“Watching child porn victimizes the child”. The Voodoo science of child pornography laws

  

“However, what he didn’t turn his mind to at the time is that merely having possession and viewing images such as this does victimize and hurt the individual portrayed in the image. He appreciates that now.” Senior gets jail time, probation for having single image of child pornography 

We at Human-Stupidity.com fail to appreciate that. Maybe we are too humanly-stupid to understand. Or maybe we do not fall prey to mystical superstitious thinking that is the driving force of the child porn witch hunt

merely having possession and viewing images such as this does victimize and hurt the individual portrayed in the image.” This is some mystical religious thinking. Like in Voodoo. And note, this was said by a respectable lawyer to appease a judge. And this logic is used over and over, for example by Australian Government web sites. 

Vodoo logic

Child porn Voodoo logic

voodoo-doll-pinYou stick a needle into a Vodoo doll’s arm. The person you curse will be hurt on the arm.
The vodoo doll symbolizes a person, and that person’s will get injured in the same place where you stuck the needle.
Someone possesses a photo of a child, in the form of 0’s and 1’s in a computer file. When s/he looks at the photo, the individual depicted in the photo gets victimized and hurt.
 

Voodoo logic applied to murder and terrorism

exhusband-vodoo-doll While I can appreciate that creating or distributing child porn victimizes children, I cannot agree that looking for, viewing, or collecting child porn actually victimizes anyone. If you were to apply the same reasoning to any other crime, then looking at a photo of any crime would be re-victimizing someone. Using the same reasoning, anyone who looks for, views images or video footage of 9/11 or nazi war crimes, or autopsy photos, etc, would be guilty of having re-victimized people. If the simple act of viewing an image of someone is harmful, then perhaps an approprate punishment would be to simply take a photo of the perpetrator in jail, then set them free, but have some look at the photo that was taken while they were in jail. ”
Dude” commenting at  
Examining the Effects of Child Pornography

VoodooDoll Dude, you are hilarious. Having people look at photos of themselves in jail to re-victimize them with their jail term. Priceless! 

Studying child sex offenders isn’t easy. […] It’s hard because sexual offenses against children are without a doubt the most culturally, emotionally, and politically charged of all offenses, particularly in North America, and researchers (and journalists) who are willing to take a more objective, critical, and/or scientific view of these offenses and offenders, are often attacked for their trouble. Take one of the questions the Swiss study considered: 

Are people who consume child pornography different from those who sexually offend against a child?

So far so good. Open minded article, wants to seriously analyze child porn issues. But wait: now he falls under the voodo spell, too:

Many may feel like this distinction isn’t worth making. Watching child pornography is, in several ways, offending against a child even if the viewer never comes in physical contact with a child. Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film.    Examining the Effects of Child Pornography 

We were seriously doubting our sanity. Maybe we at Human-Stupidity, like Mr Smith who had one single CP photo, really need our misguided brain repaired. Even if we don’t consume child porn, maybe for purely educational purposes, to remedy our human-stupitiy, we should join Smith’s “probationary term that will require Smith to take part in the province’s sexual offender assessment and treatment program” (Senior gets jail time for single image of CP

Maybe we, at Human-Stupidity.com are the only dumb insane people in this world who don’t understand this infallible logic: “Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film”.  

But the spell was broken, and our trust into our sanity was re-instated, when we ran across this irreverant and refreshing comment 

“Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film.” 

Are you mad? 

Looking at ‘indecent’ images of children is no more a ‘Sex Crime’ than looking at an image of a dead person is ‘Homicide’. (“Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield “commenting on Examining the Effects of Child Pornography

Hence 

one could just legalise ownership [of child porn] and solve the problem in one fell swoop 

Certainly our mind gets victimized by repeated exposure to insane voodo logic 

Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film”.  

This repeated exposure almost destroyed our trust into our own intelligence. Somehow constant repetition of voodoo logic brainwashes the average person into believing such NONSENSE: “Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film”.  

Unfortunately, the belief in this nonesense guides entire nations’ and the United Nation’s policy towards the world wide child porn witch hunt

Australian Law Makers’ logic

Analogy #1

Analogy #2

Not a victimless crime: The accessibility of child pornography or child abuse images on the Internet raises the question of the relationship between the viewing of such images and actual child abuse off-line by the offender concerned. It is agreed that the very act of accessing child pornography makes the offender a party to child sexual abuse. As the UK Sentencing Panel observed: ‘Possession of child pornography is not (as some have argued) a victimless offence’. [2.5]  Child Pornography Law (New South Wales, Australia) Not a victimless crime: The accessibility of child abuse images on the internet 
 

  • infant shaking, infant beating, infant throwing caught on nanny-cams
  • children suffering serious injuries in accidents
  • children being knocked out in fighting sports like boxing and Thai boxing

raises the question of the relationship between the viewing of such images and actual child abuse off-line by the offender concerned. It is agreed that the very act of accessing child abuse videos above makes the offender a party to child sexual abuse. As the UK Sentencing Panel observed: ‘Possession of child abuse videos as above is not (as some have argued) a victimless offence’. 

Not a victimless crime: The accessibility of  depictions of terrorism, mayhem and murder on the Internet raises the question of the relationship between the viewing of such images and actual terrorism, mayhem and murder off-line by the offender concerned.  It is agreed that the very act of accessing depictions of terrorism, mayhem and murder makes the offender a party to terrorism, mayhem and murder. As the UK Sentencing Panel observed: ‘Possession of depictions of terrorism, mayhem and murder is not (as some have argued) a victimless offence’. [2.5]   

  

Human-Stupidity.com Analysis

We understand your rage

We understand that some readers will be fuming with anger, reading our “defense of pedophiles, child abuse, and child abusers”. We almost fell prey to the world wide child porn hysteria voodoo logic brainwashing. It is based on 2 fallacies 

  1. confusing the crime with depiction of a crime:
    You watch a movie of a plane flying into the World Trade Center. Therefore you are a terrrorist and revictimizing 3000 people who died
  2. Confusing child pornography and “child pornography”. Confusing “child porn” as defined in the old days (involving a “real child under 12” and “real porn with real penetrative sex” and “modern child porn” which might be as harmless as a 22 year old (that looks “apparently underage” like she might be only 17 years old) non-nude in leotards dancing while gyrating her hips provocatively). Can you understand now we insist that lots of modern so called “child porn” has no victim at all and is not offensive to sex positive people.

  

Can watching a photo or video cause harm to a far away “victim” that is unaware of the watcher?

  

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading ““Watching child porn victimizes the child”. The Voodoo science of child pornography laws” »
“Watching child porn victimizes the child”. The Voodoo…
» continues here »

Legalizing Child Pornography reduces child sex abuse crimes (Scientific study by Dr. Milton Diamond, U. Hawaii)

Legalizing child pornography

is linked to lower rates of child sex abuse

Archives of Sexual Behavior (Peer Reviewed Scientific Research Publication by Springer)
"Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic" Archives of Sexual Behavior. The official publication of the International Institute of Sex Research

Study carried out in Czech Republic confirms similar results in Japan and Denmark

Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. And most significantly, the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. Their findings are published online today in Springer’s journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.

The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose.

Diamond M et al (2010). Pornography and sex crimes in the Czech Republic. Archives of Sexual Behavior. DOI 10.1007/s10508-010-9696-y  eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-11/s-lcp113010.php

Video (must see)
Hawaii Researcher Studies Effects Of Child Pornography.:Says Porn Lowers Sex Abuse Of Children. (must see Video)

As part of his research Diamond also looked at countries that have recently made child pornography illegal and said the rate of child sex abuse there is rising.

Original Paper: Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic (HTML)
Original Paper: Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic (PDF)

The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children.
Source: Legalizing child pornography is linked to lower rates of child sex abuse

Amazingly a politically incorrect study made it past the radar and actually got published. We are against dogmatic Human-Stupidity. We favor unbiased free research to find the truth. Human-Stupidity.com is in no way devoted to the goal of defending child pornography for its own sake. BUT

We are apalled that our sex-obsessed judicial system destroys the lives of harmless men
while at the same time being tolerant of real mayhem, violence, vigilanteism, and the child obesity pandemic

It is perfectly legal to own, produce and distribute clearly more dangerous depictions of

  • terrorist acts,
  • fatwa orders to kill,
  • video games of shooting people
  • video games of running people over with cars,
  • depictions of rioting, killing, lynching, beating adolescents or children to death
  • depictions of sports accident videos of children

All these are perfectly legal, no matter if this might incite people to imitate and do likewise.  And no matter if minors got maimed and killed in production of the video.

Of course, only human-stupidity.com would dare to publish such a scientific result without backpedalling. The mainstream press, scared of the child porn witch hunt climate, has the compulsion to add caveats.

Charity’s anger at proposal to make child porn legal ‘to protect children from abusers’ (Daily Mail)

The proposal, by Professor Milton Diamond from the University of Hawaii [to legalise child pornography in a bid to cut the number of child sex abuse cases], follows a study which shows that child sex crimes fell when child pornography was legalised in the Czech Republic.  […]  The research found that child sex crimes fell when child pornography was more easily accessible. The discovery tallies with similar studies in Denmark and Japan, where child pornography is not illegal, that found incidences of child sex abuse were lower in those countries.

The conclusion of the new study is that ‘artificially-produced’ child pornography should be made available to prevent real children being abused.

The normal press has to instantly counter academic research with the emotionally driven, manipulative unscientific drivel by charities and NGO’s.

But child protection charity NSPCC today said the idea was ‘wrong’.

Chris Cloke, the charity’s NSPCC head of child protection awareness, said: ‘This obscene type of material has no part to play in our society.

‘Many children suffer atrocious abuse in the making of indecent images.

‘To make it legal, would suggest that inappropriate behaviour and violence towards children is acceptable. It never is and it would be quite wrong to make it legal.’
Charity’s anger at proposal to make child porn legal ‘to protect children from abusers’ (Daily Mail)

Change.org sucks & censors had to instantly campaign emotions against science and actually won censorship (as was to be expected in the actual political child porn witch hunt climate):

Update: The University of Hawaii denounced this recommendation after receiving letters from 250 Change.org members. University of Hawaii Professor Recommends Legalizing Child Porn (Change.org)

Due to loud protest by change.org “human trafficing” campaigns, academic scientific research was censored with no need for scientific rebuttal by academic peer reviewed research.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Legalizing Child Pornography reduces child sex abuse crimes (Scientific study by Dr. Milton Diamond, U. Hawaii)” »
Legalizing Child Pornography reduces child sex abuse crimes (Scien…
» continues here »

Hollywood movies glorify criminal heroes: how romantic!

Romantic Hollywood movies are full of illegal (criminal) actions, perpetrated by movie heroes, our role models!  Interestingly, most of these illegalities are considered highly romantic (when perpetrated by a heartthrob movie star)

When done in real life, many of the tricks used by onscreen singletons to successfully woo potential lovers can get you put away for a long time.

  1. Pranking a Rival by Doctoring His Drink
  2. Defending Her Honor – With Your FISTS
  3. Watching Your True Love From the Bushes (stalking)
  4. Just Tie The Guy Up (rape committed by females is romantic)
  5. “Oh, It Was You I Was Having Sex With!” (sex by deception)
  6. Dashing Through Airport Security to Declare Your Love
    Source: Romantic Movie Gestures That Can Get You Prison Time

It is fun to read all the details and examples:
Romantic Movie Gestures That Can Get You Prison Time

If a man tied up a woman, with no explicit consent: 10 years jail time
Man tied up to be raped by a woman (in mainstream movie)

Do these movies send us wrong messages? Do they mis-educate us and our kids? Should they be prohibited for minors? Or are our laws wrong and the movies are right? Tough questions!

Hollywood glorifies ILLEGAL violent actions perpetrated by handsome role models …. but photos and movies of LEGAL acts are child pornography

Hollywood glorifies ILLEGAL violent actions perpetrated by handsome role models …

Our inborn insticts are not acceptable in laws of the modern world. This has good reasons. Genocide and ethnical cleansing can be found not only in the holy Bible, but even in chimpanzee colonies in the wild. Overreacting in self defense is a deterrent to thugs, but nowadays gets victims of bullying and robbery into jail. Of course, occasionally, the old illegal method would work as well or better. Vigilanteism and lynching, in the past, helped to maintain order.

