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. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 180 days ![]() |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion review on 26 August 2007. The result of the discussion was refer further disputes to ArbCom. Revisions prior to the first that contained the term may be restored.. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct) | |||
|
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
![]() | On 16 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be movedtoChild Sexual Abuse Material. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
I'd like to hear your thoughts on adding a section regarding the child pornography before the internet. AveNohpex (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
I'm quite sure that there was child pornography before the Internet, although how it would have been distributed in the days before emails, I've no idea. Perhaps under the counter in certain newsagents shops. But still photography has been around for over 170 years and cine photography for 125 years, so assuming that human nature hasn't changed in all that time and that there's nothing new under the sun, there must have been a lot of it produced since then. How much of it has survived is anyone's guess. However, the definition of child porn has changed a great deal since the 1980s. It used to mean films or photos of children taking part in sexual acts, but now, any film or photo of a naked child is regarded as child porn. I remember when, back in June, 1976, I was in a WHSmith's store and on the shelves was that months issue of Parents magazine. On the cover was a photo of two naked children, a boy and a girl aged about three years old. No one thought anything of it at that time, but anyone buying it back then and still having it in their possession would find themselves in a lot of trouble now if the police found out. The question posed by the above anecdote is this: If it wasn't wrong to possess that magazine in 1976, why is it wrong now? David Rayner, September 7th, 2021.
No, the photo on the Parents magazine cover from nearly 46 years ago was just nudity and nothing else. However, photos of simple child nudity are a bit of a grey area. I remember a couple of cases where parents who took photos of their children in the bath and then took the film in to be developed and printed were arrested and charged with child sexual abuse when workers in the photo lab saw the photos and called the police. One of them was ITN newsreader Julia Somerville. But when the cases got to court, the judge threw the cases out because he ruled that the photos were neither abusive nor pornographic. Such cases are unlikely to happen today because photos are now taken digitally and no film processing is involved. Therefore, there is no need for anyone outside of the family or close friends to see the images. David Rayner, Monday, December 27th, 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidRayner (talk • contribs) 12:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
That is somewhat misleading- while it is true that mere nudity is not pornography, at least in the United States, the question as to whether something is mere nudity vs. pornography is a highly factual issue that juries must decide in adherence to the jury instructions given, which typically heavily involve the Dost factors which distinguish the difference between nudity vs. pornography for purposes of law in the United States. Rather, in the context of U.S. law, it can be an extremely complex grey area, given that the original doctrine in Miller v. California and obscenity doctrine in general is by no means a neat and clean doctrine of the U.S. supreme court. For example, Free Speech Coalition v. Ashcroft created a major exception to the legal definition of child pornography under U.S. law by striking down the language "appears to be" from the statutory law, and instead requiring the government to prove the actual involvement of a child. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
I concur there should be a section but sources would be hard to come by and the only information I've ever come across is online forum discussions. One involved a magazine like Hustler if I'm correct showing a girl in a suggestive pose. In the next issue another girl was in a suggestive pose looking at the page of the first girl. I think this would count as pornography because of where it appeared defining its purpose. It appears that before laws regarding CP there was the occasional image in a mainstream magazine. Biofase flame| stalk 19:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
What about the fully nude shoot [1] of Brooke Shields she posed for Playboy at age 10? I'm not sure if really pornographic but the purpose was clearly erotic in nature and even if legal would cause a big stir today. Biofase flame| stalk 15:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Littlemisschaotic (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Littlemisschaotic (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The result of the move request was: not moved. Per consensus, WP:COMMONNAME. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Child pornography → Child Sexual Abuse Material – I was previously undecided on what to do, but now I feel that a discussion is necessary. Recently, I noticed that the NCMEC began using this term because it is more accurate than the current title. I also did further digging, and found that the Department of Justice also uses this term. According to Google Trends, the move towards this terminology started in 2021, and has only gained traction since then. I am can't think of any reason to keep the title as it is, but I'll start a discussion anyway. Scorpions1325 (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add https://www.preventcp.org as a relevant resource for preventing child pornography, in the organizations section. EvelHazelnut (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I feel that this is largely out of place with the page as it discusses Simulated child pornography rather than "real" child pornography, should this be moved to the aforementioned page or similar ones or be kept as is? MagiTagi (talk) 16:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply