to get started. Have you read the Wikipedia core policies? If not, please check out these pages: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research and Consensus and the related guideline for Reliable sources.
Regarding your various comments... "Just because a piece of data appeared in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't mean it's automatically a reliable source." - No, that's backwards. Generally, peer-reviewed journals are the most reliable sources for use in Wikipedia (you'll find info about that in the policies).
"that post-pubescent children images tend not to be prosecuted is cited by Wells Finkelhor, et al. from a paper published in 1989" - no, that information is from the 2007 paper; the information they attribute to the 1989 paper is the next sentence in the source, "that adolescent victims of sex crimes generally elicit less sympathy than younger children." But even if that weren't the case, unless the peer-reviewed 1989 paper has been refuted more recently, there is nothing to imply it is not still reliable, plus its reliability is reinforced by its citation in the 2007 journal.
" No one has still proved that either Final Report or the statement that child pornography is child rape is an objective point of view." The term "Child rape" is not used in the article currently, and Final Report is not in the references of the article, so why are you mentioning those here? You acknowledge that CP "is commonly associated as child sexual abuse", and you're right about that - at least six references support its definition as a visual record of child sexual abuse, and countless more could be added because that's the widely accepted definition. Legal definitions in statutes are functional and use different terminology, but are based on that same concept as can be seen in the quoted definition from Interpol. It could be useful to add the specific legal definitions for each jurisdiction, with sources, in the section on laws.
"Pedophiles are not the only collectors of child pornography. Again with the reliable sources. This is inaccurate." Yes, as you said, "Again with the reliable sources." - read the verifiability policy. The references state that child pornography is collected by pedophiles and even go into detail about types of collections and how they are organized. If you have reliable sources that support the idea that others also collect child pornography, you are welcome to add that information with those new sources.
"does it occur to anyone that teenagers are interested in seeing other teenagers naked?" - Your rhetorical question applies to the outer age limits that are affected by the child pornography laws. As noted in the sources, most of this topic is about prepubescent children. There could be a section in the article discussing how the CP laws affect those older minors who are not children in a biological sense, while they are still not considered adults under the law. I'm sure information can be found in sources to support a section about those issues. You are welcome to add it if you like, without undue weight, in such a way that it does not obscure the central content of the topic. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
About this No, that's backwards. Generally, peer-reviewed journals are the most reliable sources for use in Wikipedia (you'll find info about that in the policies). - What I meant was just because the author makes a reference to it, doesn't mean it's reputable. What the author actually claims is different and that can be cited. For example, the author Peter J. King makes references this quotation by a critic Tim Tate: "Child pornography [...] is not pornography in any real sense: simply the evidence – recorded on film or video-tape – of serious sexual assaults on young children” ("Ethical Theory & Moral Practice" June 2008, Vol. 11 Issue 3, p327-345, 19p) which sounds awfully familiar to the quotation referenced in one of the citations to support the statement that said child pornography is the evidence of child sexual abuse. The author's claim was different from the quote but Tate's statement does appear in the article. It doesn't mean I can cite it as reputable.
About the 2007 article, here is what it said:
Child pornography possessors may use child pornography to validate their sexual interest in children, to groom children and lower their inhibitions, or to blackmail victims or other offendersIt makes no mention on the particular class of persons who collect cp. So it is not fair to say only pedophiles do. If another source claiming to give info about cp and says specifically "pedophiles collect child porn for these reasons. . ." it can be assumed they have the focus in mind of either either denouncing pedophiles or they happen to speak about one particular area of child pornography, namely that which concerns pre-pubescent children, ignoring the rest. You say that this article does that. I argue that this is misleading to the public who comes here and tries to find information on cp and leaves with the impression that cp concerns (as it makes intuitively sense) only pre-pubescent children. It should be stated in the introduction that Even so, it would be inclusive language to begin with. Anyone can see that. Obviously the reader can assume most people who do collect cp are pedophiles; it's not the article's job to point that out.- Jerrykim (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not seeing your point. Yes, there are over-zealous prosecutors who will try to test a law to its limits in an effort to raise conviction statistics, there always have been, some of the more common exaqmples being technicalities in theft and traffic laws. But those, especially in the context of an article like this, are a tiny minority of cases, and usually end up involving out-of-court settlements or counter-suits. Is it really Wikipedia's job to cover this and every other absurd interpretation of laws that ends up trialed by attourneys and police officers desperate to make a name for themselves? If anything, a more general discussion of that might find a place in the Criminal law or US legal system articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.87.48 (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
It is funny how you call that absurd. It definitely wasn't thought absurd when it happened a few years ago. It also took little consideration when someone brought up the example here in the discussion (before it was vastly transformed) about a 15-year old girl getting arrested for her own pictures. Rather, they continued to define it as abusive images of persons under a certain age, no matter what. It is Wikipedia's job to cover what child pornography as a whole represents. My point mainly is this - there is no real reason to restrict the general contents of this article to those images that portray sexually abusive images of children. That is not the definition of child pornography. I realize Wikipedia has explained the difference between a technical definition and a common one. I disagree between the distinction. The "common definition" is a more or less observable phenomenon and is really due to ignorance of the age of consent. No one really thinks of a 17-year old as a child but a sexually explicit photo of him or her would be considered child pornographic. Why only mention this in a subsection? There is no technical part of child pornography, it's all encompassing to a certain age, which happens generally to be 18, in the U.S. at least. Further, an adult can solicit sexually explicit activities from a 17 year old and it will be counted as child abuse. This is not a minor happening, it comprises a major portion of child explotation and sexual abuse crimes. Please get rid of the "child pornography" definition as "abusive images" please. It is clearly not only abusive images but also all that content which the law happens to proscribe. And labeling it as only abusive images simply shows that you mean to label child pornography as those types of images that this article is concerned about. Simply, I am asking not to limit the article's scope to what child pornography currently or really is, but what it can be. You say a 17 year old's naked photo would be technically child pornographic, but it is not child abusive really. Yet you define child pornography as the abusive images of children. Either that 17-year old's photo is child pornographic and abusive or it's none; you can't have it both ways.
Fringe cases get a lot of reporting, but just aren't representative of things as a whole. Of course many laws are poorly written and can be exploited by prosecutors, I'm sure you've all heard of ridiculous assault charges being made against people; so perhaps we should also change the article on Assault to read "Assault is a crime of violence against another person, and also includes breathing too heavily in someone's direction, giving someone an unsolicited glance, cutting past someone in a queue....", etc? Yes. we've all read about these kind of absurd happenings, especially in local news, but including them in the article would be pedantic and misleading since that's not what the vast majority of assault cases are. In most instances like those the case gets thrown out or settled with a cheap plea bargain involving a fine or community service.
The fact is, 15 year olds don't routinely get arrested for CP, you only need to consider the number of pornographic images and videos depicting girls aged 14-18 which can be easily found all over the Internet to see that (and let's not kid ourselves, there are a lot). Plus in this case we're talking about a loophole that exists only in US law, which doesn't fit too nicely with Wikipedia's worldworde perspective rule. Anon346 (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

See alsos

I've just removed the addition of various organisations such as the FBI and United States Postal Inspection Service from the See also section. My reason for doing this is two-fold:

  • Firstly they are not directly related to the subject of child pornography. While dealing with child pornography is part of their remit, it is only one of many things and a reader following the link to the articles is not going to learn anything significant about child pornography or a similar issue. If we followed the logic of adding links to such articles then a goodly proportion of the articles on Wikipedia would have a link to them, watering down the see alsos drastically.
  • Secondly, if we add American organisations like the FBI, then we really need to add the equivalent organisations in the UK, Canada, Australia, Chilie, France, Germany, Spain, Mexico, Greenland, ... which is clearly not practical.

If you want something like that, then I think what would best would be a separate "List of agencies that deal with child pornography" (but probably with a better title) split into sections about organisations that carry out raids, organisations that track and trace child pornographers, organisations that intercept it, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with both points. Regarding the second point, a separate list article like that could be useful, there are many such agencies that could be included. But there are too many of them to include them all in this article's see-also section. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If a website contains direct links to a child porn website, but the linking site doesn't host it itself, is it still illegal to be linking directly to the illegal sick site?--201.166.62.107 (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I would hope so, given that it's illegal for sites to link to places hosting copyrigted content. But then again, this wouldn't be the first time the police displayed this kind of double-standard. Anon346 (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't give legal advice, and even if it did I am not a lawyer, so this isn't really the right place to be asking. As I understand it however it depends on which jurisdictions the linking site comes under whether it would be illegal or not. I'd guess that in places where it is illegal to link to sites that host child porn (if there are any) that a prosecution would need to show that the link was added with the knowledge that the destination site hosted child pornography. In the UK, I suspect that the linking site and the hosting site would both be added to the Internet Watch Foundation's blacklist, but if neither were hosted in the UK then I don't think UK courts would have jurisdiction. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
No, the IWF specifically says it only blacklists sites that host content. Anon346 (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
In my knowledge it is illegal not to report "child abuse" when you are aware of its happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.1.121 (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Permanent semi-protection

To stop a repetition of the nauseating vandalism we saw today, I have requested permanent semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Child_pornography. If you have views, please express them there. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism potential

/b/ are coming after us... see this.--Strabismus (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But United States of America won. It said "doubles decides". -GTBacchus(talk) 01:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I think United States of America is semi-protected so they're going after CP. Bfootdav (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Definition of child pornography

The lede of this article leaves out the important point that many countries consider "child pornography" to not only constitute images involving children but also written material depicting child abuse. This is not true in the United States but it can be confusing when you read for example the Canadian press and they talk about "written child pornography." I propose the lede of this article be modified to note the variation. Rehoboam (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Create new section: proposed changes to laws

Recently I discovered a page called Criticism of child pornography laws that at first glance appeared to be a content fork, but later I agreed with the author that many of the views should be stored on their own page to avoid undue weight of fringe views on the main page.

However, it also came to my attention that such facts as that a Canadian provincial court struck down laws against possession of child pornography, and some countries and states have considered lowering the age at which it is defined or legalizing sexting between teens, were kicked out of the article as fringe by Jack-A-Roe. These do not strike me as fringe. I think the article above should be reserved mainly for true fringe material like anarchist philosophy, fringe political parties, and individual opinions. Rehoboam (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the actions of a such mainstream organsiations as a Canadian provincial court should not simply be dismissed as "fringe", and deserve coverage somewhere. I think that a section as you propose would be better at Laws regarding child pornography with just a small summary here. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
That text was removed because it was not accurate, not because it was fringe. Other sentences in that section that were fringe, but the info about the court case was simply wrong.
Not only did the court in that case not strike down laws against child pornography, the accused was convicted for possession of the photos. Only one portion of the case was thrown out by Justice Shaw under his ruling that the defendent's self-written stories of adult-child sexual activity did not meet the definition of child pornography because they were written words that did not counsel or advocate the commission of crimes against children. page 92 Not much later, in R. v. Sharpe, even that limited part of the ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada.
This is far too small and specific of an incident for the main article on child pornography, it's inclusion would be undue weight for a one-event, quickly overturned ruling in one case. It could be useful in the Canada section of Laws regarding child pornography, but only if the information is presented accurately and does not give the impression that there was any weakening of the laws in Canada in this regard. The end result was the opposite of that - that the laws were made stronger, because the Supreme Court's ruling when it overturned the lower court has since been used with regard other non-photographic works such as graphic novels or pseudo-photographs. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I am confused. I briefly looked at the court ruling and it clearly invalidates a subsection on possession. I.e.,
As s-s.(4) is in violation of s.2(b) of the Charter and is not justified under s.1, s-s.(4) must be and is declared void.
However the secondary source you provide states:
Sharpe was acquitted of charges relating to his own writing but could not escape conviction on possession and possession for the purposes of distribution of the photographs.
Clearly he was convicted on the basis of intending to distribute, but the ruling itself appears to state explicitly that laws against simple possession are void and that this is why the two other charges were dropped. There appears to be a conflict between sources.
I also found this page which states that the laws were indeed struck down.
Finally there is also the opinion of the Supreme Court to consider that reversed the judgement: they state that the lower court did strike down the entire law. From these and other sources I conclude that the law against possession was indeed struck down and had a real legal consequence in British Columbia until its reversal. Also there was a span of over a year between the two rulings when this decriminalization remained in effect. I find it difficult to believe that is insignificant even though you are right that the final outcome needs to be made very clear. Rehoboam (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thryduulf, since this page currently has no section on laws in general, I now see that it would be at least premature to make a whole section on proposed changes to laws. Hence I change my proposal to making a section on national laws that would be summary of Laws regarding child pornography. This may not necessarily include the fact on Canada since it should be a high-level summary.
By the way, the statement that "Child pornography is illegal in most countries" in the lede is overly vague as it does not distinguish between possession and creation. If applied to possession it is wrong according to a study mentioned on this page (note 70) and a report from a child advocacy group that expresses "shock" at the lack of specific criminal laws in most nations (note 71). Someone should fix this. Rehoboam (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
A lack of specific laws doesn't mean it is not illegal. For example if all pornography is illegal, there is no need to specifically legislate against child pornography. In other countries it might come under child abuse legislation. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
That is no doubt true. However the title of the study is still "Child Pornography Not a Crime in Most Countries." I can hardly think of a more urgent way to make the statement. Unless there is some contradictory result I think their conclusion ought to be in the lede instead of the opposite one, though with some qualification like "Study X found no specific laws in most countries, however if all pornography is criminalized there is no need for specific laws."
I tried to see what note 3 was talking about under section International Law. On page 12 (not page 11 as listed) of the source I find a statement that "In most cases, possession is also criminalized by prison sentences" but this seems to mean in Western societies. Rehoboam (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
As for what consititutes "fringe" cases, things that both make up a small minority of charges, and go upunished/downgraded/dropped altogether even when they do come to court, are what I'd consider fringe cases, and it's fairy logical tha any opinions reating to such cases would fall into the same category. Zaphod 0210 (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Copine scale

Apparently a new user had started an article on the Copine scale back in Oct. 2007. The article has had a few revision since then needed a lot of work. I've started revamping it and trying to verify the information as well as find new sources. I added a wikilink and further information link from the appropiate places in this article as well. Please check out this page and help out where you can. Thanks, Stillwaterising (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There is an error with the COPINE scale that needs correction. Due to the semi-protected nature of the article, I believe I'm unable to make the change. It's quite minor but important. In its current state this section claims, "In the late 1990s, the COPINE project...developed a typology to categorize child abuse images for use in both research and law enforcement". However, this is not correct. It would be much more accurate to say, "In the late 1990s, the COPINE project...developed a typology to categorize images of children found in pedophile picture collections, for use in both research and law enforcement". The wording that I have chosen is quite close to what Taylor et al used in the Police Journal when they first proposed the scale. The COPINE scale clearly extends beyond what could be thought of as 'child abuse images' so it is pertinent to make this correction. Someone please amend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.204.197 (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Nudist photos and videos

I think this section merits inclusion but not in its present form. Of the five references used, two are from companies that sell nudist material (=POV), one is from a blog, one is from a nudist website, and the one semi-good one looks like actual newspaper articles copy'n'pasted to a general activist website that don't seem to actually support anything said in the section. I think there's information in some of those links that might be useful in finding good sources to support the section but as it stands now I don't think they quite cut it. And then there's the line "Some nudists believe that nudism can reduce the demand for pornography." What does it matter to Wikipedia what "some nudists" believe? We need reliable sources for that kind of claim not opinions from non-notable people. SQGibbon (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right, none of those are reliable sources, and they don't support the text. Even the one source that is a convenience link with what appear to be actual newspaper stories reports the opposite of what the text of the section states. Section deleted. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok your right about the "Some Nudists" line. But it seems that nudist websites would be a reliable source for the topic of nudist photos,Nudist articles on wikipedia use nudist websites as sources and talk about nudist(POV).Remember I said the creators say the material is legal, the text it's self makes no such claim. I hope other editors can help me improve this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlc1990 2 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Can this article finally be re-written?

Can after many years people just stop the hysteria and simply re-write this article to:

  • Give the history of child pornography, including the history of term
    • How the definition changed and how in some countries ages changed recently
  • Describe the different legal contexts of it in different countries
  • Stop using words like 'abuse' which are political buzzwords that are used for their load not their meaning, the word abuse has NO technical meaning, avoid it in favour of descriptive terms.
  • Give the opinion of child pronography from prominent sources, and clearly say whose opinions these are instead of cherry picking some opinions as absolutes.
  • Come with some numbers, statistics, but please, only from neutral sources, no pro paedophile groups, and no moral hysteria lobby groups

And that should be enough, this is article is one big moral scaring campaign. Anti child porn activist sites are NOT neutral and cannot be used as sources except in sections that are there to offer different perspectives, they can CERTAINLY not be used in the heading of an article to establish absolute facts.

This article has NO informative basis for people who are seriously out to find the facts on child pornography, this article is a ideological campaign to stop child pornography, that's not what Wikipedia is for.Rajakhr (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Effect of banning/legalizing simulated child pornography on the child porn industry

I strongly suspect that bans on simulated child pornography are meant to protect the child porn industry from cut-rate competition, just as bans on sale of "look-alike substances" are meant to protect drug dealers from the disruption that would be caused by people selling oregano and baby powder. It seems like there ought to be some good studies available by now to investigate this, because several countries have abruptly changed the legal status of simulated child pornography, and the number of children abused for porn production should be measurable. But are there any such data available? Wnt (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC) I didn't know that child pornography was this bad and now I know the horrors kids go through--209.33.34.176 (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hogwash

Instead of an honest exploration of the issue/social context of the term, this article seems to be a collection of factoids and references gleaned from the popular media and powerful intellectual fringe who campaign endlessly to inflate the "problem" of "child pornography" and thus their own dependent industries.

Visitors to Wikipedia are surely wanting fresh information based on scholarly consensus, and not the usual, stale advocacy "science" one may find in the mainstream media/victim literature/used to prop up consensus morality. 86.146.217.177 (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you've read so widely and gained such an enlightened perspective about the situation, would you please add references to these scholarly sources for the benefit of this article and the public interest? Wnt (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
It was just a commentary, not a suggestion that I may be able to help. I don't think there would be scope for a (lasting) revision along the lines I identified, and thus any action would be futile. Hence the term "hogwash" ... this article seems to have fallen into the hands of those advocates it sets out to appease, and from a public relations perspective, what interest does Wales have in putting that right?
Lets face it, anybody who puts about anything other than the usual superstitious and uninformed tough talk and "telepathic" abuse theorizing on this topic is pretty much nailed down as a child pornographer and self-rationalising Paedophile. Legitimite scholars would not be protected from those perceptions at Wikipedia - the subject is too emotive. 86.146.217.177 (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Policy discussion at Wikimedia Commons - your input could help

There's been discussion of a policy Commons:Commons:sexual content, which seeks (among other things) to better address the possibility that child pornography might be uploaded to the site. But the situation is more complicated than one would think, because it turns out for example that a naked child usually isn't child pornography yet a clothed child can be, and some isolated prosecutions have even been made for things like "sexting" and making diary entries. It is difficult to discern where sporadic prosecution ends and one-of-a-kind injustices begin. Those familiar with these issues may be able to point out important issues. Wnt (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Airing the subject

I read the article for the first time today and I was horrified beyond measure. This is surely the worst crime imaginable. No-one ever talks about this subject but we should, we really should. It's not going to go away if we ignore it.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 20:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

reason for image removal

It violates Wikipedia:No original research in that it introduces unpublished ideas or arguments. The claim that that image would be in the in the posing category nowadays (and for that matter was acceptable when taken) lack citations.©Geni 00:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

True, but would you accept the image if it merely said 'A nude child'? Christopher Connor (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Nope because you would be introducing the unpublished idea/argument that said image was in some way related to child pornography.©Geni 00:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
We have the Copine Scale. Might not the picture match any of the ten criteria (and hence be related in some way to child pornography)? Christopher Connor (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
That would be introducing unpublished idea/arguments.©Geni 00:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
To some people, it wouldn't seem like a wild leap of faith to say that that image was related to child pornography. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Thats not really relivant.©Geni 01:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This is mightily disingenuous. By your argument, we could go through and remove the majority of images on the project. For example, a picture of a human would need a citation saying it is a human; same for the colour red. If we had a picture and a reliable source said it was some number on the copine scale (and wasn't illegal), would you then deem it appropriate to include it on this article? Christopher Connor (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
That would have to be adressed on a case by case basis.©Geni 02:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOR clearly applies to text, not images. The descriptive text needs work, but the image is valid....as far as that goes. Does it, or does it not actually cross the line into child-porn? If so, we clearly can't use it; if not, it's probably a good example. Doc Tropics 02:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It does apply to images. It specificaly says that they may not "introduce unpublished ideas or arguments".©Geni 16:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Geni's correct that WP:NOR applies. WP:V applies also. Without a verifiable reliable source indicating how the image is relevant in the context of this topic, the image does not belong in the article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Underlining definition

This article is mostly assuming child pornography is directly tied to child abuse or prostitution. Pornography has existed since before the camera was invented and does not necessarily involve "real sex" immediately behind it. It's any representation which evidently intends to elicit a sexual response, as the main function. Just check the article on pornography. The article says in some paragraph that "some people" think it may include material not based on reality, but I'm inclined to say it should be the other way around. In another section it says some legislators or media workers have started using other terms for what the article is calling child pornography, precisely because they had the definition of pornography in mind and they wanted to highlight the fact that some child was being abused and not just that the material was sexually explicit and contained depictions of children involved. The article should mention that sometimes child pornography is meant to imply both pornography and abuse. After all, both aspects may have legal implications. Child pornography based on child prostitution or abuse is liable to both obscenity and sexual abuse laws, and not only the former. Who is like God? (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. Feel free to change the article accordingly, I'd say.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
No, the comment from Who is like God? is incorrect, the article is not "assuming" anything. The comment above is an editor's personal position statement that cites no sources. The definitions in the article re based on verifiable reliable sources. The reason the article connects child abuse with child pornography is that the sources state clearly that children are abused in the production of child pornography. There are exceptions such as simulated photos, but those are small in prevalence, and must not be presented with undue weight. The point is, the material described by Who is like God? as "sexually explicit and contained depictions of children involved" cannot exist without an incident of child sexual abuse, both in actual fact and as stated in reliable sources. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


take down this whole page its sick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.19.108 (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What a ridiculous comment! I agree that the subject matter is revolting but you can't remove an article because of that! SmokeyTheCat 07:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Housekeeping

The initial reference to NCMEC should be linked to the Nation Center for Missing and Exploited Children page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Missing_and_Exploited_Children. The acronym is currently introduced without context. Can someone with edit rights fix this? (Small issue, but it annoys me.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.222.161 (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. I logged on to make the same change before realising locked status Asmoe (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

definiton (record of abuse)

Child pornography refers to images or films (also known as child abuse images[1][2][3]) and in some cases writings[3][4][5] depicting sexually explicit activities involving a child; as such, child pornography is a record of child sexual abuse.[6][7][8][9][10][11] Abuse of the child occurs during the sexual acts which are recorded in the production of child pornography,[6][7][9][10][11][12][13] and several professors of psychology state that memories of the abuse are maintained as long as visual records exist, are accessed, and are "exploited perversely."[11][12] -Top of the article

This seems to be saying that all child pornography is record of sexual abuse. I know that at least in the US, images depicting children naked are considered child pornography, even if the children were not involved in sexually explicit activities. Perhaps the summary up top should be more general, with different specific definitions listed? 69.144.20.148 (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Not to be rude, but mere nudity doesn't constitute legal child pornography in the U.S. I supposed you could make a case for child nudity as a way the term is used in slang or even as a common perception, but not as a legal term. Wickedjacob (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

CP is not legal in a lot of countryes, but if you think about it, thats the exact reason of why its so popular (talk)

billion-dollar market

Right in the beginning of the article the reader is confronted with the thesis, that there is a multi billion market for child pornography. There are woping 7 references to support this, creating the impression of this beeing a proven fact.

Two years ago I would have believed this, but last year there was a discussion about fighting child pornography in Germany, where the government claimed the existence of a "multi-billion euro" market. This was discussed in public and the result was - there is no evidence to support this claim but there is some evidence against it. Of course there is a market and there is no doubt that there is money made by selling child pornography on the internet but the dimension is not there.

The german government refered to numbers by the UN and the IWF, but those were not created using a methodology suitable to estimate this market (the methodology was basically "guessing").

Because of this lack of evidence, there is a government funded study running on the university of hannover. This study collects information from police to investigate the structure of the child pornography market. The study is not completed yet. Arnd Hueneke who leads it is cited in spring 2010 (http://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/Deja-vu-971943.html) to dispute the existence of such a market.

I have also reviewed the references:

  • [17] is a news article, which refers to a 100% dubious source which doesn't carry the information anymore
  • [18-19] are news articles, which make claims without sources
  • [20] is a book, which refers to the "Department of Justice" making a claim about a 3 billion market.
  • [21] is a book, which provides no source for its "multi-billion dollar" claim. The rest of the book provides lots of references and statistics but I have not found one supporting the thesis
  • [22] is a book, which is dubious because it is 18 years old. This is far before the WWW
  • [23] is a book that refers to "recent estimates"

Summary on the references:

  • Sources 17-19, 21 and 23 make claims on this topic without source. While 21 and 23 are books with enough credit, there are no cues, that there authors have any specific knowledge for there statements on this topic. The impression is that this statements were made as platitudes. This is for sure not enough to be a wikipedia source in this case. Those references should be deleted.
  • Source 22 I could not read, but I think the reference should be removed unless someone can comment on the contents
  • Source 21 is refering to the "Department of Justice". This book has abviously no value as a source if the original source from the "Department of Justice" could be found. Unfortunately I could not find it using google. I did find some sites referencing the "Department of Justice" with either 3 billion or 20 billion dollar market.

