Porn Kid Pthc

Porn Kid Pthc
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^ " Pre-trial preparation in computer child pornography cases: combating the watering down of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition in state prosecutions , Ian Friedman, The Vindicator, 12.09.2005

^ See, e.g., R. v. Sharpe

^ What's obscene in Canada?

^ US judge rules The Tin Drum is not child pornography , David Walsh, 23 October 1998, downloaded 22 April 2007

^ Jones, L., and Finkelhor, D. (2001). The Decline in Child Sexual Abuse Cases . Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

^ Dunne, Purdie, Cook, Boyle, & Najman (2003). "Is Child Sexual Abuse Declining? Evidence from a Population-Based Survey of Men and Women in Australia," Child Abuse & Neglect: The International Journal , 27(2):141-52

^ "Internet porn 'increasing child abuse' " . Guardian Unlimited (in English ). Guardian News and Media Limited. 2004-01-12 . Retrieved 2007-06-01 . Demand for child pornography on the internet has led to an increase in sex abuse cases, {{ cite news }} : CS1 maint: unrecognized language ( link )

^ DCSF: Referrals, Assessments and Children and Young People who are the subject of a Child Protection Plan or are on Child Protection Registers, England - Year ending 31 March 2007

Discussion of the ArbCom pedophile userbox case and its repercussions for pedophiles editing Wikipedia

PetraSchelm , not to digress, but I would like to inquire into your interesting observation - so, in your opinion, pedophiles should now, all of a sudden, have a say in pedophilia-related articles? How intriguing... Well, unfortunately, ArbCom disagrees with you, whether justly or not, because self-identifying as a pedophile has been established as a sure way for an editor to get premablocked. If that's not a way to "suppress the views of pedophiles here on Wikipedia," I don't know what is. Not to say that the ArbCom is fully justified in its conduct. Would you now like to contest the ArbCom's approach? ~ Homologeo ( talk ) 21:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Pedophiles are not and have never been blocked from editing wikipedia. Nor are murderers or any kind of convicted criminals blocked from editing wikipedia, nor a re rascists or anybody of any class, colour or creed. That is stating the obvious and arbcom have never said differently21:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox
Well, I pretty sure ArbCom members and other admins that decided to block editors for self-identifying as pedophiles or for editing in a manner deemed sympathetic to pedophiles or PPAs would disagree with you. Besides, precedent has already brought this type of blocking almost to a level of uncontested procedure by admins. ~ Homologeo ( talk ) 21:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
No they would not disagree with me. Dcmdevit said the same thing the other day. We block editors for self-identifying as pedophiles and for POV pushing pedophile beliefs but we most certainly do not block anybody for "being" a pedophile. If someone knew that another editor, who edited only sports articles and had only self-identified as loving cricket , was in fact a convicted pedophile he could not use that knowledge to see the editor blocked. this is self-evident. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
If this is how you regard the situation, then there's probably little I can say to change your mind. However, there's been plenty of cases where editors were blocked for supposedly simply "being" pedophiles or PPAs, having been deemed to be such by others, or for having edited in a manner that was said to reflect sympathy for pedophiles or PPAs. Of course, you'll deny that anything of this nature has happened, but I really don't think this disagreement of ours will lead anywhere productive anyways. ~ Homologeo ( talk ) 21:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
These editors were not editing on cricket or box jellyfish, though, they were editing the pedophile articles and appeared to have an agenda, its totally different. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

^ Cite error: The named reference Onlinepred was invoked but never defined (see the help page ).
^ Jump up to: a b 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 )

^ Jump up to: a b c d e Cite error: The named reference doj1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page ).

This is an area of massive international importance, and yet this entire article is basically unreadable. I'd like to see some ways police around the world are combating this, some famous cases, and maybe some historical perspective.

Can someone please step up to the plate and clean up this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.173.234 ( talk ) 22:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Titsocus of the picture or video lewd. There was a US case where a man order a japan video of a 13ish girl, dress, but the camera zoomed in to her as she stoof there. it's a major reference case, any lawyer would know it.

a later line, "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" what is never address, is the lack, of "proof" they state how many identifiable faces there are, but they don't state how many unknowns there are. Newspapers never want to cover a store about a person being charged with images of child porn, let there is no child.

Collection by pedophiles, let's make "people who look at picture weird-o's" what lets look at the world, (if wiki is a even playing field) from http://www.coolnurse.com/teen_pregnancy_rates.htm ,

Fact: One million teens in the USA will become pregnant over the next twelve months. Ninety-five percent of those pregnancies are unintended. About one third will end in abortion; one third will end in spontaneous miscarriage; and one third will continue their pregnancy to term and keep their baby.

that's means while we go after a few 100 people for looking at images, we as america have 500,000 minors getting laid and knocked up. Why don't the police find out who the father is? there are child porn case of teenages, minors who get arrrested and changed with child porn.

MY PERSONAL NOTE: i think child porn(and for sure child having sex) should be illegal! but normally child porn is illegal because the "rights and protection" of the child, yet to me hollywood is no different in the breaking of a childs rights.

Cases: i can get frommy lawyer, many legal issues/cases. I've seen the tanner scale be used, and I know the standard process of how images on your computer are determed to be child porn, and that allow would scare anyone. I've also seen cases of being being changed with child porn, when they had main stream porn. I know a few porn stars who went to court for a person arrested on child porn to prove that they where 18 or older. Yet no one wants to "fix" the legal issues of something like this, because then they seem like pro-child porn.
FyiFoff —Preceding comment was added at 22:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Is computer generated/illustrated/animated work illegal, or is it not because it involves the exploitation of no minors? What about acts that say that an adult is a minor for the work's purpose?

Here are some bits that didn't fit anywhere: with a little more work, this could become another section in the main article.

I have added a relevant link to a relevant site, as well as expert opinion on the simulated porn aspect to the article. See diff . However an anonymous user 69.3.235.56 and user User:Doc Tropics removed these additions, describing them as "spam", "unsourced POV and linkspam". This is clearly and obviously untrue.

The following text was inserted in the "Simulated porn" section:

User:Doc Tropics says it's unsourced, but it is nonsense, because that text itself is a refernce to a source! He says it's POV, but it's a sourced expert statement and thus doesn't meet the Wikipedia definition of POV. He says it's link spam, but it's a nonsensical claim, because it's a reference to a sourced statement which is directly relevant to the subject under discussion!

I also added a link section "Legal support" and a link to:

The description was copied from the linked site. I simply don't see how a law firm working specifically with this type of cases can be irrelevant to the article, considering that they provide links to articles in law journals discussing this subject.

I would like to see the explanations for these deletions, because I simply don't understand the justification and how they may add to the quality of the article... Paranoid 17:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Paranoid's right about one thing - many items in the link section are non-encyclopedic. It could use a thorough culling. Dan B † Dan D 18:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

I don't think that we will be able to find a reliable source for the claims of availability of child pornography involving amateurs or very young children, since any source that would typically be considered "reliable" would be unwilling to confirm this in the interest of legality. Would it not be better to simply use a phrase such as "It is said that" and remove the citation needed tags? 'Net 02:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

The archive needs to be kept on top of here. As well as the sigs. A lot of posts here were unsigned and the unsigned ones were quite old. As well a lot of old talk was missed in the last archiving. I've archived up to all but the last couple discussions and some notes I couldn't easily date.-- Crossmr 03:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

I believe this site was taken down as part of some latest operations in the US. I thought it used to have an article here, but I can't find it. The servers are no longer responding and I read a story about a "vague" network of sites that were taken down which contained young girls in sexually suggestive poses but not nude. It was based in Florida. Claim is being made that even without nudity it is child porn. Once more details come out it should be considered adding to the article.-- Crossmr 03:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Here is the story here [1] -- Crossmr 18:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Maybe that's about as good as you can make it, but what of the rather bizarre peculiarlities of western television advertising? One is tempted to amend the last sentence as follows:

Why do marketers get this seemingly outrageous exception, and should Wiki articles point it out? Just wondering. Parsiferon 22:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

What dispute? Hasn't it been resolved? (I thought?) Colonel Marksman 04:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

This article is one big POV. It describes in the main the societal opinion about this scourge. A supreme court justice of the United States admitted his inability to define pornography, but said he "knew it when he saw it." This article is a failure, because it fails to define its subject, and doesn't show it either. The visitor from another planet who would seem to be the target audience for this article would go away scratching his head (provided he had one).
69.140.95.53 ( talk ) 03:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

PLEASE NOTE : User Kirbytime who started this section was warned and blocked for repeatedly requesting inappropriate pictures. See: User_talk:Kirbytime#Blocked_for_48_hour
PLEASE NOTE : User Kirbytime who started this section is now banned indefinitly. See: User_talk:Kirbytime#Blocked_indefinitly

Of course, given the delicacy of the subject, proper care should be taken. But such a large article should have at least some pictures of examples of child pornography, at least partially obscured. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 09:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Kirby, You are one sick fucker. May you rot in hell. <---- EPIC LOL

Look, I think that the pics on the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse article would be much worse than any sanitized kiddie porn in this article, so why not? Do you honestly think that a person who is looking for kiddie porn would search Wikipedia? ...err never mind about that. And actually you're wrong about the collection of fetish pornography. There are many users that have photoalbums hosted on wikimedia that contain many images of pornographic nature. And funny you should mention WP:NOT, when Wikipedia is NOT censored .-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 11:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Wait a sec... "Wikipedia is not a collection of fetish pornography"? I beg to differ (or at any rate someone does )... :P As for including the pix: ah, I think we're being trolled... LOL Herostratus 03:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

I think you are misinterpreting what I'm asking for. I'm not asking for blatant penetration of a little girl or something. I mean a picture of a girl, with he subheading "child pornography includes young children such as this one", or something. Or maybe we can have a non-nude, non-sexual still from a child porn video. I think that a picture of a child is very important for this article, so we can explain what exactly we mean by "child" pornography. For instance, many people consider 17 year old porn to be child pornography, and they may be confused if they don't know that infants getting fucked is also child porn. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 11:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Tell me, why is it a bad idea to suggest pictures that represent the main subject of the article? We have penis , syphillis , ejaculation , and other disturbing pictures , so why not have pictures for this article too? -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 11:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

(moving back left) I would expect that pictures involved would be copyrighted, saving ourselves the inevitably painful arguments about morals, censorship, etc, etc. that have been rehashed to death. If we can find details of such cases then they very much should be included in the article prose. Thryduulf 17:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Sorry I don't understand....what exactly "ain't happenen"?? Thoughtbox 10:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Thoughtbox actually makes a good point. We don't have to depict actual kiddie porn, all we need is an 18 year old with small tits and a notice saying "This actress is mimicking child pornography. She is legal" or some shit like that. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 03:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

So do we have a consensus, that posting some porn(that appears to be attempting to depict child porn) is acceptable? 216.241.228.209 18:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Poor taste? How is it poor taste to follow Wikipedia policy? And it's not just that, it is also a moral matter that I want pictures on this page. There must be examples so that people can understand what child pornography is and be able to identify it to the police. Check out WP:GRAPE . Thanks. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 02:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

NEVER WILL I ALLOW A PICTURE OF NAKED KID ON THIS DAMN SITE! I MAY BE NEW BUT I HAVE 0% LIKEING TO CHILD PORN FANS. SO NO PICTURES HERE IF SO MY ORGANIZATION WILL KNOW AND I WILL PERSONALLY TELL THE FBI AND MEDIA! sorry. --saikano 19:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Christ what a mess.
What about the news, when BBC News has an article about child pornography they obviously don't show naked children but they certainly have pictures. Pictures of police raiding someone's house, closeups of computers when discussing internet porn, wideshots of school playgrounds to remind you it's about children, pictures of whichever peadophile the news report is about.
Just because you personally don't want to look at naked children in a sexual manner doesn't mean you should have a massive row about how wrong it is in the talk section of a wikipedia page, go find a forum to rant. Simondrake 03:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Some talked about putting 3D pictures, hentai, this sort of things, to illustrate legally the article. I guess it'a allowed in some American states, but it's not in France neither in United Kingdom. Please don't do this or Wikipedia will be banned in some free countries! Barraki 22:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Looks good (no pun intended). I'll add it to the article.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ ♥ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 20:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Oh wait, it's not allowed. " solely to illustrate the audio recording in question, ". Can't use it in this article. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ ♥ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Matt57 (contribs) has never edited this article, has never edited any articles relating to pornography, and most certainly came here through Wikistalking me using my contribs. He has posted the same message to numerous other articles I edit, as well as talk pages of users who edit articles he has never edited. Please ignore him. I don't deny the Holocaust, I have explained this many times, I am entirely against the concept of the Holocaust because of its Christian roots... etc. etc. etc. Matt, go back to editing Islam-related articles. Leave us in peace.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ ♥ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 19:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

PLEASE NOTE : User Kirbytime who started the above section was warned and blocked for repeatedly requesting inappropriate pictures. See: User_talk:Kirbytime#Blocked_for_48_hour

Comment Notable, legal pictures only. This is one article where examples for examples' sake don't serve any useful purpose. Remember, not only are there issues of criminal law and copyright, there are also issues of privacy and model releases. Be very careful if you put a child's face on an article like this unless the the picture has previously been in the media in a child-pornography-related article or the child or parents give permission. It might be taken down if the OFFICE gets a legal complaint. However, there may be some doctored-up pictures that are notable in their own right. A few years ago the FBI edited the victim out of a motel-room picture and released it to the media, resulting in the identification of the room and the eventual capture of the photographer. The edited picture was a motel room with a bed and a ghostly outline of a person on the bed where the Photoshop artist's work wasn't perfect. It's perfectly reasonable to put that picture on this page. Dfpc 15:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

I don't have like 3 hours to read every statement, but if someone is looking for a picture of this, I may have a LEGAL solution. I remember a while ago, the police discovered a child porn ring, and found a picture of an underage girl whom they needed to identify. They used a company (or someone) to airbursh the girl out of the picture, so that just the background was visible. The image was shown on t.v. and news channels. (they made her become transparent, but you could see the outline of a human figure) ...it turned out to work and somebody recognized the background as a suite at disney world. If someone could find that picture (I don't feel like searching for the words child porn) and post it here, then there could be a LEGAL picture. Or if someone who knew more about this article, they could add it to the page. —Preceding unsigned comm
Helena Lana Porn Hub
Every Porn Game Com
Big Mom My Friends Porn Mom Control

Porn Kid Pthc

Report Page