In Hollywood movie clearly illegal and dangerous actions are perpetrated by the hero! Not just by the villains, but by the beloved and adored hero that serves as model for adults and children alike. I always wondered why the hero never makes a police report, but rather solves his problems with his fists and guns. What a role model for our gullible children!

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Hollywood movies glorify criminal heroes: how romantic!” »
Hollywood movies glorify criminal heroes: how romantic!
» continues here »

Brooke Shields nude: exploited pedophile magnet?

Brooke Shields, now 44, posed for a nude photo when she was 10 years old. Now Richard Prince’s photograph of the picture, called “Spiritual America,” has been yanked from a major exhibition at the Tate Modern. If pedophiles didn’t already know about “Spiritual America,” the Richard Prince photo taken of a nude, heavily-made-up 10-year-old named Brooke Shields, they do know. London police made headlines by yanking the photo from an exhibition at the Tate Modern after child exploitation groups protested, saying it could be a “magnet for pedophiles.” nj.com So what if it becomes a magnet for pedophiles? What if 300 pedophiles crowd into the art museum’s room to see the picture? What damage would be caused?We have so many real problems in this world. Why invent non-existent problems about a 32 year old photo of a now 42 year old woman?I see more damage in this violent, but legal, movie:

“If you are using a picture of a naked child to bring people to your exhibition, then you are exploiting that child,” Michele Elliott of the child advocacy group Kidscape tells the Daily Telegraph.

How does that child get exploited? If she were not famous, she would not even know about the art gallery. In this case, she probably even got paid. And why that be exploitation? And what is the problem of being thus exploited? Will she lose money, health, time?

Oh, dignity? Well check the dignity of the kid that is being clubbed to death, on prime time TV:

Feminists repeat the same stupid drivel (“picture of naked child is exploitation of the child“) over and over, until people actually believe their nonsense. This never ceases to impress me. Feminist stupid talk has magical qualities. No matter how stupid, no matter how unfounded and baseless, it becomes public policy and profoundly convinces press, police, law makers, the United Nations assembly, and supreme court judges.

The same exploitative photo was in Playboy in the 1970ies or 1980ies. We can see the horrendous damage that has been caused to Brook Shields and to millions of readers of that Playboy edition. She must still be a wreck today at 42 years of age.

I guess all people over 40 who have seen these and similar photos, are probably totally screwed up. They did not see only this one photo, but photos of nude 12-16 year olds were routinely in newspapers (page 3) and in youth magazines like Bravo or on the cover of prestigious German news magazine “Der Spiegel”. (23. May 1977)

Be careful, if you collect such magazines, you might get a 15 year jail sentence for possession if child pornography! Be afraid, be very afraid.

brooke-shields-nude-10years
Brooke Shields 10 years old nude photo. Censored.
The above photo was removed from the art gallery in London.

Wet Gold, USA 1985, Director: Dick Lowry.  Brooke Shields, Burgess MeredithYou pedophiles want to see the uncensored photos?

If you like this photo to the right, you are a “hebephile”, you like adolescent girls. Nowadays this is, on purpose, confused with pedophiles (pedophiles like pre-pubescent girls)

  • Below: Cover of most prestigious new magazine of Germany. May 1977. Nude.  Today this constitutes child porn.

Der Spiegel May 1977 Lolita Issue. Censore to avoid Child Pornography charges and to avoid corrupting my blog readers. Of course, there were hundreds such photos on other magazine covers. The entire Germany, a nation of pedophiles!? Or today, a time of witch hunts?!
An entire nation of pedophiles: Millions - adults, children, babies - saw these photos (uncensored in complete nudity) in public news stands all over Germany in 1977. Imagine the terrible damage to the entire German population and to the girl. Any scientific literature available that discusses the damage from this heinous crime of exposing the poor victim? Of course not!!!
Child porn showing a baby's genitals and urination
Clearly visible genitals, urination of an infant child. A heinous crime: the statue needs to be destroyed. Everyone responsible for this monstrosity needs 25 years of jail. Until recently, the world was unaware of the damage caused by such despicable criminal art.

A very nice discussion with examples of child pornographic art from major art museums, worth millions of dollars follows

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Brooke Shields nude: exploited pedophile magnet?” »
Brooke Shields nude: exploited pedophile magnet?
» continues here »

Pedophile witch hunt & underage sex law excesses: why the witch hunt and how to change it?

An ephebe kisses a man. Tondo from an Attic kylix, 5th c. BCE by the Briseis painter. At the Louvre.
Ancient Greek Pedophile art: An ephebe kisses a man. 5th c.. At the Louvre. Proof of age not available.

Isn’t it strange? For traditional feminists who want female equality, freedom and self determination, it looks amazing

  • feminists don’t oppose the burka and are quiet about Muslim repression of females (because Muslims successfully keep women away from the eyes of the feminist’s spouses)
  • feminists successfully restrict women’s right to choose sexual services (prostitution) as a profession. that often pays lots more money then other work. Of course, men who can pay $100 to an attractive prostitute are less likely to marry an average looking fat aging woman who later will take away half their property and demand half their income.
  • I got convinced that the antifeminists hypothesis is the most parsimonious explanation for these apparent contradictions.

Feminists conspire to increase their sexual value by eliminating female sexual of competition

What feminists strive for Explanation
(increasing their own sexual market value by reducing competition)
Feminists even repress women,
to foster their reproductive goal of reducing sexual options for their own men
feminists don’t oppose the burka and are quiet about Muslim repression of females because Muslim’s repression of women successfully keep women away from the eyes and hands of the feminist’s spouses
feminists don’t promote women’s right to free choice, rather they successfully restrict women’s right to choose sexual services (prostitution) as a profession Of course, men who can pay $100 to an attractive prostitute are less likely to marry an average looking women who later will take away half their property and demand half their income for life.
Prostitutes are non-Union picket line violators, they give away their work cheaply
decrease age of consent to eliminate competition by very young attractive women (age of consent used to be 12, is now 18 everywhere and there seem to be plans to increase it to 21 worldwide)
prohibit erotic art, photography, pornography Under the guise of protecting porn models (who did not ask to be protected and do not want to go back to menial jobs) feminists want to avoid men seeing attractive women naked, getting distracted, spending time and money.
prohibit sex dolls, sex robots, but not vibrators

Pedophile witch hunters & feminists are NOT concerned about children’s well being

If draconian child porn laws were to protect children, why then videos of real child killings are legal?
Nude adolescent photos: a Crime. Videos of lynching, killing, beating adolescents are legal Prime Time TV.

Congratulations to the antifeminist blog, they are the only ones that give a sensible explanation for this: feminists want to cut of competition to their sexual monopoly so men will continue paying high prices for sex (marriage with life long support and half of all property on divorce).

I quote the antifeminist blog, I could not say this any better.

Why do I think you are obsessed with criminilizing everything and only those things that harm your particular, selfish reproductive and sexual needs? Because that is all you seem to be interested in. What about teenage girls bullying and beating each other up on video and then having them uploaded to websites that make money from advertisements? Naahh, no sexual threat, therefore nothing to say. What about teenage girls and even 10 year old girls appearing on reality tv shows to be exploited for commercial gain by adults and clearly suffering psychological distress as a result? Nope, no specific sexual threat to your reproductive interests so you have probably never given it two seconds thought. A 17 year old who likes to screw older men? You don’t want your man running off with or even looking at a hot 17 year old, so therefore 17 year old girls can’t give meaingful consent and older men should be criminilized.[…]

Can 17 year old girls make meaningful decisions about whether or not their unborn babies should be killed? Is having sex really more complex than deciding which political party is best able to govern? Surely if an 18 year old can vote, a 17 year old can fuck? And how come she can consent to sex with another 17 year old and not a 25 year old??
http://www.theantifeminist.com/the-chilling-banality-of-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-2452

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Read the rest of this story f more provocative Devil’s Advocate Ideas »
Pedophile witch hunt & underage sex law excesses: why the witc…
» continues here »

“Child Porn” Witch Hunt: Insane Laws

“Child Pornography” is a relatively new crime, invented in the last few decades. Simple possession of “child pornography” in a computer cache (an automatic storage of browsers) can yield extreme jail sentences, higher then for crimes like non-sexual child mutilation, violent beatings, attempted murder. I will, however, list a host of absurd illogical facts and laws, mainly from Europe.

