Rather worrying.... (95)

Indeed, I'd be phoning the police.

This child is now an adult by the way who is apparently proud of the image.

This said, I would not let someone take an image like that of my daughter, who is probably a similar age to the person in that image.

Sign up to CAAN's statement - http://www.caan.org.uk
Sexuality - strong and warm and wild and free, Sexuality - your laws do not apply to me (Billy Bragg)

Edited 8 Dec 08, 12:01 PM by Degenerate

It just shows you how cocked up the legal system is. i have pics of me in a similar pose that would be illegal and i am a consenting adult.

Just because its not, yet, does not make it right. If people did not use images, like that, of kids in the first place there would be no need to bring in new laws to cover them. As adults, surely its up to us to use our moral judgement, we seem incapable of doing this, as this image proves. To exploit Children in this way is wrong, im sorry if you do not agree.

I believe in the freedom of consenting adults to do as they please, i do not agree in exploiting childen in this way, legal or not. This is my moral standing. I have seen the damage child exploitation and abuse causes.

BDSM has nothing to do with children in any way shape or form, lets keep it like that.

to those that understand, no explaination is needed, to those that dont understand, no explaination is possible

Edited 8 Dec 08, 12:03 PM by alandra

I am somewhat at a disadvantage as I have no intention of viewing it. Then I may have a potentially illegal image on my system, which I cannot be certain of removing.

It may be in poor taste, and/or illegal under UK law.

But I have seen no suggestion that the model was exploited or abused in taking the picture. That was how the original law was justified, "to protect the children."

Where do you stop? Are we going to have to airbrush out all the naked and provocatively posed cherubs off the Old Masters, church windows and statuary in churches?

My point is that there are thousands of prudes out there who really do believe that e.g. a picture of a bound and naked girl in consensual and entirely safe pose, without threat to life or injury, is highly offensive to them.

They would want all such images ruled illegal and censored and will report the image to the IWF. If the current hysteria is cranked up a few notches the IWF will ban it.

Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality, fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity www.academywear.com for retro adult school and maid uniform guy@tawse.com PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)1432 343100 [pi

A message saying "this page has been blocked by the IWF as potentially showing child porn, please contact them *contact details* if you think this is incorrect" would have made it slightly more palatable than just silently blocking the page. Not to mention the fact that they blocked the whole page (text included) and not just the image.

I don't really agree with any form of censorship though, however personally distasteful some people might find it.

The only valid argument I've ever seen for blocking child porn is that it reduces the incentive to make it - which thereby reduces harm done to real children... and that clearly does not apply in this case.

Edited 8 Dec 08, 12:05 PM by MasterOfMe

I understand your emotional reaction and agree with you in the main.

An image identical to this of you would not be illegal, it would be a photo of a naked adult with their genitals blocked out.

OF course BDSM has nothing to do with children and you are the only person in the thread to have suggested anyone thinks it might (straw man)!!

De De

Sign up to CAAN's statement - http://www.caan.org.uk
Sexuality - strong and warm and wild and free, Sexuality - your laws do not apply to me (Billy Bragg)

The standard also shouldn't be different to any other underage partially nude or nude children shown in images, whether it's band pics (Nevermind, Blind Faith), other "arty" pics, or a pampers advert come to that.

You are quite right that there is damage in child abuse, and this is the justification for child porn law. So in order to decide whether this should be illegal, we should be asking if it was abusive?

Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. See http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ and http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_... for more details.

That point may be more in the hands of the ISPs rather than the IWF, however, I think if and where censorship is employed, it ought to be clear, obvious and allow the public a channel of recourse. The current implementation is one of keeping the public in ignorance.

It certainly looks to me that the IWF and ISP's need to be policed, failure to do so will have the commercial organisations take the line of least resistance and easiest profit by erring of the side of caution and banning more than even the government might seek to ban.

This is not so different from the situation here on IC, where Admin is censoring all images that *may* fall foul of the extreme pornography clause. It seems to me that Admin has been forced into the role policeman where negligence or dereliction of duty could result in punishment. In Admin's shoes, I would probably be erring on the side of caution too.

Without and easy means or a service to adjudicate on every individual image, we have a climate of fear that spawns unwilling yet over enthusiastic policemen.

Roll on 1984.

And whilst we are in the mood for doom and gloom! It's is an opinion I have heard from more that one quarter.

The Fetish Photo Album A free and private flickr group for IC members to share dirty pictures!

Just for Sir Guy and anyone else who want to know what the image looks like without clicking it, here's a literal description of it.

The photo shows a naked, prepubescent girl (I would say around age 11) sat on the floor, she is turned to the side with one leg underneath her in a kneeling position and the other turned out and behind her facing down (looks a bit like a ballet position to me). Her hands are on the floor behind her which means her chest is pushed forwards a little. She is looking to camera with a serious expression on her face. The view of her genitals is covered by cracking glass so they are completely obscured, but you can see enough of her hips to believe that she was naked when it was taken and think that without the glass crack we'd see her genitals, however there could still be ways to cover her genitals from view for this image to be taken and the glass superimposed.

Like I say it is poor taste and I wouldn't want it in my house!

De

Sign up to CAAN's statement - http://www.caan.org.uk
Sexuality - strong and warm and wild and free, Sexuality - your laws do not apply to me (Billy Bragg)

Edited 8 Dec 08, 12:25 PM by Degenerate

That's what many people would say about violent pornography!

Fight The Power

I feel the same way about the whole of the Scorpian's back catalogue (sorry couldn't resist).

- Chris

Anyone with a brain is manipulable. Only the truly unimaginative are difficult to control.