Talk:Child pornography
I changed "illegal in many countries" to "illegal almost everywhere". I am not aware of any country that allows production or sale of child pornography. Are there any? --AxelBoldt
I wouldn't be suprised of some African countries allowed it, but of course I don't really know myself. Jzcool
O, wait. Now that I think of it, some countries like the Netherlands and Norway allowd porn as young as 16, but this isn't what would come to mind when you think of child porn. Jzcool
- The UK law concerned itself with images of under 16s. This was changed recently by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. As from April 2004 (approximate commencement date) images showing under 18 year olds will, if they are indecent, constitute "child porn" in the UK. --Lmno 17:10, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yes and no. There are countries that allow production and sale of what some other countries would call child pornography. I am not aware of any that allow really hard core stuff, but i don't claim to have checked the legislation in all 200+ countries.
- The advent of the internet has facilitated the trade in child pornography considerably, (is there any basis for this statement? - If so, it might be referenced by saying, "Acording to ... ")
Can there be a question that the internet has facilitated the trade in child porn? Obviously it is easier to down- or upload porn than to physically exchange floppy disks. The fact that several trading networks have been uncovered is also evidence: if the internet didn't make it easier, why wouldn't those guys stick with exchanging physical objects? --AxelBoldt
Yeah - in general I don't like "unsubstantiated" statements, but this one is a fairly safe assertion. Open any western newspaper and there are daily news reports. - MMGB
I LOVE hentai of Cardcaptor Sakura et al. I wonder if there is something wrong with that.
- Wikipedia is an attempt to write an encyclopedia, not a arbiter of morality. Whilst I'm sure some people who write here would have strong opinions on the topic, this is not the forum to debate it in. Robert Merkel
- Some people point out that allowing computer-generated child pornography may contribute to advancement of computer rendering.
Is that true? If so, are these people different from those who wrote the above sentence? Any pointer whatsoever to anybody who ever offered this argument? It seems to be braindead on its face, since computer rendering is already quite advanced by ordinary Holywood movies. --AxelBoldt
It sounds like a BS argument to me, and moreover a deliberate attempt to be provocative. Indeed, from what little I understand of the topic, clothes are *much* more difficult to realistically simulate than naked skin. --Robert Merkel
I agree. It sounds like nonsense. The only way we could include it is if it is true that "some people" claim this, and if those "some people" are in any way important people, as in activists, or lawyers notable in this area of criminal law, or what have you. --Jimbo Wales
There are actually many countries up in Europe that do not allow child pornagraphy yet still do it. I was surfing the net for dating engine thingies, stumbled appon a porn site that didn't sound like a porn site, and was bombarded by about 30 or so adds. While I was closing them they maximized and stuff and around 8 of them were EXPLICIT child pornagraphy. All of them from some country in Europe.
---
A UN conference in (I believe) 1999 totally failed to define this term. It is loosely and poorly defined, and in some countries includes writings, drawings, collages of items clipped from newspapers (e.g. boys in underwear, a personal collage of which earned some poor clown in Ontario a criminal record). In Canada we joke that "all criticism of government is child pornography", and some anarchists put pictures of smiling naked babies on their political manifestoes as a protest - but they don't do this online.
Like "pedophile", the term is usually used to whip up pro-police sentiment.
Prosecutions generally target the actual photographic depiction of child abuse, which is abhorrent to pretty much anyone... but the definition of "child pornography" has variously been so broad as to create police state like conditions, e.g. pictures of a naked kid in a bathtub on the same roll as Mom & Dad's bondage play have caused children to be taken away from their parents in the USA.
I don't think the article as it stands really touches on all those issues and questions.
- The fact that defintions vary widely and that the US definition is particularly broad are covered. Child porn is not "loosely and poorly defined", it's just defined differently in different countries. AxelBoldt
- and still subject to judicial interpretation, controversy of all kinds re: thought versus action. I don't think what you said is wrong, just incomplete.
- re definitions, it's the same issue as terrorism - a vague bad thing that the developed world uniquely hates because they expect a certain standard of safety to apply to a child or civilian life. Even though the vast majority of people in the world do not have that degree of security.
I remember a fairly recent controversy in the UK over a photographer who took pictures of her children naked and exhibited them. Anyone have references? Newspaper articles (preferably not Daily Mail ;>) etc? --AW
On another note, added a link here to shota-con, a specific subgenre of hentai / yaoi which involves male children, is anyone aware of a specific term for the female equivalent, in order to add an entry and a link here? --AW
- There are BBC articles about the photos at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1222981.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1215944.stm and the Observer has something at http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,450003,00.html . I'd write a bit myself, but I really should go to bed. btw, I thought shota-con was generally just called "shota" (I only know this because of some research I did for a film project once, honest...) --Camembert
- Well, i'll happily admit to being a yaoi fan (so much more *artistic* than bog-standard porn...) and many yaoi sites link to, or reference, shota-con. the shortening shota does seem to be used quite often, but both terms seem to be acceptable. i'll add a reference to this on the shota-con page, if you haven't already. --AW
In most countries, "children" are defined ... In these countries nudist magazines ... are widely available.
Is it accurate in this passage to refer to "most countries"? There are some 200 countries in the world. To assert "most countries" means to assert "at least 101 countries" ... I think the implication being made here is "certain European countries -- as opposed to the United States, United Kingdom, or Canada, which are where most English-language Wikipedia users are!"
- How is child porn defined in the UK and in Canada? AxelBoldt 04:02 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)
I added some comments about economic factors causing children to voluntarily become involved in child porn. High unemployment rates without "social net" can make people really desperate, leaving them only a few options - starving, turning to crime or child prostitution/porn. Quoting a girl from Costa Rika "Everything I do is for my two little ones at home," she says. "They have to eat, they have to have milk, and I don't know what else to do." Thus child pornography can be seen in a similar light as Nike sweatshops - they are bad, but it would be even worse without them. Paranoid
See User:Paranoid/Internet child pornography
Rationality at last
Nice to see that some people have taken a rational approach to defining 'child porn'. Sadly, most people don't even want to discuss it. If we are understand ourselves and justify our morality, then object and clear definitions are needed.
Still, in this article, 'child' is taken as a monolithic notion. Most people would agree that a 2 year old and a 17 year old are not necessarily equivalant.
In Australia, I believe that the law on child abuse does take into consideration the age of the victim. I think that a similar aproach is taken to child pornography (the ages 14, 16 and 18 spring to mind).
The interaction between notions of 'consensuality' and what should be illegal is interesting. In at least some of the countries mentioned, the age of consent for intercourse is lower than the age for 'child' pornography. This would create the interesting situation whereby a couple could take pictures of themselves having sex which would be illegal for them to possess.
I find the argument that child porn is wrong because it normalises or encourages child abuse to be dubious. We allow graphic violence and depictions of murder, perhaps this should also be banned. This leaves the argument that child porn is wrong because it requires the abuse of children (what then of simulated child porn, or images of consensual sex between, say, 16 year old Australians ie people above the age of consent).
From a moral point of view (and I love these knotty moral issues), I have always wondered what the position would be of someone who took pictures of themselves in a sexual state (masturbating perhaps) when they were young, and then wished to distribute these pictures (perhaps later in life, as an adult).