Talk:Child pornography

Possible section regarding the history of child pornography before the internet

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)

Do you have reliable sources on it? If so, be bold and add it. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 05:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

I can't speak speciically to the Parents magizine cover in question you recall seeing but I can say that it is not now nor has it ever been illegal in the UK to possess images of non-sexual child nudity in and of itself (contrary to popular misconception in the UK and US) so likely the cover wouldn't be illegal by todays legal standards just as it wasn't back then in the UK or US (assuming it indeed just shows mere nudity that is not sexual/lewd, lacisviouse, etc as you seemed to suggest it did). Since this is something that reliable source have addressed both in the UK and US and in other countries (i.e. IS underage nudity illegal in and of itself and if so when often in regards to failed attempts to prosecute people for content with mere underage nudity, that is something soomeone with some time could specifically address in the article better. Here is a link to an PDF document that talks about the legal differences in how many difference countries around the world define and legislate CSAM (aka Child Porn) material since not all countries define CSAM exactly the same (it's from INHOPE, a internationally recognized group fighting to eliminate CSAM and operating a reporting network for CSAM): https://www.inhope.org/media/pages/articles/inhope-network-legislative-overview/4b1f18f61f-1623308197/legislativeoverview_final.pdf This should help as reliable source to use as a starting off point at least. Now To address the original question above: Before the internet, much of child porn was sent through the mail or passed around among individuals directly from person to person. Some European countries did not outlaw child porn until some time later than America and many European countries did and as such you could buy such content on the open market including in porn shops in those countries. Now all European countries outlaw it, if were talking about the type of CP/CSAM that every country has defined as illegal. When it came to clear cut CP (i.e. non-gray area content) in the prepublic intenret days, it was largely distributed via photographs, magazines, books, and 8mm/16mm films and later on video tape or via computer bulletin board services (BBS's) in the 80's/early-90's. Also, be aware that while the internet has become the main way to distribute CP these days, it hasn't completely wiped out other means of distribution such material such as via snail mail or via person to person as reliable news sources from time to time still report such cases still though much less frequently then internet related CP casesm these days. Since articles from notable publications exist on this specific question which were published in the years of the late seventies to thw mid 90s (before the internet was easily accesable by the general public) and thus you can find them if you search through public library newspaper and magazine archives, if anyone wants to add section regarding how CP was distributed, especially before the inernet, then there is no reason it can't be done in compliance with WP policies regarding sources and such. Notcharliechaplin (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

---

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)

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)

---

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)

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)

Wiki Education assignment: LLIB 1115 - Intro to Information Research

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)

Requested move 16 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

---

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)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONAME. At least that's my impression. But I am not actually going to search for either term on the internet to confirm that. Walrasiad (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose move per COMMONNAME, and definitely oppose that particular capitalization. O.N.R. ^(talk) 09:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• oppose No evidence provided by nom. Ngrams [2] and g scholar [3] [4] clearly show current title is overwhelmingly dominant—blindlynx 16:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral WP:ARTICLETITLE doesn't depend only on the most common name but also on being precise and neutral. Having an article called "Child pornography" can be interpreted as an oxymoron and imprecise and misleading such as the same as writing an article called "Slave volunteer". One person could also make the assertion that the current title is not neutral such as if someone were to move the page about "Psilocybin" to "Shrooms" simply because it's more common especially for the people who enjoy it. I cannot agree with the suggested new title if only because of the capitalization which is not how we name things on Wikipedia but I do see how the current title is not neutral or precise and could be due for a change. Jorahm (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed name narrows the scope, since it requires abuse. Sexting between teens would manufacture such material, but does not necessarily involve abuse, unless the nominator proposes that all minors are abused whenever they make such material, whatever the circumstances, even if they are a boyfriend and girlfriend who are under the age of majority. (such as the current U.S. law defines it, which makes such teens have a lifetime label of registered sex offender, for filming themselves for their same-aged partners). Instead of "sexual abuse" it should be "sexually explicit" because of the production by teens for their teen partners, which is still illegal and still covered by this article; Minor-aged sexually explicit material or a more descriptive title Material in which children and minors appear in sexually explicit situations because the categorization of child is different in different jurisdictions, where the limiting age of child may be significantly younger that the oldest minors, but they are minors in whatever jurisdiction, as they are below the threshold age for the production of such material. Note the the age of majority and the threshold ages for the production of such material varies across the globe. ;;; OR we just keep the current name, since it is the common name. ;;; the nominator has not used non-US sources to support the rename, so this could be U.S.-biased as well. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per very clear WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2024

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)

Sorry, but no. We don't link obscure websites that offer advice like "Lean in the direction of prayer and asking God for help" [5] as a means to deal with a global issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Gamer's Dilemma

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)

I second Magi's opinion, I believe it should be moved elsewhere as it seems to be conflating the two as if they were equivalent which said relation is hotly debated at very best and can be seen as outright slanderous at worst. Though this might just be because I am not sure if the "Gamer's Dilemma" is referring specifically to hyperrealistic simulations made to be indistinguishable from actual child pornography, or instead was referring to/also including cartoon/anime pornography such as lolicon/shotacon where a direct relation between the fictional material and realistic depictions of actual child sexual exploitation is pretty much nonexistent, in general, I think it is important that we differentiate the two from each other, but I still think either way it should probably go to another article. GigaMigaDigaChad (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2024 (EST)