  1. Language gets distorted on purpose, for propagandistic effects, worse then under Nazi Minister Goebbels 
    • in most countries’ laws, children are under 14 years old
    • pornography normally are sexually explicit actions, not nude solo acts
    • now, suddenly, by definition, under 18 year olds are “children”, and nude photos are pornography. Well, erotic youth photos does not sound as jail-worthy as “child pornography”
    • in Europe, specifically in Germany, pictures of someone “appearing under 18” (scheinjugendlich, scheinminderjährig) now is being redefined as “child pornography”. In other words, a young looking 25 year old, that looks like a 17 year old youth, is being called a child.
    • I write “child pornography” in quotes, because a picture that neigher contains a child, nor is pornographic can be called “child pornography”
  2. Until the 1980ies today’s “child porn” was main stream entertainment.
    • main stream Hollywood movies like the Blue Lagoon showed underage sensual nudity and and pretended sexual intercourse of underage actors pretending to be underage people. A clear case of child porn by today’s laws
    • British newspaper “page 3” nude girls were routinely 16 years or older
    • German youth magazines had nude teenage photos, routinely, partially for sex education
    • nudes of all ages, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20 years old, were shown in publicly sold magazines about FKK, the german nudity culture
    • in Germany nude bathing is wide spread, on beaches and rivers even inside cities like Munich, nudes of all ages can be seen live. So photos of what everyone can see at any time didn’t really look like a crime.
    • Antique greek statues show little nude boys with their sexual organs
    • In Holland and Denmark, hard core porn with 16 year olds was legal. If someone legally bought or downloaded this, now he is a hard core criminal facing decades of jail. I wonder what the reason is for these laws. Who will be protected by these penalties? Interestingly, most of these movies were quite tastefully erotic, different from many abusive porn movies sold nowadays with over 18 year old actresses (for a negative example, do NOT look at germangoogirls.com).
  3. Why can a photo of a perfectly legal act be a heinous crime?
    • In Europe, Sex with 16 year olds is perfectly legal. So why a photo or movie of such a perfectly legal act is a very serious crime? Production, possession, passing on
    • maybe it is a crime if a 16 year old looks into the mirror while having sex? If he films himself and looks at the movie, obviously that is a heinous crime.
    • what if our 16 year-olds get caught by a surveillance camera. Who then is the criminal? What if security personell looks at the surveillance movie. Should they delete it or turn in to police?
  4. What is the purpose of these laws? Do they protect children or adolescents?
    • Prohibiting movies that were legally produced in highly civilized countries like Netherlands does not protect anyone. It seems that nobody got damaged when shooting the movie under such perfectly legal circumstances. If anyone got damaged, it is too late to fix it. The movie has been shot already, nothing can be changed. It only prevents the girls or the studio from receiving more income.
    • Prohibiting drawings, photoshop art, etc: no child was harmed producing this.
    • “watching photos or videos of nude adolescents makes people pedophile so that they will abuse and rape children”. A desperate attempt to justify the absurd. Problems:
    • no proof exists for that watching porn makes people rapists, nor watching child porn makes people child rapists.
    • It seems to be the opposite. , watching porn can be cathartic so people will NOT become violent
    • Why don’t laws prohibit violent movies, chainsaw massacres, shootings, beatings? I think it is very damaging to see movie heroes that never call the police but rather, as role models, beat up the bad guys with their own hands

So much stupidity. So little time to write about it.

Unfortunately, most of the literature I found is in German. Please post quotes of English texts.

http://schutzalter.twoday.net/
http://www.lawblog.de/index.php/archives/2007/01/12/kinderpornografie-ein-blick-ins-gesetz/
http://forum.spiegel.de/showthread.php?t=12149 http://blog.beck.de/2008/11/06/jugendpornographieverbot-seit-05november-in-kraft

Family pictures of nude baby bath: ruinous child porn prosecution

Innocent bath photo got parents on sex offender listChildren were taken from their parents into protective custody for over a month, because of pictures taken at bath time. Parents lost their jobs, spent US$ 75,000 and got registered as sex offenders. This is an example of how the child porn hysteria goes totally overboard.

