He was the author of many classics, most famous among them Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass I'm not going to post any pics, but the material is out there. It is published in scholarly journals and anthologies, no less, and I (and many peers) considered some of it at length for part of an undergraduate class we were in. I will not advise you that you should go looking for it, though, I will simply say that it exists. You can read more about it here (and elsewhere): http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/Lewis-Carrolls-Shifting-Reputation.html?c=y&page=2 People still buy his books like crazy, though. I know I've purchased a few, which were required purchases for classes I have taken. Before we start the calls for bookburning and boycotting, though... Artists, nudists, and naturalists all have legitimate, and AFAIK legally-protected, reasons to produce material that some would consider child pornography - while others would consider it as their art or their photo album of family and friends. I'd like to see discussion on this topic since WWP is headed in this direction.
Can I suggest a slight broadening of the topic if I may? Plenty of people post pictures of themselves and their family online. Facebook is rich with them. None of these pictures would qualify as ‘child pornography’ in the strict sense of the term. Nevertheless, there are no shortage of folks hovering up these images, some of which feature children, for their masturbation sessions. There are free speech issues here that I pose in the form of the following questions?: 1) If a person posts a picture of their son/daughter/nephew/niece/whatever on Facebook, essentially publicising that picture to the world using the internet, do they have a right to expect that others won’t use said pictures for masturbation? 2) What about the case when an underage child posts pictures of themselves? 3) What about the case where a person collates such images into one place (such as a Flickr group)? If the group was about cars or trees or whatever we as a society don’t have any issues, but when it is the case of pictures of the sort discussed above? I suppose the key question being raised by the OP within the digital context is really the following – can you really say it is legal for a mother to post pics of their own kids on Facebook while saying it is illegal for someone to post the exact same pictures on a seedy Flickr group? And anyone thinking about posting regarding copyright issues just GTFO – this thread clearly isn’t about that.
Let me try and use an actual image to make the point. The following image has been posted a gazillion times, and hasn’t ceased to be funny yet: If someone posted this to said seedy Flickr group without any intention of provoking lulz is it illegal or immoral?
OP appreciates this contribution, and would like to see these questions addressed by those participating in OpInnocence.
This is what anti-pedophile activists are for. Take down the flickr site with pedophiles posting innocent pictures. They are sharing child porn in those groups behind the scene. It requires no proof of wrong-doing. It sucks and we take it down. I would take NAMBLA down in a second.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262700,00.html (I know, I know, it's Fox news) This guy recently moved back to Bellingham, WA. He took pictures of girls at playgrounds and parties and posted them online. Gave other pedophiles advice on how to do it without getting caught and advice on where to find little girls. Nothing he did was illegal. He identifies himself as a pedophile but hasn't been charged with that in Washington State. Parents and cops followed him around so he left in a huff. His website got taken down. He went to California and Portland. In California moms followed him around and got restraining orders to keep him from playgrounds. He went anyway and got arrested and released, went to a playground the same day- got arrested again. Got tired of parents and police following him around and left. Long story short- the pictures and website were not illegal. If people post pictures of their children online there is no way to make them un-fappable. Parents can request the pictures be taken down from fap sites which sometimes work.
Posts above were in answer to question #1 #2 Underage children posting pictures of themselves.- This is what parents are for. Inappropriate pictures can be deleted and strong warnings given. It is almost fucking impossible to stay on top of this with teens but IMHO kids under 15 shouldn't be on the web by themselves. All minors with web cams need to use it in the living room where adults can keep an eye out..Parents need passwords and access to accounts. Yes I think adult snooping is appropriate here. I'm sure many of you don't. I'm not interested in my minor childs' demands for privacy on line. #3 if the flickr collations are creepy then there should be complaints. If the site ie flickr does nothing then keep at it. When I said pedos trade child porn on these sites I meant just that. If you look at the comments it's obvious. