There is a creepy but provocative issue raised by an advertisement in Barcelona, Spain this month. The posters offered “abuse-free child pornography” that asked viewers to “Send us naked photos of when you were a child. For child pornography without abuse. +18 Yes to Pedophilia. No to Abuse.” The posters were later taken down, but they raise a challenging (if admittedly unsettling) legal question. If people are turning over pictures of themselves as children (without any prior abuse or sexual acts depicted), does it still constitute child pornography? Update: The articles on this story reported that the posters were displayed by JCDeaux, an advertising firm. However, I have communicated with a representative of the company who has stated that it had no role in the posters and “JCDecaux is investigating this unauthorized insertion of the poster in our bus shelter in Barcelona. We removed the poster as soon as we were made aware of it.”
The obvious problem is that such images would be used to fuel the fetishes or tastes of those who want to see child pornography. However, these are presumably innocent photographs being consensually posted by adults of themselves.
A standard code definition is found in California:
163.1 (1) In this section, “child pornography” means
(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years . . .
Since these childhood photographs do not depict a minor engaged in or depicted as engage in explicit sexual activity, the question becomes whether they can be treated as having “dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person.” The key is “a sexual purpose.” Nude pictures of children taken by parents are common and are not considered pornography regardless of the view of Walmart and other stores.
Assuming that these photographs would not be defined as children pornography, there is then the question of what happens when nude photos of children are circulated on the Internet. Presumably, it would not be treated as possession of child pornography. That could lead to a new complication for prosecutors as the voluntary source of such images is raised. It would also create a problem when such innocent photographs are digitally manipulated to appear as abuse, even though no such actual scene was photographed.
What do you think?
16 thoughts on “Spanish Campaign Asks For Donation Of Childhood Photos As “Abuse-Free Children Pornography” (Updated)”
With all the talk of “sexual orientation” and promoting “tolerance” of other people’s sexual orientations, something like this was inevitable. It will be interesting to see how something like this plays out and how “tolerant” the militant homosexual groups will be, regarding this. Those who promote tolerance of everyone’s lifestyles have inevitably painted themselves into a corner when they require all of us to be tolerant of everyone’s sexual orientation, which will include things like this. Where do you draw the line, or in the case of the militant homosexual political groups, is there even a line to draw?
If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything. If we don’t try to recognize some sort of standards, there will be no standards, and eventually, anything goes.
Sick twisted peophiles looking to put a positive spin on there abhorant behavior. The pervayors of this filth need to be monitored closely by the public and kept on a short leash if not locked up right away. On the other hand, this could easily be a government psyop used to erode freedom of speach. Either way there are some real scumbags involved.
Any one touches my kid inapropriatly will get his head blown off and I will deal with the consequences latee.
i said this was coming.. in a few posts a while back….. the pedophiles have a bill being circulated in congress to obtain the same rights as lesbians and gays..
I was recently watching a movie from 1939 called Child Bride on Turner Classic Movies, and spotted what I thought was child porn in one of the scenes that features a 13-year-old girl undressing behind some bushes, but her breast and nipple are clearly visible. I wrote about it here (NSFW): http://business.avn.com/articles/legal/Guess-What-Turner-Classic-Movies-Showed-Child-Porn-UPDATED-547825.html but an attorney friend of mine set me straight on the “child porn” aspect.
There is a slight difference from California with Washington law that I believe would address the issue.
Under RCW 9.68A.011
(4) “Sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated:
(f) Depiction of the genitals or unclothed pubic or rectal areas of any minor, or the unclothed breast of a female minor, for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer. For the purposes of this subsection (4)(f), it is not necessary that the minor know that he or she is participating in the described conduct, or any aspect of it; and
The definition enables the key element, for which prosecution is possible, is such that the photograph be taken, or in this case distributed, for the purpose of sexual arousal of the viewer.
This has the dual purpose of non-criminalizing the family photo album but criminalizes the taking of the family photo and using it on a child pornography site. Under the state law here, the element would only be satisfied if the website then published it for the purpose of sexual gratification in the viewers of the website. If the owner owner of the photograph intentionally gave it to the website knowing the image would be used to sexually gratify future visitors of the website then they too would be subject to prosecution. The family member who took the photograph would not be subject to the crime if he/she did now authorize the photo to be placed on the website.
And what about the possibility that innocent nude photos of children (ie taken by a parent) might be circulated by those other than the individuals in the photos? Someone who has access to such a photo, such as a sibling or relative of some sort, with a sexual interest, who then posts without consent of the individual in the photo?
There are elements of our society that are degenerate, but I think most would and do reject any sexual activity that harms innocents, children or adults.. Human decency soars above religious affiliations and dogma, it’s basic. Such activity will never be accepted by normal people. It’s an abberation. I’ve heard homosexuality compared to pedophilia one too many times, so I’ll preempt any such suggestion by certain commenters, it’s a consensual activity between adults. No equivalency.
The human condition has taken on the characteristics of flowing water, the people seem to be seeking a lower level. Accept everything, challenge nothing.
Nick Spinelli wrote: “I think we are one sick culture.”
Nick, I can’t think of any better way to say it than you just did.
AY, it’s not just pictures of young boys, it’s also young girls. Pedophiles come in all sexual orientations.
Here we go…. Cheribums….serphains…. Ones mind is going to be sick with or without clothing….. I think Charlton posted about pedophiles awhile back…. If I recall one study a pedophile was shown pictures of girls… No reaction…. But as soon as they were shown pictures of young boys…. They got aroused….. I don’t recall if the children were clothed or not…. Maybe he will chime in….
Disgusting. There is no such thing as abuse free child pornography. Pedophilia is the quintessential definifintion of abuse. The thought of a pedophile viewing innocent children, sickens.
I think we are one sick culture.
And it seemingly infects every nook and cranny:
(Bob Jones University helped cover up sexual abuse, fires investigative group). That is why it is called “cultural”, because it is not engendered by any one religion, atheist, football coach, university, etc.
It is a group dynamic, with characteristics which evade the scrutiny of techniques designed to analyze individuals.
We must develop and use group psychology of the type that Freud advocated, but never had the resources to develop.
I think we are one sick culture.
“What do you think?” – JT
I think that this is a classic “don’t go there” situation.
Is the world losing its mind?
Comments are closed.