Talk:Internet child pornography

Discussion on legality

This was originally written as a writeup for Everything2. It received mixed reviews and was quickly nuked by the censors (gods). I rewrote the text and changed the writing a bit to fit the Wikipedia style better.

Please note that I do not advocate producing, selling, downloading or posessing child porn. But I believe that people should have free and unfettered access to all sorts of information and make informed personal choices afterwards.

Searching for child porn is legal in most countries. Downloading and posessing it is also legal in many. Providing information about ways to find it is legal practically everywhere, except, may be, for some islamic fundamentalist states.

IANAL but... Providing information on ways to find child porn is illegal in the fundamentalist state of the United Kingdom under the Protection of Children Act 1978. It would be the specific offence of "advertising", or a common law offence of "incitement", probably "incitement to make an indecent photograph of a child" (see R v Bowden (1999) for what "making" means in this context). This offence would be committed by the original writer and anyone who let the information stand - potentially even anyone who edits the article but does not remove the information. Needless to say, it would also apply to Wikipedia should the article be left unedited. --Lmno 13:49, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the criticism. When I was writing it for Everything2 I purposely wrote a provocative article. I toned down it for Wikipedia and rewrote parts of it, but I am ready to admit that it isn't finished. I made some contributions to the child pornography already and may be this text should be integrated there as well (or renamed to Internet child pornography, as suggested here). The only thing that I am against is emasculating it by removing all objectionable parts. Making it neutral — sure. Neutered — no way. Paranoid 23:28, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Adam, the market is not being created by people downloading photos and videos for free, if anything, it is being destroyed. And I clearly warned in the text about paying for child porn.

Also more than half of actual instructions were for finding softcore child pornography AKA lolita art, which is legal in the US and does not involve abuse of the children, since they are posing, not having sex, and posing nude for Lolita Kingdom is not much different from posing in underwear for Sears catalogue.

I also disagree with a stance some people are taking. There is nothing in the policies, procedures, and mission statements of Wikipedia that mentions censoring/editing articles based on moral principles of the users. If anything, it strongly warns against it, when the NPOV principle is explained. Therefore deleting the article just because you think it's immoral is against principles of Wikipedia. Editing it ruthlessly to remove the bias (while preserving the facts) and provide a counterbalance in the form of information about anti-child porn operations would be the best way to resolve it, as well as renaming it into Internet child pornography. I also agree with Morven's suggestion of changing it into "how-they" (but keeping it neutral). The text was originally written for E2 and there is nothing wrong about adapting it for Wikipedia.

Other arguments like "no one has a legitimate interest in this subject" are completely wrong and evil. You can't decide whether anyone has a legitimate interest. You were not appointed as censors and you have no right to censure the materials according to your personal moral agenda.

Finally, I don't like at all the idea of complete deletion. 50% of the article is history - completely moral and legit. 20% is finding softcore porn - it's ethical, although immoral according to moral values of some people and still legit. The remaining 30% is about finding hardcore porn. This is a grey area, I agree, but it's only 30% and it can be fixed by reediting. Searching for child porn is legal in most countries (although outlawed in some). Downloading child porn is not outlawed anywhere. Posessing it is illegal in many places, but I wouldn't go as far to say all English-speaking countries ban it outright. IANAL, but here is a quote from one of the New Zealand LEOs: “Our concern is not really to stop people looking at pictures; it’s to stop the abuse of children involved in the making of this [hardcore] material,” and where there is a clear case of child sexual abuse, no jurisdiction will defend it, he says." [1] Finally, speaking, writing or reading about child porn and about finding it is completely legal in all developed countries. GRAHAMUK is clearly wrong about "aiding and abetting" - check the legal definitions. Paranoid 09:42, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Words, words, words. If you were interested in contributing valuable information, you would spend your time making your text neutral and inoffensive (preferably before uploading it), instead of defending it in its current state. Writing "I am not a troll" is easy. Why don't you go ahead and proveit? Kosebamse 10:10, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Adam's comment

"the hysteria about child pornography" - this is a NPOV statement? Adam 14:36, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Excised from the text: (quotes inset, reasons for changes double inset)

• Child pornography used to be very difficult to find for the average person; in recent years due to the ease of posting any information on Internet websites, a large amount of child pornography has become easily and quickly available. The ease and speed with which this material can be now be found and accessed has caused a proliferation in the creation of and viewing of child pornography.
  • No evidence is offered for the (highly dubious) claim that CP "used to be very difficult to find". Astonishingly, nor is any evidence offered for the rather hysterical claim that the Internet has "caused a proliferation in the creation of" CP. The entire paragraph is pure speculation, and reeks of fantasy.

• Many police forces and non-governmental campaigs have attempted to stamp this phenomenon out, and some have had some high profile successes. These efforts have made online child porn less available, but have not wiped it out completely.
  • This para, unlike the one above, is perfectly sensible, and fits with the facts (as reported by a range of news services over the past few years).
• Some experts see the hysteria about child pornography and internet pornography as overinflated. They warn that by going after child pornography one risks tightening restrictions on free speech in general.
  • Which "experts"? How do we know they are "expert"?. Evidence please. (There is, of coure, no doubt that the CP hysteria we see from time to time is a classic example of a moral panic. Unfortunately, our moral panic article here at WP is so vague and poorly written that linking to it is pointless and probably counterproductive.

The para below ain't a perfect introduction, but at least it sticks to the facts, instead of the fantasyland stuff I just removed.

The advent of widespread access to the internet has made access to information of almost all kinds both faster and more convenient for many people, and (in the case of information that society deems unwelcome), easier for law enforcement authorities to trace.

The entire article needs a solid re-write, and it's not an area I'm interested in spending any length of time on, but I hope that some kind soul will come along and do something about the rest of this very sub-standard article. Tannin 09:41, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

There are paintings and drawings, which include Japanese hentai about raped and dismembered 5-year olds.

I took this sentence out as an unjustified example to be presented. If there should be an example of child pornography, its purpose should not be to shock people with an extreme example by a country. While those made by illeal means, meaning actual criminal acts such as kidnapping and rape, are not pointed to a specific country, the example like this that is morally wrong but legal, is pointed. Also, the article never mentioned that this kind of material is never printed or publicly broadcasted by a company and it could not be done so legally. It is instead made by individuals wo make them for a personal use. Revth 06:46, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Is it smart to link to http://www.little-virgins.info/legal.html in Internet child pornography#Sources? The legality seems dicey. Tregoweth 20:42, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

The claim they make is valid. Artistic child nudes are indeed legal. And the company that makes the claims is a legal business that supposedly gave some thought to the page in question. I think there should be no problem with linking to them. BTW, I changed the link to the WebArchive version to ensure availability and invariability. Paranoid 21:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Artistic child nudes mat well be legal, no problem there. But note that this site's title is little VIRGINS. That is implicitly a sexual reference, so the stated position of the site may be at odds with its real intentions. Just thought I'd point that out. Graham 23:35, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Technically, this is an asexual reference, that is one can argue that "Little Virgins" means girls who are so young, they are still pure and non-sexual. Of course, this says nothing at all about the real intentions, which are clearly to provide legal child porn to customers. Paranoid 08:33, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Merge

Merged with child pornography, into the top-level sections "On the internet" and "History of [il]legality". +sj+