P2p Cp Porn
🔞 ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻
P2p Cp Porn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
^ Jump up to: a b Finkelhor, David. "Current Information on the Scope and Nature of Child Sexual Abuse" . Future of Children . v4 n2 (Sum-Fall 1994): p31-53. {{ cite journal }} : |pages= has extra text ( help ) ; Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= ( help )
^ Hobbs, Christopher James (1999). Child Abuse and Neglect: A Clinician's Handbook . Elsevier Health Sciences. p. 328. ISBN 0443058962 . Child pornography is part of the violent continuum of child sexual abuse {{ cite book }} : Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored ( |author= suggested) ( help )
^ Claire Milner, Ian O'Donnel. (2007). Child Pornography: Crime, computers and society . Willan Publishing. pp. p123. {{ cite book }} : |pages= has extra text ( help )
^ Jump up to: a b c d Cite error: The named reference doj1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page ).
^ Jump up to: a b c Cite error: The named reference ncmec was invoked but never defined (see the help page ).
^ J. Nicholas Hoover (2006-03-17). "As Child Porn Industry Grows, Coalition Launches Counterattack" . Information Week.
^ C R JAYACHANDRAN (2003-09-26). "World wide porn: 260 mn, growing" .
^ Levesque, Roger J. R. (1999). Sexual Abuse of Children: A Human Rights Perspective . Indiana University. pp. p65. ISBN 0253334713 . {{ cite book }} : |pages= has extra text ( help )
^ Ferraro, Monique Mattei (2004). Investigating Child Exploitation and Pornography: The Internet, the Law and Forensic Science . Academic Press. pp. p3. ISBN 0121631052 . {{ cite book }} : |pages= has extra text ( help ) ; Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored ( |author= suggested) ( help )
^ Scherer, Jacqueline (1982). Victimization of the Weak: Contemporary Social Reactions . Charles C Thomas Pub Ltd. pp. p108. ISBN 0398040435 . {{ cite book }} : |pages= has extra text ( help ) ; Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored ( |author= suggested) ( help )
^ DeLisi, Matt (2007). Violent Offenders: Theory, Research, Public Policy, and Practice . Jones & Bartlett Publishers. pp. p264. ISBN 076375479X . {{ cite book }} : |pages= has extra text ( help ) ; Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored ( |author= suggested) ( help )
^ Time taken to shut child abuse sites criticised
^ Virtueel filmpje geldt ook als porno , AD , March 11, 2008
^ Paul, B. and Linz, D. (2008). " The effects of exposure to virtual child pornography on viewer cognitions and attitudes toward deviant sexual behavior ," Communication Research , 35(1), 3-38
^ Cite error: The named reference strike was invoked but never defined (see the help page ).
^ Eko, L. S. (2006, Jun) Regulation of Online Child Pornography Under European Union and American Law. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Dresden International Congress Centre, Dresden, Germany Online Retrieved 2008-04-22
^ Chris Johnston (2007-05-10). "Brave new world or virtual pedophile paradise? Second Life falls foul of law" .
I have restored several sections of the article recently deleted w/o explanation. If there is a specific reason for their deletion, please cite this. I also deleted an uncited def of CSA. If there is a reference for this, please cite. ResearchEditor ( talk ) 22:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I've been at many talk pages and I have frequently wondered about this I ask now: Is it correct to perform a cleanup in the talk pages, particularly this one?
There are plenty of conversations and comments that don't contribute to anything, it's simply bulk and load to this page and its users.
There are, as well, many discussions about pedophilia and pornography that are interesting; but do not contribute to the article. Child sex, ideologies, laws, psychology, sexuality, pornography... all those are very interesting and pollemic fields, but simply discussing on them doesn't help if the discussion is not focused in the article and its quality.
Furthermore, a too populated talk page gets tedious and difficult to read and use, and scares people away.
So, I'm proposing, if it is correct according to our guidelines, to clean up this page, leaving relevant discussions and removing irrelevant ones.
Alf —Preceding comment was added at 02:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
REDOING MAJOR REWRITE: children is not a proper term, as a 50 year old man is still his fathers' child. couldn't get minor law to work as it has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_%28law%29 and I couldn't link the word minor to minor law.
cutting out the rest of the old intro, at pasteing it here, you can't say CP is a multi-billion dollar industry when everyone arrested for it is getting it from p2p.
"""
sexually abused . [1] [2] [3] Children are sexually abused in the production of child pornography when sexual acts are photographed, [1] and the effects of the abuse are compounded by the wide distribution of the photographs of the abuse. [4] Legal definitions of child pornography generally refer to any pornography involving a minor , varying by jurisdiction and with regards to the age of consent and other laws. For research purposes, child pornography often refers to any recording (photograph, video, or audio) of sexual activity involving a prepubescent child. [4]
According to the United States organization The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and other international sources, child pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry and among the fastest growing criminal segments on the Internet . [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Recent investigations include Operation Cathedral that resulted in multi-national arrests and 7 convictions as well as uncovering 750,000 images with 1,200 unique identifiable faces being distributed over the web; Operation Amethyst which occurred in the Republic of Ireland ; Operation Auxin ; Operation Avalanche ; Operation Ore based in the United Kingdom ; Operation Pin ; Operation Predator ; the 2004 Ukrainian child pornography raids and the 2008 US child pornography raid . New technology that aids those who produce this material include inexpensive digital cameras and Internet distribution has made it easier than ever before to produce and distribute child pornography. The producers of child pornography try to avoid prosecution by distributing their material across national borders, though this issue is increasingly being addressed with regular arrests of suspects from a number of countries occurring over the last few years, see above. [5] [4] According to the NCMEC, approximately one fifth of all Internet pornography is child pornography. [5] Child pornography is illegal in most countries with coordinated enforcement by Interpol and policing institutions of various governments, including among others the United States Department of Justice . [4] Even so, the UK based NSPCC said that worldwide an estimated 2% of websites still had not been removed a year after being identified. [12]
Child pornography may be simulated by the use of computers [13] or adults made to look like children. [14] For simulated child pornography that is produced without the involvement of children, there is some controversy regarding whether or not such simulated child pornography is abusive to children. The legal status of simulated or "virtual" child pornography varies around the world; for example, it is legal in the United States , it is illegal in the European Union , and in Australia its legal status is unclear and so far untested in the courts. [15] [16] [17]
"""
don't know what to do with all this mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FyiFoff ( talk • contribs ) 00:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
the information as posted is not correct. the information I post was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FyiFoff ( talk • contribs ) 11:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
no, I've just seen cases in the courts. the statement that child porn is always sex abuse is wrong. i listed traci lords, and her wiki and that should be readded. she wasn't a child being abused, so the wiki statement is not 100% true. the sex abuse information should be put into the wiki sex abuse page, this is a wiki child porn. this whole child porn page should be no more the 100 lines. It should link the a gov page and say what is child porn, list a few landmark cases, list place like 1 800 the lost that you can report child porn to.
the opening "paragraph" should be just that, not a whole page. the top of the page should all be below in the content information. there is no need for almost 90 references, this page NEEDS a MAJOR delete and retype. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FyiFoff ( talk • contribs ) 13:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
"Abuse" in this context is not a neutral and objective word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.80.92 ( talk ) 23:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
According to Wikipedia policy, definitions must be according to reliable sources , not personal opinions. The term "abuse" is used in the references, therefore it is correct for use in the article. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk ) 03:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I think we need a better source for Bob Balfe's remark, because either his calculator is broken or Linda Satter made a goof: 83% + 40% + 19% = 142%? Is there another explanation? Legitimus ( talk ) 13:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
this page is getting huge, can someone archive it?-- Megaman en m ( talk ) 01:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Why is this here?-- Thanks , Ain lina (box) ? 18:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Is there a section on literary stuff that could mention the controversy of Lolita ? There was plenty of criticism calling it pornographic. Maybe "generated images," although it isnt the most accurate. Lihaas ( talk ) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
The following edit ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_pornography&diff=235667767&oldid=235666155 ) was removed without discussion here. While it may be outdated law, it is still part of the legal process that started a clampdown and that was eventually superceded. The law info and sources should be here just before the new update.
Likewise ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_pornography&diff=235672070&oldid=235668841 ) has sourced that were removed, again without discussion. Lihaas ( talk ) 15:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code).
For the record, the above summary of the effect of the PROTECT Act by Jack-A-Roe is incorrect. It did not overturn the Supreme Court ruling that virtual child porn was (in theory) still protected by the First Amendment. (Congress doesn't have the authority to do that.) It simply criminalized virtual child porn that is also obscene (i.e. it fails the Miller test and is therefore not protected by the First Amendment). If (for example) the creator of a movie in which virtual children had sex could demonstrate that it had artistic/literary value, it would not qualify as "obscene", so it would be protected speech. PROTECT was an effort to criminalize as much virtual child porn as the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment would allow, but it certainly didn't criminalize it all. Only the Supreme Court specifically overturning Ashcroft vs. Free Speech or a repeal of Amendment I could do that. - Agency17 ( talk ) 23:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
For the edit, general english convention (academically) says you should start with the intro part "according" to. but ya'll ended that way. any ways, this has been said in english classes across america (maybe the world) but what you can say with less words you should do. try and avoid adding more words if need not be. How has the sentence changed meaning?
Furthermore, the times of india source doesn't corroborate what is claimed. Both facts are not claimed. the first instance of child porn has to do with children surfing for porn not posing. the second just says how many child porn website there are on the net, not with the revenue. Lihaas ( talk ) 23:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I've created a graphical representation of the data that can be found in the Global Legislative Review chapter of the review by the ICMEC that is mentioned in the Legal status: Elsewhere section of this article. It can be found via this page ( mirror ). If Wikipedians choose to use this image, it will be very important to empathize that this review only looked for legislation specific to child pornography. That's why I added the note on the image that several of the 'green' countries "DO HAVE a GENERAL ban on ALL pornography" . It is true that more than half of the countries have no laws that address child pornography - at least according to this review, but those countries may very well have general bans on pornography (which automatically includes child pornography). Think of for example countries in the Middle East . -- 82.171.70.54 ( talk ) 03:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
In 2002, a statute declaring Virtual Child Pornography to be the equivalent of the real thing was struck down ( Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition ). A new law was put on the books, but has not been tested. While any material, whether it is of adults or of minors, may be made illegal if it falls within the definition of obscene , the portion dealing with virtual child pornography that is not obscene has not been subjected to legal challenge. Based on prior decisions, it is probably likely that part would not survive a court challenge, yet the article as written fails to recognize the current state of the law and simply misstates it by flatly stating all virtual child pornography in the U.S. is illegal. This is the case in other jurisdictions but is not the case in the U.S. and the article needs to change to reflect how the law was changed in order to improve the accuracy of that section. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) ( talk ) 23:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
The law in Canada includes a little phrase that makes a big difference, specifically, "or is depicted as", so even if those depicted in the material are clearly too old, the depiction section can pull them back down to the child level.
Child pornography: "a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means (i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of 18 years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity or (ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of 18 years" -- Criminal Code of Canada, Section 163.1
Although I don't have references for it, it has also been applied to purely textual material, and material that doesn't contain actual subjects, such as cartoons and paintings. There is the potential for a drawing of a 90-year-old dressed as Baby New Year to be considered child pornography in Canada.
Colin Pye ( talk ) 11:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I couldn't help but notice this article is severely lacking visual aids. As a longtime fan of wikipedia I would be willing to contribute some home made digital pictures for free. What would I have to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.43.100 ( talk ) 19:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
"It has been stated that the Supreme Court’s decision has been criticized, yet it correctly enables legal personnel to fight crime networks where child pornography is made and sold." ... Correctly???! Wow, that's so NPOV.
"The demand for more and newer child pornography is believed by most to promote the sexual abuse of children." Weasel words. Besides, the source shows no data on what most people believe. 87.116.190.71 ( talk ) 00:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Why isn't Japan's legal status listed as one the countries? Dumaka ( talk ) 17:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
All this guff needs a scientific explanation section in the first place. "Updated.. laws to match those of the west" uh-ha-ha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.110.187.10 ( talk ) 04:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I thought my edit summary was pretty clear, but since someone erverted it, I'll bring it up for discussion:
The "Legal status" section is littered with various quotes, commentary, and vaguely newsy items. [1] As interesting as it may be to know what Pundit A thinks about the legal status of child pron in Country B, or how much of a problem Agency C sees in Country D, that's not really relevant to an article outlining what the legal status is . Including third-party commentary - ie. opinions from anyone who isn't a judge actually ruling on the legal status - just grants a license for anyone with a POV to push to find an expert who shares it and insert quotes from him into the article. For example, the Marsh quote opining that the Supreme Court's decision was correct... it doesn't provide any further info about the legal status; it's just the expression of a POV about it. Maybe a respected, mainstream POV, but it's still a POV that I'm sure some people dispute. I suppose we could open it up for an extensive debate presenting all POVs, but it would be far simpler to stick to the facts ("The law says this, and the Supreme Courts applies it such way, and the police enforce it thusly.") and leave out the opinions ("And so-and-so thinks this is right/wrong.") What value does this kind of side commentary add that makes it worthwhile to set aside NPOV? - Agency17 ( talk ) 23:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Here I will attempt to defend my editing of this section. Before my edit, the paragraph was a total misrepresentation of the PDF referenced by (28). (Wolof, Finkehor, Mitchell, Ybarra) The referenced publication says nothing at all about "stimulation". The referenced publication says nothing about "heightened desire" or "urges". The referenced publication most certainly says nothing about "practicing in the imagination". I don't know which one of you edited this wikipedia article, but you basically just made up a bunch of claims and then attributed them to a publication on the internet which does not actually contain those claims. If you attempt to add this baseless pop-psychology to this article again, I will come back and remove it again and tell everyone why. Given the continually-widening definition of child pornography in the legal system, these claims beg all sorts of questions about what is precisely being "practiced" in the mind? Does all child pornography depict some sort of act? Certainly not, as still images of children in small bikinis are now legally child pornography. (Cartoon characters were recently ruled child pornography by a court in Australia). This whole paragraph is asking the reader to make all manner of erronious, knudge-wink connections between things are not even established by the article itself. The article starts off by saying that Child Pornography differs wildly
Helen Parr Porn Gif
Horny Asylum
Helix Studios Porn Archive