Talk:Internet child pornography/Archive 3

VfD-style voting

• Delete. Unencyclopedic. -- Cyan 04:30, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
• Delete -already existing article child pornography is adequate; this article is pretty much a guide on how to find porn, along with some obvious POV. Evil saltine 06:12, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
• This encyclopaedia already has articles on paedophilia and child pornography. It does not need an article explaining how to find images of the sexual abuse of children. No one has a legitimate interest in this subject. This article needs to be deleted, immediately. Adam 06:30, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sexual abuse does not come under free speech, says Adam Carr

If by "child pornography" we mean "photos or film of children being used for sexual purposes" (as opposed to textual descriptions of such acts), then the production, distribution and possession of such material is illegal in all English-speaking countries, and its production has necessarily entailed the sexual abuse of a child, somewhere. I might be willing to defend child porn text on free speech grounds, but sexually abusing children is not a form of speech, and photos or film of such abuse cannot be defended on such grounds. As a matter of policy, an encyclopaedia should not contain material which is clearly designed to facilitate the commission of such acts. It should be deleted, and Paranoid should be banned unless he undertakes not to post it again. Adam 04:32, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

See older archives

Further, it is specious and dishonest for Paranoid to assert that his text is morally neutral or justifiable on the grounds that it might be useful for law enforcement. If Paranoid knows all this stuff, then so does law enforcement also know it already. The principal use to which his text will be put is by paedophiles who will use it to access child porn. This will help create and sustaim the market for child porn, and thus provide incentive for its production. Wikipedia will then be complicit in that. Adam 04:39, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think renaming it and editing it ruthlessly is one workable route to making it less offensive. I really can't comment on the legalities of the current content, but it certainly needs quite a bit of editing, if it is decided that we think it has some appropriate content. I certainly wouldn't come to an ecyclopaedia to find information on this stuff, but then I wouldn't want information on this stuff to begin with; I hate kids... -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 05:15, Oct 10, 2003 (UTC)

We don't need this article, asserts Adam Carr

This encyclopaedia already has articles on paedophilia and child pornography. It does not need an article explaining how to find images of the sexual abuse of children. No one has a legitimate interest in this subject. This article does not need to be renamed, edited, or made "less offensive." It needs to be deleted, immediately. Adam 06:01, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

User:Paranoid's mega comment "elaborating his position"

Adam, the market is not being created by people downloading photos and videos for free, if anything, it is being destroyed. And I clearly warned in the text about paying for child porn.

Also more than half of actual instructions were for finding softcore child pornography AKA lolita art, which is legal in the US and does not involve abuse of the children, since they are posing, not having sex, and posing nude for Lolita Kingdom is not much different from posing in underwear for Sears catalogue.

I also disagree with a stance some people are taking. There is nothing in the policies, procedures, and mission statements of Wikipedia that mentions censoring/editing articles based on moral principles of the users. If anything, it strongly warns against it, when the NPOV principle is explained. Therefore deleting the article just because you think it's immoral is against principles of Wikipedia. Editing it ruthlessly to remove the bias (while preserving the facts) and provide a counterbalance in the form of information about anti-child porn operations would be the best way to resolve it, as well as renaming it into Internet child pornography. I also agree with Morven's suggestion of changing it into "how-they" (but keeping it neutral). The text was originally written for E2 and there is nothing wrong about adapting it for Wikipedia.

Other arguments like "no one has a legitimate interest in this subject" are completely wrong and evil. You can't decide whether anyone has a legitimate interest. You were not appointed as censors and you have no right to censure the materials according to your personal moral agenda.

Finally, I don't like at all the idea of complete deletion. 50% of the article is history - completely moral and legit. 20% is finding softcore porn - it's ethical, although immoral according to moral values of some people and still legit. The remaining 30% is about finding hardcore porn. This is a grey area, I agree, but it's only 30% and it can be fixed by reediting. Searching for child porn is legal in most countries (although outlawed in some). Downloading child porn is not outlawed anywhere. Posessing it is illegal in many places, but I wouldn't go as far to say all English-speaking countries ban it outright. IANAL, but here is a quote from one of the New Zealand LEOs: “Our concern is not really to stop people looking at pictures; it’s to stop the abuse of children involved in the making of this [hardcore] material,” and where there is a clear case of child sexual abuse, no jurisdiction will defend it, he says." [1] Finally, speaking, writing or reading about child porn and about finding it is completely legal in all developed countries. GRAHAMUK is clearly wrong about "aiding and abetting" - check the legal definitions. Paranoid 09:42, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Words, words, words. If you were interested in contributing valuable information, you would spend your time making your text neutral and inoffensive (preferably before uploading it), instead of defending it in its current state. Writing "I am not a troll" is easy. Why don't you go ahead and proveit? Kosebamse 10:10, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)