Talk:Child pornography/Archive 1

message: The former internet child pornography article was a combination of notes on the internet, notes on law-enforcement, and notes on the history of pornography and child-porn.  It has been included here as the sections "On the internet" and "History of [il]legality".  
=== From Talk:Internet child pornography ===
Archive 1: October 9, 2003 and before: Discussion about page moved out, legality and title
Archive 2: October 9-10, 2003: Further discussion on legality
Archive 3: October 10, 2003 Discussion on whether it comes under free speech
Archive 4: October 10, 2003 + deletion poll held between October 10, 2003 and November 20, 2003: More discussion on whether the article should be kept or deleted.
Archive 5: October 10-12, 2003: Should it be a part of Wikipedia?
Archive 6: Text from VfD October 9 - November 20, 2003: Text from VfD and further discussion on whether it is promoting pornography
Archive 7: November 21-22, 2003: GFDL and should history be deleted...
==== Discussion on legality ====
This was originally written as a writeup for Everything2. It received mixed reviews and was quickly nuked by the censors (gods). I rewrote the text and changed the writing a bit to fit the Wikipedia style better.
Please note that I do not advocate producing, selling, downloading or posessing child porn. But I believe that people should have free and unfettered access to all sorts of information and make informed personal choices afterwards.
Searching for child porn is legal in most countries. Downloading and posessing it is also legal in many. Providing information about ways to find it is legal practically everywhere, except, may be, for some islamic fundamentalist states.
:IANAL but... Providing information on ways to find child porn is illegal in the fundamentalist state of the United Kingdom under the Protection of Children Act 1978. It would be the specific offence of "advertising", or a common law offence of "incitement", probably "incitement to make an indecent photograph of a child" (see R v Bowden (1999) for what "making" means in this context). This offence would be committed by the original writer and anyone who let the information stand - potentially even anyone who edits the article but does not remove the information. Needless to say, it would also apply to Wikipedia should the article be left unedited. --Lmno 13:49, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I suspect you're right about the site's intentions. However "virgin" is by definition a sexual reference, since a virgin is someone who has never had sex. It says nothing about a person's age - a virgin could be any age. However by coupling the term virgin with the photographs and other elements on the site, they are making a link between children and sex, which is why the stated reason for the existence of the site is at odds with their real intentions. If it were called "little darlings" or some other non-sexual reference, their argument might stand up a bit better. I don't think it lends the WP article any credibility to link to this or any similar site; that's just pandering to those who are reading this supposedly serious treatment of the subject for their own titillation.Graham 00:23, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging of internet child pornography (completed!)

message: Archive 1: October 9, 2003 and before: Discussion about page moved out, legality and title
Archive 2: October 9-10, 2003: Further discussion on legality
Archive 3: October 10, 2003 Discussion on whether it comes under free speech
Archive 4: October 10, 2003 + deletion poll held between October 10, 2003 and November 20, 2003: More discussion on whether the article should be kept or deleted.
Archive 5: October 10-12, 2003: Should it be a part of Wikipedia?
Archive 6: Text from VfD October 9 - November 20, 2003: Text from VfD and further discussion on whether it is promoting pornography
Archive 7: November 21-22, 2003: GFDL and should history be deleted...
==== Discussion on legality ====
This was originally written as a writeup for Everything2. It received mixed reviews and was quickly nuked by the censors (gods). I rewrote the text and changed the writing a bit to fit the Wikipedia style better.
Please note that I do not advocate producing, selling, downloading or posessing child porn. But I believe that people should have free and unfettered access to all sorts of information and make informed personal choices afterwards.
Searching for child porn is legal in most countries. Downloading and posessing it is also legal in many. Providing information about ways to find it is legal practically everywhere, except, may be, for some islamic fundamentalist states.
:IANAL but... Providing information on ways to find child porn is illegal in the fundamentalist state of the United Kingdom under the Protection of Children Act 1978. It would be the specific offence of "advertising", or a common law offence of "incitement", probably "incitement to make an indecent photograph of a child" (see R v Bowden (1999) for what "making" means in this context). This offence would be committed by the original writer and anyone who let the information stand - potentially even anyone who edits the article but does not remove the information. Needless to say, it would also apply to Wikipedia should the article be left unedited. --Lmno 13:49, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I suspect you're right about the site's intentions. However "virgin" is by definition a sexual reference, since a virgin is someone who has never had sex. It says nothing about a person's age - a virgin could be any age. However by coupling the term virgin with the photographs and other elements on the site, they are making a link between children and sex, which is why the stated reason for the existence of the site is at odds with their real intentions. If it were called "little darlings" or some other non-sexual reference, their argument might stand up a bit better. I don't think it lends the WP article any credibility to link to this or any similar site; that's just pandering to those who are reading this supposedly serious treatment of the subject for their own titillation.Graham 00:23, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Talk:Internet child pornography 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion on legality 

