Jump to content

Talk:Legal status of Internet pornography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ojg5046. Peer reviewers: Xvh5158, Aad29, Chear0124.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracy

[edit]

FTA: "Commercial porn sites generally restrict access to any pornographic content until a membership has been purchased using a credit card." - this isn't even remotely true, most paysites have a 'free trial' section, and promote their content through thumbnail galleries and FHGs which do not require (or even ask) age verification. Search site:any-pay-site.com (eg: met-art.com) and you can see content without paying. This might be original research, but given how very inaccurate the sentence is, I'm removing it. Revert me if you disagree. 196.210.216.72 (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information needed

[edit]

This article is the start of an article attempting to cover the legal status of internet porn in variouse countries. Information this article needs is laws relating to net porn in other European countries, Canada, Japan, and elsewhere. Also more info in the UK should be added. --Cab88 15:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of info in Child Pornography, any way to intigrate, reference, or extract the information? (hey, i used big words) --MikedaSnipe 04:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added some countries where possession of child pornography is still legal, some references you can use to confirm that the information is correct: PraguePost, Japundit, WashingtonPost. --llista 10 August 2007 (UTC)


ICMEC's global policy review of child pornography laws in 184 Interpol-member countries showed that more than half have no laws that specifically address child pornography, and in many others the existing laws are insufficient. source http://www.informationweek.com/study-child-porn-isnt-illegal-in-most-countries/d/d-id/1042033 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.56.242 (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canada section needed

[edit]

Canada is not currently detailed in the list, someone please add it. Tyciol (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

revamp of Child pornography and the Internet

[edit]

I have revamped this section, deleting the unreferenced material and adding referenced material. If editors can find references for the prior section, please feel free to add it as appropriate.ResearchEditor (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Link 13 is supposed to link to an article discussing child pornography being simulated by computers, and link 14 is supposed to talk about making adults out to look like children — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.51.203 (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

$3 billion CP industry?

[edit]

The claim about a multi-billion dollar child pornography industry seems somewhat dubious.

The NCMEC press release gives as its source "Top Ten Reviews - Internet Filter Review" The wayback archive contemporary with the article has a single statement professing the existence of a $3 billon child pornography industry. I was unable to find the original source, and the claim has since been removed. "World wide porn: 260 mn, growing" appears to trace back to the same Top Ten Reviews article.

I was unable to trace "As Child Porn Industry Grows, Coalition Launches Counterattack" to a primary source, and the $20 billion CP revenues would require every man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth to spend, on average, $3 a year on child pornography.

I was only able to access (through Goole Books) one of the print sources, Investigating Child Exploitation and Pornography: The Internet, the Law and Forensic Science, and the claim of a "multi-billion dollar trade" appears in the introduction, presumably as an attention-grabber. As I see it, either the book does not repeat the statement elsewhere with a more thorough explanation, or whoever added the claim to the Wikipedia article also did not have access to the full book. In which case they really ought not to have cited it.

If any of you have access to the print sources, please assist in investigating this claim. I have provisionally removed it, as of this post.

207.119.45.124 (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please start using preferred term "images of child sexual abuse" rather than child porn.

[edit]

International organisations use the term "images of child sexu abuse". It would be useful to start using this term in place of the outmoded "child porn". I've made a small number of replacemts. This leaves the old term in for search engines and Context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barepunts (talk • contribs) 01:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please bring a reliable source so we can verify this♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of reliable sources in the other Wikipedia porn articles. The terminology of the child_porn article has suitable references to trusted International organisations. --Barepunts (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is annoying that someone has done a revert without bothering to look for reliable sources. Wikipedia rules tell you to find a source, not to just blindy revert. It's especially annoying that you' e reverted a good faith attempt to start fixing this page; didn't bother looking for reliable sources; didn't bother welcoming a new editor; and reverted good faith edits rather than do anything constructive to fix this fucking piss poor mess of a page. --Barepunts (talk) 03:37, 11 January 201--Barepunts (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)4 (UTC)[reply]

Political agencies have their agendas and set their language accordingly. Please explain why we should baffle readers by using the obscure euphemism "images of child sexual abuse" instead of the common English phrase child pornography. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rational is contained in the already provided link to the child_porn article. Please stop revertin good faith edits wothout making any attempt to u derstand the reasoning. There are very many things wrong with this article. Why don't you spend time fixing those, rather than wasting both our time with this non-issue? Other wikipedia articles make use of the phrase "images of child sexual abuse" as well as "child porn". I might understand the reverts if I had removed all instances of the phrase "child porn", but I haven't and I have said that that shouldn't happen. --Barepunts (talk) 10:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say that "images of child sexual abuse" is a euphimism. That is a bizarre claim because the phrase is used precisley because it is not a euphimism, and because it is more accurate than the euphimistic "child porn". Please do not do further lazy re erts without reading the supplied wikipedia article and references contained there.

Australia

[edit]

I undid SqueakBox's removal of sourced material here since the material was (a) well-sourced, and (b) the removal was inadequately explained. The age of the sources is not relevant without some explanation of why it might be relevant.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the material said "in Australia its legal status is unclear and so far untested in the courts" and gave a 11 year old reference, this info was so vague and clearly subject to rapid change that it is too dated given what it states to be reliable. Also there was no reference that in the USA it was legal before 2003 so we shouldnt claim that either. What we need is some recent (within the last 5 yrs) refs clarifying the position more recently. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't muddy the waters with the USA thing. You left that in there and so did I. Start a separate discussion about it. Now, why do we "need" a more recent source? As of the time of the source its legal status was unclear. That was supported by the source.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but its old and vague to be reliable, not all sources are reliable. I am stunned you cant see why, to make the article better nd to ensure we are giving out verifiable information, those sources stating that is not verifiable in 2014 so we need to get some reliable sources or not include Australia, this is not a historical article so we need to amke sure all the reliable sources here are up to date given laws change a lot in 11 years as has the Internet. Things werent clear in 2003 but may be now and we cant get it wrong by using unverifiable info. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones aren't reliable? Please be specific. You said you wanted sources within the last five years and the Australian one you deleted was from May 2007. Why 5 years, eh? The other ones seem perfectly reliable to me. A US government source for a US federal law, a scholarly paper for the EU statement, and and article from one of the major newspapers of Australia for the statement about Australia. If they may not be clear now you're not going to make them more clear by deleting sourced material, but by adding new material.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article actually isnt even about child porn laws but about Second Life. Please find some reliable sources which focus on the subject♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just said why, do I have to repeat myself? The article actually isnt even about child porn laws but about Second Life. Cant we get some articles about child porn laws, that is a really lame ref. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it matter what the article is about? We have a declarative statement of fact published in a major national newspaper. Do you think that The Age doesn't fact-check such things? Using that article as a source for that statement is perfectly normal practice. We can ask at WP:RSN if you really want to, but you're wrong.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Legal status of Internet pornography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Legal status of psilocybin mushrooms which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 June 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: TBD. Redundant. See Talk:Legal_status_of_psilocybin_mushrooms#Requested_move_8_June_2017 В²C ☎ 18:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Legal status of Internet pornography → Legality of Internet pornography – Several different formats exist for the titles of articles regarding the legality of a particular thing. I believe that all of these should be consistent with each other and that that format should be "Legality of X" (instead of "Legal status of X, Laws regarding X, etc.) Others have noted that "legality" is a more common term when referring to whether something is legal or illegal than "legal status". Michipedian (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Legal status of Internet pornography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legal status of Internet pornography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon, Virgin Islands, and Zoophile porn

[edit]

Illegal in these two states, according to the wikipedia article about legality of bestiality. May need to update this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40A:4200:5CD6:71:4BA3:E551:FEB0 (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography&oldid=1173651773"