Wikipedia's censored guide to CP laws

From Encyclopedia Dramatica
Jump to navigation Jump to search

About 100 years ago, Wikipedia had a page that detailed CP laws. It was censored when accusations were made that Wikipedia was hosting a guide on how to slip through the loop holes in the law. Since then the copy has been removed do to jewbos robots.txt trolling. The lesson here is: always make your own backups of important shit. Also WP:NOTCENSORED is bullshit. Here is the page Wikipedia doesn't want you to see, archived for the lulz.

This article is an archived version of an article that was censored from Wikipedia in 2007. Information contained in this article may not be reliable.

Child Pornography refers to pornography depicting minors. Its production and possession are illegal in jurisdictions throughout the world, although details of local statutes vary.


The definition of "child pornography" differs from country to country. Prohibition includes visual depictions of sexual activities involving actual children under a specified age. Some countries go further and prohibit all depictions of nudity of minors, whether or not the minor is depicted in an erotic pose or as engaging in a sexual act.

There are countries which prohibit visual depictions even when no actual children were involved in the making of the image. Such depictions may including paintings, drawings, or computer-generated images. In some countries, not only visual depictions but, also, written works may fall within the definition of child pornography.

The minimum legal age for a depicted person varies from country to country. Some countries set one age for "hardcore" pornography and another for "softcore" pornography.

There are countries whose laws provide an exception for materials that have artistic merit. Some works considered to have artistic merit have been prosecuted as child pornography, however. The 1978 movie The Tin Drum, which contains scenes of a child actor simulating sex, won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes film festival and the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film but was banned in Ontario, Canada and unsuccessfully[1] banned in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA. Works by several prominent photographers, including David Hamilton, Sally Mann, Will McBride and Jock Sturges, have been challenged as child pornography and sometimes banned.


By legal rules in Australia, material that shows someone who is or is "depicted as being" under 18, and is engaged or "depicted as engaged" in explicit sexual activity, is classified as "child pornography". Photographs of the genitals or anal region of someone under 18, "for a sexual purpose", are illegal, as are written texts that advocate sex with a child.

An Australian local council in New South Wales decided to ban photography at public swimming pools in order to prevent unrelated third parties from photographing children in their bathing suits for prurient purposes . Parents were advised that, in order for them to obtain photographs of their own children at the pool, they would have to pay for official photographs.


Under the Criminal Code provisions in Canada, material that shows someone who is or is "depicted as being" under 18, and is engaged or "depicted as engaged" in explicit sexual activity, is classified as "child pornography". Photographs of the genitals or anal region of someone under 18, "for a sexual purpose", are illegal, as are written texts that advocate sex with a child.

The penalty for making or distributing child pornography is up to 10 years in prison. Possession or "accessing" carries a potential sentence of up to 5 years.

There is a defense for works that have artistic merit, or an educational, scientific or medical purpose. The Supreme Court in Sharpe gave the defence of artistic merit a broad interpretation "Simply put, artists, so long as they are producing art, should not fear prosecution."

In addition, the Supreme Court "read in" exceptions for personal writings and visual depictions intended for private use, including diaries, self-photography and drawings. There was a concern that private expression and the depiction of lawful activity (consensual sex between married 17 year olds, for example) would be criminalized. It's notable that consensual sex between unmarried 14 year olds (or even a 14 year old with a 12 year old due to the 2-year gap exception in Canadian AoC laws) is also lawful activity and serves a better example of a legal minimum, but which is illegal to view.

Parliament has responded with a proposed bill to narrow the exceptions. In particular, there is a concern that the "artistic merit" defence is open to abuse and, at the same time a worry that broad provisions may criminalize artistic works like Lolita or fail a subsequent court challenge.


Article 183 b of the German Penal Code (StGB - "Strafgesetzbuch") governs child pornography. For the purposes of the law, a child is defined as a person younger than 14 years of age.

According to the paragraph (4) of Article 183 b, the possession of, or attempt to acquire, any material reflecting a true or realistic incident of child pornography will be punished with a fine or prison up to two years. The procurement, distribution or production for distribution of such material is punished with prison of three months up to five years (paras. (1) and (2)); if the perpetrator acts with commercial intent or as a member of an organisation for the continuous commitment of such acts, the punishment will be imprisonment from six months up to ten years (para. (3)).

Sound and text can also be considered pornography.

The German legal system applies international jurisdiction, so that any act of child pornography will be prosecuted in Germany according to German law, even if the act was not committed on German territory (Article 6 StGB - "Acts abroad against objects of international legal protection").

United Kingdom

Under United Kingdom law, "child pornography" is an "indecent photograph of a child"; there is no specific requirement of sexual content, as nudity can be sufficient for an image to be indecent. Similarly, "bikini" shots might be considered indecent. In the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the word pornography is used for the first time, defined to mean that "indecent images are recorded". The age of the definition of a child was also raised from 16 to 18, even though the age of consent remained at 16. Indecent photographs are defined in the Protection of Children Act 1978, which forbade the creation, showing, distribution, possession for showing or distribution, and advertisement of such material in England and Wales; the Act was later amended so as to include such things as fake images, known by the law as indecent pseudo-photographs of children. The possession of such material was prohibited in England and Wales by the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Similar provision to that in the 1978 and 1998 Acts for Scotland is contained in sections 52 and 52A of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.


In R v Ross Warwick Porter (2006) EWCA Crim 560 the defendant was convicted of making indecent photographs of a child under section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and of possessing indecent photographs of children contrary to section 160(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The appeal concerned photographs that had been deleted before 5 November 2002, but were still recoverable from the hard disk with the use of specialist forensic techniques and equipment provided by the US Federal Government which would not have been available to the public. There was no evidence that the appellant had attempted to acquire any of this hardware or software, or to retrieve any of the deleted data. As a general rule to be applied in the special case of deleted computer images: if a person cannot retrieve or gain access to an image, he or she no longer has custody or control of it. It is the equivalent of destroying or disposing of a hard copy photograph. Thus, a person who cannot retrieve an image from the hard disk drive is not in possession of the image simply because he or she is in possession of the hard disk drive and the computer. In each case, the jury should be directed to consider the knowledge and expertise of the individual to assess whether that person could retrieve the data.

United States

In the United States, child pornography is prohibited under both federal and state laws, with some state laws including more or less restrictive definitions compared with federal law. Under federal law, child pornography is defined as visual depiction of minors (i.e. under 18) engaged in a sex act such as intercourse, oral sex, or masturbation as well as the lascivious depictions of the genitals.

In some court cases, the so-called "Dost factors" have been used to judge whether an image is child pornography. These are a list of six considerations originating in a 1986 court case, "United States vs. Dost"[1]. The six standards are:

  1. whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genital, pubic or anal areas
  2. whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity
  3. whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child
  4. whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude
  5. whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity
  6. whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.[2]

However, the Dost factors are not held to be an absolute standard. In particular, the 1994 precedent United States vs. Knox set aside the question of nudity, stating that images of clothed children may also constitute a "lascivious exhibition." The ruling states:

"The harm Congress attempted to eradicate by enacting the child pornography laws is present when a photographer unnaturally focuses on a minor child’s clothed genital area with the obvious intent to produce an image sexually arousing to pedophiles. The rationale underlying the statute’s proscription applies equally to any lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area whether these areas are clad or completely exposed." [3]

There is no clear legal definition in federal or state law as to what exactly constitutes a "lewd" or "lascivious" exhibition. These terms are to be interpreted according to "contemporary community standards."

Questions arose in late 1990s as whether the depiction of nudity of minors could constitute obscenity. After the U.S. Customs Service seized in 1998 over 200 nudist magazines sent from Europe that featured nude depictions of minors, a court case ensued in which an appellate court ruled in 2000 that depictions of nude minors engaging in activities otherwise normal for their age cannot be held obscene [4][5]. The court based its ruling partly on a previous Supreme Court ruling (Jenkins v. Georgia) that had concluded that nudity in and of itself does not constitute obscenity.

Texts are not considered child pornography in USA because, the court has ruled repeatedly, the only valid basis for laws restricting free speech in this way is actual damage to real children. Any text or work that involves or depicts no real child, (and is not otherwise "obscene"), is never illegal. (see Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition).

As with all cases, courts must interpret the law and apply it to the specifics of a case. As such, the final decision as to whether an image is pornographic is made by a judge. Since the context of the image may indicate the sexual nature of the image, the nature or even name of the website on which it is displayed may be considered [6].

Cases of pornography involving court-adjudicated minors over the age of 18 or adults under age of 18 (emancipated minors) are rare or nonexistent. Accordingly, the application of state and federal laws to these cases is uncertain.


Production and sale of child pornography is generally illegal in most developed countries, although national regulations vary widely. Some countries, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and The Netherlands, outlaw possession. Others have no special legislation regarding child pornography. There, production of child pornography is usually prosecuted as child abuse and illegal production and distribution of pornographic material. Illegal distribution of pornography is prohibited, but there is no law governing distribution of child pornography specifically. In many countries (but not in U.S.) downloading and possession of child pornography is not specifically prohibited; in the UK downloading is not illegal in itself, but as reproduction of such images is, it is an inherently illegal act [7] [8]. In Japan child erotica was legal until 1999, when it became illegal following the passing of Protecting Children Online law.

In the United States in the late 1970s, a number of journalists and researchers attracted attention of the public to child pornography. In 1977, the Kildee-Murphy proposal prohibiting child pornography was made law in the United States. Several other countries followed with similar legislation. Shortly after these laws were passed the magazines were closed by their publishers to avoid prosecution.

Issues surrounding prohibition

Laws in various jurisdictions often treat the production, distribution, and possession of child pornography differently. Each aspect of prohibition has some distinct justifications and counter-arguments.


The production of child pornography may involve child sexual abuse. The production of simulated child pornography (see below) does not involve real children. Some argue that child abuse and/or sexual abuse laws should be the standard and basis for prosecution. In some jurisdictions, including Germany, production is explicitly prohibited regardless of whether there is a risk of children being actually harmed.

Few producers are caught and prosecuted, however. Most people are prosecuted for distribution and/or possession of child pornography, discussed below.

With access to the Internet almost ubiquitous in many countries, and the sharp drop in the cost of webcams, minors have produced photos or videos of themselves. The legal status of these materials may not be clear in every jurisdiction


The distribution of child pornography increases its availability. Some argue prohibition of distribution may serve to protect the subjects of the material, who could not give informed consent at the time of their production, and may suffer additional trauma from the knowledge that these images are being distributed.

The law is fuzzy regarding child pornography of subjects who are now adults and give informed consent to the distribution.

Commercial trade in child porn with the producers may motivate them to produce more pornography for monetary reasons. Commercial trade in materials obtained from other sources may indirectly stimulate the existence of the child porn market through infamy.


File sharing program searches, popular online chat mediums, web pages and Usenet postings make child pornography readily available. Most recent child pornography is produced by amateurs and uploaded or posted in series. The age of the children being photographed or filmed and then made available for sharing or trading has become younger and younger to where videos and picture series of toddlers are more often encountered now.


Possession of child pornography is often considered to encourage, desensitize, and support child pornography. According to NCH (a UK children's charity), many child sex offenders have said that exposure to child sex images fueled their fantasies and played an important part in leading them to commit physical sexual offenses against children. This is an example of encouragement. Desensitization is part of Media Effects Theory, that says in summary that experiencing something over and over will make your inhibitions against it lower. The support of Child Pornography is another issue, since without Customers, there might be less child abusers around. On top of that, child porn can be used to persuade the children that the activity is normal[2] Some researchers disagree, believing there is no scientific evidence linking child pornography and child sexual abuse.[3]. Mentally stable people would not be compelled to act out everything they see in videos, and should not be penalized due to the actions of criminals who cannot control themselves. A counter to the encouragement is that it relies on the honesty of the sex crime offenders, and it is often argued they lied to get a lighter punishment. Media Effects theory as a whole is often argued against since its desensitization has never been proven. It has been applied to multiple mediums, including books, but support of the theory has always stopped. Support of child abuse is preventable by viewing pornography not requiring a young child (such as a drawing).

It has been asserted by some that simple possession is a victimless crime, and should be prosecuted as such. This has been vigorously disputed by others, and laws continue to view it as involvement in the abuse itself [4]. One commentator has equated this with the idea of a "thought crime":

Witnessing any crime, such as a fight, is considered a lesser crime then actually doing it. However, There is a new attitude that viewing a crime requires the same ethics (not necessarily inhibitions) as doing it. A crime based on something like this has been dubbed a 'thought crime'. This is criticized because arresting people for immoral thoughts doesn't necssarily stop a crime, and can punish someone who wouldn't have ever done anything. Privately made pornography, or even drawn pornography is more often defended. Where pornography involving real children can still be seen as encouraging the sex crime, as the abuser benefits. [5] There actually is argument against this being a thought crime all together, as it's believed pedophiles may gain a sexual outlet from child porn. This could lead to lower sexual frustration, and lower the risk of committing abuse. This is backed by a connotation between the times of increase in porn access, and decreases in rape.

According to a 2005 study by New Zealand's Department of Internal Affairs, "young people aged 15 to 20" were the largest demographic group of those convicted of child pornography possession in New Zealand. [6]. It is normal to feel attraction to those of similar age, so arrests like this, especially with private photos, have been received negatively. A case with particular outcry against this was an incident with a 16 year old that took nude pictures for her boyfriend 17 years old, and was charged with child pornography. link

Unbalanced scales.png
The neutrality or factuality of this article or section may be compromised by weasel words.
You can help Wikipedia by improving weasel-worded statements

Age of consent

In many countries, including the US, Canada, the UK, and New Zealand "children" are defined to be persons below the age of 18. In Australia, child pornography is defined to include persons under 16 years. However, although material depicting 16 and 17 year olds is not legally considered child pornography, it is still illegal. It is rated as "Refused Classification", and thus illegal to sell or distribute. The European Union recommends the harmonization of the age limit to 18 years. The Netherlands raised the age limit of a "child" to that number in October 2002. The UK Sexual Offences Act 2003 did the same for England and Wales, and the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005 did so for Scotland. It was compulsory to dispose of possessions that became illegal. The age limit in Germany remains at 14. Iceland (outside the EU) is also 14 years.

Images of legal activities are not always legal. For example, in the U.S., child porn includes anyone under 18; however, many states have an age of consent lower than 18. For some states the age of consent depends on the age gap between partners as well as the age of the young partner. Therefore, it may be legal to have sex with someone under 18 but not to take pictures of that person in sexual situations. The young person is also not allowed to take such a picture of themselves for personal use.[7] One main reason for this disparity is that child pornography is primarily addressed under federal law, while in almost all cases age of sexual consent is solely a state issue.

Since the passage of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the Scottish Act of 2005, UK law in general prohibits images of 16 and 17 year olds as child pornography, even though they are above the age of consent (16). Canada has laws prohibiting images of those under 18 from being utilized in pornographic material (deeming such material exploitative), but allowing consent to any type of sexual act at the age of 14 with parental permission.[8]

However, there are exceptions to the laws, which provide that a person (who may be over 18) who is married to, or in an enduring family relationship with, a 16 or 17 year-old child may take or make indecent photographs showing the child with no other person than themselves with the child's consent, although it is illegal for the sexual partner to show or distribute them to any other person. [9] There is no explicit defense where the child has photographs of themselves, but it is a general principle of English law that the person whom a law is intended to protect cannot be prosecuted for an offense created by that law.

Other forms

Although usually thought of and legislated in terms of photographs and motion pictures, child pornography can also take other forms, which are often addressed differently, or may not be legally recognized as child pornography in all jurisdictions.


Images can be created which convincingly appear to involve actual under-age persons, but in fact do not. Originally this was accomplished using adults disguised as minors. More recently, advances in digital rendering technology have made it possible to generate convincing simulations of child models.

Proponents of prohibiting such materials argue that they might encourage child molesters and, when shown to a child, may give the child the impression that the depicted acts are normal (the term grooming is used in this connection); prohibition of possession could help prevent it from being shown to a child. A fact sheet released by the Department of Justice also argued that if "simulated child pornography" remains legal the prosecution will have to prove individual images were not digitally created.[10] Opponents of the prohibition claim that simulated child pornography does not directly harm children. In the United States, these opponents believe such materials should fall under the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech.

The United States Supreme Court decided in 2002 that the previous American prohibition of simulated child pornography was unconstitutional (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition). However, according to a lawyer whose firm specialises in computer sex crime cases, in real legal practice, popular sentiment and political positions stray far from this decision.[11] UK law has dealt with simulated images quite differently since 1994, when the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act introduced the legal definition of an "indecent pseudo-photograph of a child", which is prohibited as if it were a true photograph. On October 1, 2002, the Netherlands introduced legislation (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 470) which deemed "virtual child pornography" as illegal.[12] German law does not discriminate between actual or "realistic" sexual depictions of children.[13]

Section 163.1 of the Canadian Criminal Code outlaws pornographic images which depict the subject as being under the age of 18. In October 2005, Canadian courts sentenced an Edmonton, Alberta man to one year of community service for importing manga depicting child sex, possibly the first such case in Canada.[14] It should be noted, however, that the man was on probation for possession of non-simulated child pornography, resulting in his arrest. So far charges against underage manga have only been used to add additional charges to the more serious charges that actually harm victims, likely due to police resources, but this proves it is possible to convict a person solely for this reason, even if the depictions are of characters obviously rooted in fiction and obviously not based on an adaptation of real events.


In some countries, e.g. Australia and Canada, textual material describing sexual activities involving children is legally classified as child pornography while in other countries, for example the United Kingdom, it is not prohibited in itself, but is caught under general laws controlling indecency and obscenity. In yet other countries, most significantly the United States, it is legal; written child pornography is legally protected by the US Constitution as long as it is not judged obscene. As it is very difficult to prove obscenity, it is effectively legal. As a result of its general legality in the United States, written child pornography is easily available on the Internet.

Due to its widespread availability, countries in which it is prohibited have not always actively sought to enforce the legal prohibition against it. In general, people possessing or distributing this material are only charged if they come to the attention of law enforcement, most commonly while being investigated for other crimes (such as possession of visual child pornography, or child sexual abuse.)

The prohibition against written child pornography can extend even to materials produced by pedophiles for their own personal consumption and not revealed to anyone, such as diaries or journals in which they record their fantasies. Several individuals have been prosecuted for keeping such diaries. Some have argued that this violates their right to freedom of thought, although the vast majority of these convictions are for paedophiles who were released from prison on parole and, therefore, had legal curbs on such freedoms as a condition of parole.


Production and distribution of child pornography is generally separate from other forms of pornography, and the adult film industry has taken strong efforts to separate itself from and publicly oppose child pornography.

The majority of internationally available hardcore child pornography is produced in developing countries in South-East Asia and Central America, and in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Germany was one of the main sources of naturist child erotica in the past. Japan was and still is one of the leading producers of softcore child pornography, which was outlawed there only in 1999, after much international pressure; enforcement remains somewhat sporadic. A lot of modern legitimate softcore pornography (so-called Lolita art or Pret art) is also made in Russia and other ex-Soviet-Union countries.

Commercial production and distribution

During the 1960s and 1970s, Danish company Color Climax Corporation openly produced and distributed child pornography. As jurisdictions began prohibiting the material, the company stopped producing it, and in fact avoids mentioning that part of its history. Color Climax continued to be one of the best-known producers of pornography in the world.

By most accounts, by the 1980s there was little child pornography being commercially produced. Most of what exists either originates from private production or was produced commercially in the 1960s and 1970s. Later investigations have found only isolated instances of commercial production and distribution. The loss of anonymity that comes with making payment, combined with the availability of free material, inhibits demand for commercial product, and the loss of anonymity that comes with receiving payment inhibits the supply. Media reports about child pornography "rings" refer mostly to private, non-commercial exchange.

Non-commercial distribution significantly increased with the advent of the Internet, which enabled distribution via file sharing, IRC, and Usenet. It is also exchanged in private circles using FTP servers. In Germany there is one case of investigation for possession of child pornography per year among 20,000 people, and the number remains constant. Of these, 2.7 percent are commercial or involve organized groups.

Organized networks of child pornography distribution do exist, however, many such networks are operating in more than one country, making it harder for any single law enforcement agency to shut them down. An international sting operation aimed at a child pornography network called the Wonderland Club resulted in more than 100 arrests in 14 states.

Some sources claim that much or most of the commercially offered material found online is actually bait deployed by law enforcement agents as "honeypots". The NAMBLA newsletter once warned its readers that most of the solicitations for child pornography are actually sting operations. Judith Levine cites two sources in her book Harmful to Minors on this. One is researcher Lawrence Stanley, who in a 1980s study "concluded that the pornographers were almost exclusively cops." And sources in the police agreed:

In 1990 at a southern California police seminar, the LAPD's R. P. "Toby" Tyler proudly announced as much. The government had shellacked the competition, he said; now law enforcement agencies were the sole reproducers and distributors of child pornography. (p. 37) However, this does not seem to be the case for non-commercial exchange, which became much more prevalent with the advent of the Internet.

(While some of it was published in a respected law review, Stanley's credibility as an impartial researcher was later called into question after numerous criminal charges were filed against him in Brazil, Canada and the Netherlands related both to possessing and producing child porn and sexual acts on minors. [9])

There exist a number of softcore child nudity and erotica sites that are apparently tolerated. These include sites featuring child nudist photos and videos and sites featuring clothed children in sexually titillating poses. These sites generally claim that the material they offer does not meet the legal definition of child pornography and thus is not child pornography, even if much of it seems to push the boundaries. Critics view the material on these sites as immoral even if it's technically legal.

Several arbitrary keywords are commonly used to search for or identify child pornography on file sharing networks. Some keywords have become sufficiently well-known that they are rarely used to identify actual child porn. In those cases most files with the given keyword show legal but young looking performers in an attempt to attract individuals looking for child porn.

The Kazaa file-sharing software disallows searches for those keywords as a matter of policy but several other networks allow them.

According to a list compiled by, "[email protected]", the label used by Richard Goldberg is the 7433rd "most popular keyword."[15]

In 2004, Ukrainian police reported that, after an investigation in concert with the FBI, they had shut down a child pornography operation involving more than 1,500 underage girls as models. [16] Police reported that the business had offices in Kiev and other Ukrainian cities.

International issues

The international nature of the Internet has made it difficult to stop dissemination of some images that, while legal in some jurisdictions, constitute child pornography in others. A good example comes from Britain. Until recently, it was legal for females as young as 16 to pose topless for mainstream tabloid newspapers (often as a "Page 3 girl") and for adult magazines. For example, British model Linsey Dawn McKenzie became a popular topless and nude model for European newspapers and magazines when she was 16, but wasn't allowed to pose for American magazines until she reached her 18th birthday. Images of her taken before her 18th birthday are commonplace on the Internet and often cannot be distinguished from those taken afterwards. Similarly, images and footage of American porn actress Traci Lords, who is notorious for having done most of her work while younger than the legal age in the US, are legally available in many regions and have subsequently become available via the Internet in areas where this material is still illegal.

Social perception

There is a strong negative stigma associated with child pornography; most people don't want to be perceived as defending it. At times, legal photographs and art have been attacked on the grounds that they might be child porn. Although the number of such incidents is small, they arguably have had a chilling effect on legal expression.

In the late 1970s Jacqueline Livingston, a photography professor at Cornell University, was accused of child pornography. She wrote: "I was scorned by my friends, accused of child pornography and fired from my teaching job after exhibiting photographs of my son, my husband and my father-in-law in the nude." (14850 magazine, March 1994).

A U.S. couple was indicted for the production and possession of child pornography after a photo store clerk reported "suspicious" pictures containing images of the mother breast-feeding her child.[17] Charges were dropped after the Dallas Observer reported on the incident.[18] A teenager, who made photos of herself (involving nudity and sexual activity) and sent them to people she met in chat rooms, was controversially charged with sexual abuse of children, possession and dissemination of child pornography.[19]

An anti-piracy hologram on the Windows 95 box had an animation of a baby sitting next to a computer and then pointing to the computer where the Windows 95 logo appeared. The model, who was the infant son of the photographer, was not wearing a shirt, which led some people to the belief that he was not wearing pants either, even though he was visible only from the waist up. After government complaints, Microsoft had to change the hologram to one that did not feature "naked children".[20]

In 1998, the University of Central England was involved in a controversy when books, alleged to contain child pornography, by Robert Mapplethorpe were confiscated from its library. They were ultimately returned, and no charges brought.[21]

An Australian local council in New South Wales decided to ban photography at public swimming pools in order to prevent unrelated third parties from photographing children in their bathing suits for prurient purposes . Parents were advised that, in order for them to obtain photographs of their own children at the pool, they would have to pay for official photographs.[22]

Until the 20th century, artwork involving nude or erotic depictions of children was met with relative acquiescence (for example: Lewis Carroll). During the 20th century, attempts were made (sometimes successfully) to destroy such material, make it illegal, or remove it from public libraries. Though such depictions can sometimes be considered legal today, social pressure has mostly prevented the continued creation and ownership of photographs including nude prepubescents and adolescents.

Further reading

See also


  1. ^ US judge rules The Tin Drum is not child pornography, David Walsh, 23 October 1998, downloaded 22 April 2007
  2. ^ "Internet porn 'increasing child abuse'", Guardian, January 12 2004. Retrieved 15 May 2006.
  3. ^ "Anger at child porn sentence", BBC News, 29 May 2001. Retrieved 15 May 2006.
  4. ^ "Fetishising images", spiked, 23 January 2003. Retrieved 15 May 2006.
  5. ^ "Teens top child porn viewers", The New Zealand Herald, 14 January 2005. Retrieved 15 May 2005.
  6. ^ Department of Justice, Canada, Age of Consent to Sexual Activity
  7. ^ Sexual Offences Act 2003, Chapter 42, Section 45, Office of Public Sector Information. Retrieved 15 May 2006.
  8. ^ FACT SHEET PROTECT ACT, United States Department of Justice, 30 April 2003. Retrieved 15 May 2006.
  9. ^ John Leyden. Dutch ban virtual kinderporno. The Register (2002-07-10).
  10. ^ Legislation of Interpol member states on sexual offences against children - Germany (2007-01-15).
  11. ^ Canadian Man Sentenced over Loli-porn Manga. AnimeNewsNetwork (2005-10-20).
  12. ^ "10,000 key words, listed by popularity", British Columbia Top 100, 15 September 2002. Retrieved 15 May 2006.
  13. ^ "Police Shut Ukraine Model Agency in Porn Crackdown", Reuters, 28 July 2004. Retrieved 15 May 2006.
  14. ^ "1-Hour Arrest", Dallas Observer, 17 April 2003. Last viewed 20 May 2006.
  15. ^ "Better Not Try Breast-feeding in Texas", Las Vegas Review-Journal (NV), 27 April 2003, at 2j.
  16. ^ "Windows brings out the Rorschach test in everyone", MSDN Blogs, 25 August 2003. Retrieved 15 May 2006.
  17. ^ "Parents not very snappy", Today Tonight, 22 February 2005. Retrieved 15 May 2006.

External links


Law enforcement organizations

Other investigating organizations




cs:Dětská pornografie da:Børneporno de:Kinderpornografie es:Pornografía infantil fr:Pornographie enfantine nl:Kinderpornografie ja:児童ポルノ no:Barnepornografi pt:Pornografia infantil ru:Детская порнография fi:Lapsiporno sv:Barnpornografi zh:兒童色情

Wikipedia's censored guide to CP laws is part of a series on
UnV& Pedophiles [-+]

Aaron WilliamsAdam LanzaAlenonimoAlison RappAmber ButtrumAndy MaherAngryjediAnimatedJamesBeefraveBikerfoxBill CosbyBritbongCasey AnthonyChaosscizzorsColonel McBadassComicalityCyril SmithDaddyOFiveDahvie VanityDangermanDeekerDidaskalosDynacatlovesmeEric RidenourEDP445Erik MöllerFergie OliverFrank BonafedeGreg MazujianGreville JannerG-ZayHarrison DigfootHumonHypnoHunter MooreIrish282James Terry Mitchell JrJerry Peetjervaise brooke hamsterJimmy SavileJohn Patrick RogersJoseph KonyJustin BerryJustin DabrowKaitlyn HuntKatherine MarionKyle PerkinsLena DunhamLeonard F. Shaner Jr.LittleCloudLtFlaggerLogansperman2Lucian HodobocM. ChaosMagicrichMandoPonyMichael JacksonMikevirusMatrooko11MZMcBrideNathanrNeil FoxOmegaloreOnideus Mad HatterOnisionPaul WalkerPennywisePurple AkiPutridRalph SquillaceRiverman72Roger SampsonSam DeathWalkerSam RassenfossSarah ButtsShane LeeSibeScientologySethistoSophie LabelleTheAmazingAtheistThomas Watt HamiltonTimboxTrap-kunTyciolUncle GrandpaUpdownmostlyViolentacrezVonHeltonWoody AllenW. T. SnacksYoung Tubers UnitedYtaskZeitgueist

Related Topics [-+]
Wikipedia series.jpg

Wikipedia's censored guide to CP laws is part of a series on


Visit the Wikipedia Portal for complete coverage.

Portal truth.png

Wikipedia's censored guide to CP laws is part of a series on


Visit the Truth Portal for complete coverage.