message: Excised from the text: (quotes inset, reasons for changes double inset)
* Child pornography used to be very difficult to find for the average person; in recent years due to the ease of posting any information on Internet websites, a large amount of child pornography has become easily and quickly available. The ease and speed with which this material can be now be found and accessed has caused a proliferation in the creation of and viewing of child pornography.
** No evidence is offered for the (highly dubious) claim that CP "used to be very difficult to find". Astonishingly, nor is any evidence offered for the rather hysterical claim that the Internet has "caused a proliferation in the creation of" CP. The entire paragraph is pure speculation, and reeks of fantasy.
* Many police forces and non-governmental campaigs have attempted to stamp this phenomenon out, and some have had some high profile successes. These efforts have made online child porn less available, but have not wiped it out completely.
** This para, unlike the one above, is perfectly sensible, and fits with the facts (as reported by a range of news services over the past few years).
* Some experts see the hysteria about child pornography and internet pornography as overinflated. They warn that by going after child pornography one risks tightening restrictions on free speech in general.
** Which "experts"? How do we know they are "expert"?. Evidence please. (There is, of coure, no doubt that the CP hysteria we see from time to time is a classic example of a moral panic. Unfortunately, our moral panic article here at WP is so vague and poorly written that linking to it is pointless and probably counterproductive.
The entire article needs a solid re-write, and it's not an area I'm interested in spending any length of time on, but I hope that some kind soul will come along and do something about the rest of this very sub-standard article. Tannin 09:41, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I suspect you're right about the site's intentions. However "virgin" is by definition a sexual reference, since a virgin is someone who has never had sex. It says nothing about a person's age - a virgin could be any age. However by coupling the term virgin with the photographs and other elements on the site, they are making a link between children and sex, which is why the stated reason for the existence of the site is at odds with their real intentions. If it were called "little darlings" or some other non-sexual reference, their argument might stand up a bit better. I don't think it lends the WP article any credibility to link to this or any similar site; that's just pandering to those who are reading this supposedly serious treatment of the subject for their own titillation.Graham 00:23, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Other old comments

message: What about cartoon child pornography, i.e. hand- or computer-drawn cartoon images depicting children in a pornographic fashion, that don't even try to look real? There are many sex sites that offer such pictures openly. Does this fall under "simulated child pornography" or is there a legislation all of its own for it?  — JIP | Talk 07:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a link to lolicon which provides more details on this, if anyone wants to incorporate that into the article, well, I ain't reading it too closely. Ashibaka tock 04:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cartoon child pornography? 

message: I changed "illegal in many countries" to "illegal almost everywhere". I am not aware of any country that allows production or sale of child pornography. Are there any? --User:AxelBoldt
:I wouldn't be suprised of some African countries allowed it, but of course I don't really know myself. O, wait.  Now that I think of it, some countries like the Netherlands and Norway allowd porn as young as 16, but this isn't what would come to mind when you think of child porn.  Jzcool
::Yes and no. There are countries that allow production and sale of what some other countries would call child pornography. I am not aware of any that allow really hard core stuff, but i don't claim to have checked the legislation in all 200+ countries. --Unknown
::The UK law concerned itself with images of under 16s. This was changed recently by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. As from April 2004 (approximate commencement date) images showing under 18 year olds will, if they are indecent, constitute "child porn" in the UK. --Lmno 17:10, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: interesting... the Sun has published topless images of 16 and 17 year old girls on page 3, and I believe some may still be available on the Page 3 website - does this mean that the Sun can be prosecuted as of April 2004 if they remain on the site? hell, that would even make possesion of certain editions of the "newspaper" illegal. -Hebereke 00:47, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Jzcool; Norway has set the age of consent to 16 - this does not concern child pornography. Joffeloff 23:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend reading this publication http://www.icmec.org/en_X1/pdf/ModelLegislationFINAL.pdf (Child Pornography: Model Legislation & Global Review).  It contains proposed model legislation as well as a review of the child pornography legislation of 184 Interpol member countries.  Some countries may not have legislation because they may not believe it is a problem in their country.XOHottie 20:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Illegal in most countries? (Early comments)

message: I accidentally deleted the article when I intended to delete a redirect to it, clumsy n00b that I am. I'm very sorry. - Haukur 22:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accidental deletion 

message: The opening sentence ("Child pornography is pornography involving children.") strikes me as a bit circular. Anyone smarter than me want to take a crack at rewriting it? Tregoweth 20:32, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
:It's not really circular, because both pornography and children have independent definitions. But I tried to clarify. Paranoid 21:18, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly it's sad we even have to define it, some titles speak for themselves after all. It's like writing under multiple murder "the murder of more than one person". Tyciol 20:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening paragraph circular rewrite?

message: The advent of the internet has facilitated the trade in child pornography considerably, (is there any basis for this statement? - If so, it might be referenced by saying, "Acording to ... ")
Can there be a question that the internet has facilitated the trade in child porn? Obviously it is easier to down- or upload porn than to physically exchange floppy disks. The fact that several trading networks have been uncovered is also evidence: if the internet didn't make it easier, why wouldn't those guys stick with exchanging physical objects? --User:AxelBoldt
:Yeah - in general I don't like "unsubstantiated" statements, but this one is a fairly safe assertion. Open any western newspaper and there are daily news reports. - MMGB
::First, the number of news reports is irrelevant - the whole child porn craze was started precisely because newspapers like to report crazy shit and child porn industry involving millions of kids in the US was the craziest shit they could make up. Newspapers ARE NOT the way to judge how common something is. Second, the fact that it's easier doesn't mean it is more common. Supermarkets surely make buying groceries easier, but I woudn't say they facilitate it - people buy as much as they ever did. Third, if we make the assumption in the article that there was an increase in trading caused by the Net (which, I feel, we may do) we need to touch on the nature of that increase. There was a report on child porn in Australia that said how many perfectly normal people, males in their 20s, middle-class, familiar with computers, programmers, doctors, bankers, etc. by occupation, download child porn simply because they are curious, do not have an unnatural aversion towards it and know how. These people were not paedophiles, nor would they get child porn if not for the Internet. I think we can call them casual child porn users. Paranoid 21:18, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't use the term 'craziest shit they could make up' because they didn't make it up. Yes, the news does embellish and focus on zanier stories, I'll give you that. As for casual downloaders, maybe if someone does it by accident or if they're curious a couple times, but if they repeat it, I think it's acceptable to say that they do have paeophilic urges, which is perfectly fine, they just shouldn't break the law. Tyciol 19:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I reckon that the only trustworthy sources for this would be law enforcement agencies. Because everyone else researching the topic would necessarily commit a crime and confess to it when publishing the results. Ados 08:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The advent of the internet's facilitation

message: I was just reading through "David Peach v. Craig Henry Griffis," concerning someone being charged for possession. It says at one point: "Each one of the charges relates to a specific [child pornography] 'movie', which was played in court." Do they actually do this? Are they allowed? // paroxysm (n) 00:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be surprised. If the police aren't allowed to see them any more than absolutely necessary (yea, right) then why would they play them in court? Cops aren't supposed to even look at them, but they freely distribute them on the Internet while trying to catch people. If they did, it just shows the sad state of affairs regarding laws like these. --DanielCD 15:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shown in court?