On the Department of Justice home page there was only this article ("Child pornography on the internet", http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/ResourceDetail.aspx?RID=27). This article says, that the problem is "hard to estimate" and the other numbers mentioned would not support any multi-billion dollar claim.

Summary of the comment:
I propose to either remove this thesis completely or at least to present it in a way, which does not create the impression of beeing a scintific fact supported by 7(!) valueable sources.

Naaram (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for for your excellent and rigorous research, Naaram. You have convinced me and I support your proposal. Herostratus (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I hope, that someone can change the page as I don't have the requiered 10 edits so far. Naaram (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, good luck getting that past the zealots who have commandeered this article. Try making even the minor change from "Child pornography is a multi-billion[...]" to "Child pornography is estimated to be a multi-billion[...]". Try adding the University of Hannover source to sources 17-23. I guarantee that it won't be long before one of the resident moral crusaders shows up to revert your edit, claiming that any source apart from the ones he's cherry-picked is "fringe", and that including any viewpoint that doesn't support his mission is "giving undue weight" (their mission, in case you hadn't already guessed, is not writing a factual, dispassionate encyclopedia article). Then try engaging them in a debate and you will be branded a pedophile who is trying to rationalise his behaviour.
The CP article is a good illustration of a fundamental flaw of Wikipedia: Wikipedia does not care about empirical evidence. All that Wikipedia cares about is this vague concept of "verifiability", even if it contradicts empirical evidence. Here, we do not even attempt pursuing an ideal as outdated as ... the truth (gasp!). The problem is, if some source that has been deemed authoritative enough makes a multi-billion dollar claim, then Wikipedia will report this multi-billion figure as fact. Period. Even if the source has quite blatantly pulled the figure out of their behind. And even if the source itself admits to this. The fact that most sources who study this subject have an agenda and irrational zeal of their own only makes things worse. --TheChatteringClasses (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The whole article seems to have a particular bias, but memorable "gems" like this are the icing on the cake. The idea child pornography is a "$20 billion dollar industry" seems unlikely to me, even from a common sense point of view. Given the evidence presented here, I would like to add another vote to suggest this statement requires immediate attention, and possibly stronger security on the article. --Gnathan87 (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
another (very well referenced) source, which tracks the sources of the "billion-dollar", "fastest growing" and "20% of internet porn" claims. http://libertus.net/censor/resources/statistics-laundering.html 202.76.179.34 (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Thankk you for the link, but it does not seem to change the article. --Naaram (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


There is also a later line: "The production of child pornography has become very profitable and is no longer limited to paedophiles" which references only an opinion piece written by some random attorney.

More accurate:

"The Roth Commission also determined that there was no evidence for the existence of large underground networks of commercial traders, despite the claims regularly made in the media and some official documents. Child pornography was made almost exclusively for private use by the makers:

The fact is that the overwhelming majority of child pornography seized in arrests made in the United States has not been produced or distributed for profit."

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_2_1.htm

The report it references is quite dated (http://www.communitydefense.org/lawlibrary/agreport.html), but without real evidence to attest to the distribution of child pornography becoming "very profitable" since then, this line should not be allowed to remain.

The closest thing in recent times to commercial child pornography production and distribution were the modeling sites such as LS Models which just barely qualified as illegal in some jurisdictions. --70.180.165.244 (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Border Between Child Pornography and Regular Pornography

I'm sorry if the article already has this information, but what is the age division between child pornography and regular pornography? Is it a fixed age, or varies by country, or got to do how the subject is decipted (ie. A 17-year old posing as an adult is consider legal while a 18-year old posing as a 15-year old is illegal). --71.149.142.183 (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The US and UN define it as 18. Germany defined it as 16 up until a while ago but changed it to 18. Some nations just don't have laws about it or ban all pornography. K. the Surveyor (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
So basically a teen porn business could just move their models to Germany and no one will be the wiser? 71.149.142.183 (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
He can not, because in europe U18-porn is banned for some years now, including germany. --Naaram (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

More information

The article should be edited to give more information about the life-destroying effects of paedophilia. For example, the victims of paedophilia are six times more likely to commit suicide and are eight times more likely to repeatedly attempt suicide throughout their lives. The victims of abuse in childhood are three times more likely to suffer from depression or to commit suicide with the victims of paedophila being the most affected with a 40% higher number of them suffering from depression than the victims of all the other types of abuse. This is important information and will give the reader a much greater understanding of the issue, including the damaging effects mentioned above.Link to Proof of Life-Destroying Effects of Child Pornography

Thank You! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.138.129 (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you stop spamming this request into all articles loosely related to child sexual abuse? 22:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.45.219.135, 13 April 2011

In the paragraph regarding the COPINE scale it says, 'University of Cork'. There is in fact no such University. The correct title for the University in question is: University College Cork. 86.45.219.135 (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

NCMEC Not a Reliable Source

"NCMEC states that around 20% of all pornography contains children."

That is absurd. What cool aid are they drinking?

This statement cites the following PDF [6] That PDF cites NCMEC with no specific document. I found the following NCMEC document [7] which says the following


"One study has estimated that as much as 20 percent of all pornographic activity on the Internet may involve children however, even the authors of this study admit to a high margin of error"


This statement cited the following study: "Michael D. Mehta & Dwaine E. Plaza, Content Analysis of Pornographic Images Available on the Internet, 13 THE INFORMATION SOCIETY 153-62 (1997) (original study presented October 1994) (web source: www. queensu. ca/epu)."


That study, available here: [8] Says the following:


"..If an image was accompanied by text suggesting that subjects were under the age of 18, we coded this image as a hit. In other words, models in such coded images may be technically adults by age, but props or descriptors give the illusion of being an adolescent. As a qualifier, the vast majority of the small number of such images depicting children and adolescents probably come from nudist magazines or are taken by those who have visited such communities. We never came across an image depicting a sexual act between an adult and a child/adolescent, or acts between children..."


In other words, they went on some newsgroups in 1994 and found that out of 150 images, 20% were legal non-sexual images of nudists and none were anything that could be considered child pornography.Ziiv (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If this is widely cited then it should be discussed somewhere in the article stating this, although we've got to be careful of original research. If it isn't widely cited then I think we should just get rid of it as an unreliable source. Regardless it shouldn't be in the lead section. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
So a seriously non random sample and seriously out of date.©Geni 18:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

images

i know it is weird and i really don't want to but wikipedia is not censored and the article pornography and one so why not one here? and dont tell me its weird because WP:Not Censored —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.3.102.100 (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed not censored, but it is an encyclopaedia and thus images used in articles are required to have encyclopaedic merit in the context of the article - so any old image won't do. Wikipedia is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, who are subject to the laws of the United States and specifically the laws of Florida where child pornography is illegal. If you know of an image that is both encyclopaedically relevant to this article and legal to host (both in terms of child pornography and in terms of copyrights, etc) then please upload it and link to it here where we can discuss it's inclusion (normally I would say just be bold and add it directly, but given the controversial topic it's best to be cautious). Essentially the reason there is not an image here is that no editor has yet found such an image, although that does not mean one doesn't exist.
See also previous discussions about images at /Archive 5#Pictures and /Archive 3#Images; and the Wikipedia:Image use policy which is an overview of the content and copyrights policies for images on Wikipedia (if you aren't already aware of these). Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
For a time, child pornography was legal in Denmark (see Pornography in Denmark and Color Climax Corporation), so it is possible that the cover of a child pornographic work (video or magazine) might be usable if the cover itself was not pornographic (I don't know the legality of this) and it was available under a free license (fair use might be possible, but I don't think it very likely - I'm no expert though). However as neither of the above articles has pictures, I don't know whether such an image exists or not. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Debate over laws

Shouldn't Debate regarding child pornography laws have a summary para. in here with a Link to Main Article? That would seem to make sense - the societal reaction to this issue is too closely related to be mere 'further reading'.199.127.252.195 (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Pornography = abuse??

"Children of all ages, including infants, are abused in the production of pornography." Seriously? I can't bare to read further if this is the kind of insane moral opinion throughout this article. Does anyone here know the difference between rape, and wanted enjoyable physical affection? You can willingly have sex or share any "kind" of physical affection and have pictures or videos taken of that happening during that time. How in the world does anyone equate taking pictures or a video of the sharing of affection as rape? Someone please clue me in on how this makes any logical sense whatsoever. I'm all about going after rapists and anyone hurtful or mean, but calling someone a rapist for filming physical affection is beyond crazy. This whole article sounds like it was written by Puritans. Anyone realize that, for example, there used to be many Japanese couples getting married and having sex at the age of 13? That's roughly when humans start becoming fertile after all. So this notion that anyone under the age of 18 masturbating, having sex, or doing anything physically affectionate involving their genitals is somehow suffering abuse is insane and totally wrong as any psychologist should be able to tell you. On top of that, saying that every human culture who allowed this to occur at ages below 18 were abusive is insane, and saying that other species like Bonobo chimpanzees, many of which whom have been documented having sex and sharing sexual affection from very young ages, are abusive to one another is also insane. All of this nonsense is in my opinion caused by a mob mentality throwing in support under a banner of "protect the children" without any kind of logical thought occurring whatsoever. I think that sentence should have the word "sometimes" added somewhere, in any case. Better yet, the topic should be on how anti-sex laws for humans under the age of 18 have caused a black market industry to spring up to compensate which has *caused* there to be more kidnappings, rape, torture, and murder as these businesses seek to make money outside the law. Swiftpaw (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I put the neutrality template into the article because the whole article reminds me some manual to fight child pornography. --Thonos (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Goodness, it's abuse because adults having sex with children is considered abuse. And filming that so-called "affection" is furthering/exploiting that abuse. And filming sex with underage teenagers is considered abuse and may be titled "child pornography" as well, by law. This is backed up by WP:Reliable sources in the article. What reliable sources are there saying this is not abuse, other than pedophile groups stating that it isn't? Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
And where in this article do we say that "anyone under the age of 18 masturbating, having sex, or doing anything physically affectionate involving their genitals is somehow suffering abuse" or "that every human culture who allowed this to occur at ages below 18 were abusive"? I mean, America does allow people under 18 to be with adults sexually...so long as they meet the age of consent requirement. Flyer22 (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the tag, as I don't see a valid reason that it was placed on the article by Thonos and he is currently indefinitely blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Swiftpaw's objections are legitimate. The assertion that "child pornography is a record of child sexual abuse" is completely wrong and sourced by dubious resources taken out of context. Put the template back!--196.216.56.18 (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll just say I disagree that Swiftpaw's objections are legitimate. I also disagree with your assertion that the sources are dubious and taken out of context. Flyer22 (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that that definition is dubious, but I don't agree with Swiftpaw. I think it's questionable mainly because simulated child pornography is categorized along with it. There seems to be significant debate as to whether things other than "record[s] of child sexual abuse" can be considered child pornography, which leads me to think that such a definitive definition is uncalled for.Ziiv (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I have removed that sentence ("; as such, child pornography is a record of child sexual abuse") as there seems to be significant disagreement with it. Personally, I can agree that some child pornography is a record of abuse, but as there are many things called "child pornography" that are clearly not (e.g. a naked self-portrait of a 17-year-old could easily be classed as child pornography in Britain) it's not an appropriate statement to make. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I can agree with that rationale for removing the line. But since some things deemed child pornography are also deemed child sexual abuse, perhaps it would have just been better to qualify the line with "sometimes"? After all, the lead does have the alternate name child abuse images in its first line, backed up by reliable sources. Then again, maybe that suffices in regards to the child sexual abuse aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I also concur with the removal due aforementioned situations were it is not abuse. However, I would suggest some kind of alternative phrase indicating that it can be recorded abuse.Legitimus (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If we do have some sort of phrase saying that it can be recorded abuse (and I'm not convinced that we need to explicitly say what is surely implicit), it should probably go in the "Child sexual abuse in production and distribution" or "Relation to child molestation and abuse" sections. Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect/out of date section on so-called "artifically generated or simulated imagery"

The section on "artifically generated or simulated imagery" needs to be updated. While there was a law in place under section 2556(8) of the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) preventing such imagery, it was held to be unconstitutional. Technically this law could have outlawed the cherubs that Michelangelo painted on the Sistine chapel ceiling, among other things. A good summary of the challenge can be found on About.com: http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/bl_l_FreeSpeechReno.htm

"The issue, then, was "virtual child pornography" - can the government ban images which do not involve children in any way, but instead merely look like they are of people who are under the age of 18? This can include wholly computer-generated images, drawings, or even adults who look young.

The complaint alleged that the CPPA violates the First Amendment because it is not content-neutral and is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad where it fails to define "appears to be" and "conveys the impression." The Free Speech Coalition also asserted that the statute imposes an impermissible prior restraint on protected speech, and creates a permanent chill on protected expression.

Court Decision:

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals largely agreed with the challenge brought by the FSC, finding that: 1) the statue is not content-neutral and aims to curb specific expression; 2) the statute was not in line with Supreme Court decisions which have held that states can only criminalize child pornography when the laws "limit the offense to works that visually depict explicit sexual conduct by children below a specified age" - something the CPPA failed to do; 3) no demonstrated link to harm to real children has been demonstrated; and 4) the language is too vauge and overbroad, allowing for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

The court regarded the dramatic shift in the law to be very relevant:

In the new law, Congress shifted the paradigm from the illegality of child pornography that involved the use of real children in its creation to forbid a "visual depiction" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." The premise behind the Child Pornography Prevention Act is the asserted impact of such images on the children who may view them. The law is also based on the notion that child pornography, real as well as virtual, increases the activities of child molesters and pedophiles.

Thus, the justification for banning child pornography has shifted dramatically from protecting the real children involved to protecting future children who may or may not be harmed by those who have viewed the material. According to the court, however, not only is there no evidence of this, but if such a principle were allowed to hold it would have terrible consequence for free speech in general. If the government were permitted to prohibit any speech which they think might contribute to someone harming others, then a great deal of currently protected speech would suddenly come under suspicion.

Courts have already rejected the argument that speech can be regulated based on alleged and possible results. This decision cited the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals 1985 decision in American Booksellers Association, Inc. v. Hudnut. In this case, the alleged consequences of pornography were used to justify an Indianapolis city ordinance prohibiting pornography that portrayed women "submissively or in a degrading manner."

Even so, the court concluded in the Hudnut decision that pornography's role, if any, in preserving systems of sexual oppression "simply demonstrate[d] the power of pornography as speech . . . . Pornography affects how people see the world, their fellows, and social relations."

Thus:

If the fact that speech plays a role in a process of conditioning were enough to permit governmental regulation, that would be the end of freedom of speech. ... In short, we find the articulated compelling state interest cannot justify the criminal proscription when no actual children are involved in the illicit images either by production or depiction."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.28.53 (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually the section on this article is not out of date, as it merely defines what the term is, and refers the reader to the other article Simulated child pornography, which in turn points to Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors, that contains a little bit of information. The actual content seems to be at Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, which correctly notes that the law was struck down. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

--- I have a question - why in "freedom" USA nude photo is equal to pornography? All knows that porn is a sexual act but just a photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.27.181.94 (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference doj1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Barbaree, H. E., and Seto, M. C. (1997). "Pedophilia: Assessment and Treatment. Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment." 175-193.
  3. ^ Howells, K. (1981). "Adult sexual interest in children: Considerations relevant to theories of aetiology," Adult sexual interest in children. 55-94.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Child_pornography/Archive_5&oldid=1142755948"