(This is not an isolated case, here a story about a snapshot of a mother breast-feeding her child got parents indicted by a grand jury as kiddie porn producers and child abusers ). But back from “breast feeding porn” to the “bathing photos kiddie porn” persecution.

For A.J. and Lisa Demaree, the photos they snapped of their young daughters were innocent and sweet.

But after a photo developer at Walmart thought otherwise, the Demarees found themselves in a yearlong battle to prove they were not child pornographers.

Coppertone ad: cute in the 1970ies, now child porn and bestiality?
Coppertone ad: cute in 1970ies, nowadays potentially child porn and even bestiality?

“I don’t’ understand it at all,” A.J. Demaree told “Good Morning America” Monday. “Ninety-nine percent of the families in America have these exact same photos.”

Sources:http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/arizona-couple-suing-bathtime-photos-prompt-wal-mart/story?id=8624533

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Family pictures of nude baby bath: ruinous child porn prosecution” »
Family pictures of nude baby bath: ruinous child porn prosecution
» continues here »

History of child pornography production and laws, told by an insider

Found a ong, very interesting article by an insider in child porn. He makes a lot of interesting points

  1. from antiquity until a few decades ago, children’s nudity was object of arts, of photographers, painters, sculptures. Today’s witch hunt that jails children for photographing themselves in the nude and passing their own photograph to their boyfriends (sexting) is new.
  2. mainstream movies and magazines showed nude adolescents in scenes whose production or even viewing nowadays would be punished by decades of jail terms.
  3. actual child abuse was fairly rare, lots of models actually enjoyed the shootings (we are talking about posing and not acts that are totally unnatural for their age)
  4. Internet censorship and blocking programs don’t work because the child porn industry nowadays is so tech savvy that these measures only catch the amateurs.

Source of the long article: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/My_life_in_child_porn Original german version of the source

In the past, child and adolescent sex was considered normal.  Even exaggerated examples from religious books did not shock people

Mohammed married Aisha at age 6 or 9 (http://www.missionislam.com/knowledge/aishamarriage.pdf http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm )

Many biblical commentators believe that Rebekah was still a child when she married Isaac, while Isaac was forty years of age ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham )

Brooke Shields 15 years in PeopleMagazine
Brooke Shields 15 years in People Magazine

Since antique times, artists could show children and adolescents nude. Mainstream movies and magazines printed nude photos of 14 year old girls up to the 1980ies or later, which nowadays would be a crime punishable by many years in jail not only for the producers but also for the spectators and buyers. Actually, artists nowadays frequently get prosecuted for depicting children.( http://users.rcn.com/kyp/witchprc.html )

Shields’ first major film role was her 1978 appearance in Louis Malle’s Pretty Baby, a movie in which she played a child who lived in a brothel (and in which there were numerous nude scenes).[1] Because she was only 12 when the film was released, and possibly 11 when it was filmed, questions were raised about child pornography.[7][8][9] This was followed by a slightly less controversial and less notable film, Wanda Nevada (1979).

After two decades of movies, her best known films are still arguably The Blue Lagoon (1980), which included a number of nude scenes between teenage lovers on a tropical island (Shields later testified before a U.S. Congressional inquiry that older body doubles were used in some of them) and Endless Love (1981). She won the People’s Choice Award in the category of Favorite Young Performer in four consecutive years from 1981 to 1984.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke_Shields

Nowadays, parents get prosecuted for taking nude photos of their babies in the bath tub, and teenagers arrested for taking nude photos of themselves.

History of child sex and child porn

Very interesting article by an insider from the child porn scene.

Source: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/My_life_in_child_porn Original german version of the source

In the Middle Ages, when the life expectancy was still significantly lower, the puberty began later than today and adolescents in the age range 12-18 years were set up for marriage. This changed increasingly. Naked, erotically depicted boys and girls have always been in the center of the art. As photography became popular at the end of the 18th Century, also erotic act descriptions with children and young people were made. At the end of the 60s there was a magazine called Lolita, produced by the Danish company “Color Climax”, that had sex between children and between children and adults as the subject. </ p>

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “History of child pornography production and laws, told by an insider” »
History of child pornography production and laws, told by an insid…
» continues here »