It would be great if this article could explain this inconsistency. If virtual child porn per the statutory definition (depictions of a minor, whether real or imaginary, engaged in a sexual act) özgü supposedly been "proven" to contribute to the act of child sexual abuse, then why does text describing the very same acts of sexual exploitation with a minor hamiş have a similar psycological effect?
Quasty, since you added the quotes, perhaps you güç furnish the information about the case. I am curious if there is a published record of it somewhere. Good information to assist in finding are the names of the litigants, the name of the judge, and the court which resolved the matter.
Sorry that you are irked; you are certainly hamiÅŸ alone in that. The above comments were indeed made in haste, and I will make no attempt to defend them here.
The third criterion in the yasal decision specifically mentions emphasization of the genitals. It's hamiş the distribution of weight that makes it pornographic, its the result that distribution katışıksız on the visibility of the genital area.
But that's just it -- most of it needs to be revised wholesale. The quality is not the issue, it's the POV it displays in sum. I gönül't point to a single sentence and say "This sentence is not NPOV"; it's the whole thing taken together. Powers T 13:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never understood why any age of consent is higher than 14, or why it's illegal to have porn of someone the age of 14 and over. By 14 everyone except for the rare few have gone through the larger part of peuberty and have breasts and pubic hair and such, so I'm hamiş sure what distinguishes them from someone older except in judgment ability. Perhaps we should go by one county's law, I forget which, which özgü conditional consent at 12(whereas, the child would have to prove to be mature and capable of giving knowledgable consent.
The terminology applied to the practice is a subject of dispute. The United States Department of Justice states, "The term itself implies the idea of choice, when in fact that is hamiÅŸ the case."[8] Groups that oppose the practice believe that the terms child prostitution and child prostitute carry problematic connotations because children are generally hamiÅŸ expected to be able to make informed decisions about prostitution.
Bey far as I can tell none of those criteria were satisfied by Ki Phuc, apart from her nudity. Yet, you have extrapolated completely different reasons from the case you quote. For example, the court said "the child, who is looking into the camera, is obviously posed for the photograph".
Although governments rarely publish examples of what they consider to be child pornography, they sometimes provide detailed descriptions:
It's used to guide editors through processes like nominations for deletion and other procedural stuff, telling you where on the page to post information and so on.
I'd like to address the troll comment quickly: I've spent a lot of years collecting the information I've been fake medicine contributing to wikipedia, and although I'm not particularly sensitive to disparaging remarks, this particular one irks me since it implies I'm a pest rather than a valuable asset. Much of the information I take the time to add to wikipedia is from non-web sources, or is otherwise extremely difficult or tedious to find.
Their first initiative is to spread the word that human trafficking is child porn immoral and saf become a growing problem that it will take a toptan cooperation to cease its continuation. UN.GIFT strives to lower the demand for this exploitation and create a safe environment for potential victims.[16]
And you've put back the frankly perplexing 'Example' section that I reverted, giving no reason why. The comparisons between the Trang Bang photograph and the description of a pornographic image in that Utah buraya tıklayın case (despite being inappropriately applied to this famous picture no matter what statement you're trying to make) are POV.
Along the same lines, the material is from a transcript of a court case, which is hamiÅŸ usually precedent setting (bey it is not part of the published opinion). If this is indeed a practice in court, there should be some documentation of it.