Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:12, 14 July 2011

This article was deleted by an administrator and restarted as a stub on 22:07 2007-05-28, due to the presence of a problematic search term. The result of the deletion review was to refer further disputes to ArbCom. Revisions prior to the first that contained the term may be restored.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pornography Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from Child pornography was copied or moved into Laws regarding child pornography with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from Child pornography was copied or moved into Child pornography laws in the Philippines with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Child pornography article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 21 days

NCMEC Not a Reliable Source

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

This statement cites the following PDF That PDF cites NCMEC with no specific document. I found the following NCMEC document 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: 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)

Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Image use policy which is an overview of the content and copyrights policies for images on Misplaced Pages (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)

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 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 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)

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 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)

• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• High-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• B-Class law articles
• Mid-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• B-Class Crime-related articles
• Top-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• B-Class Pornography articles
• Top-importance Pornography articles
• B-Class Top-importance Pornography articles
• WikiProject Pornography articles
• B-Class psychology articles
• High-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles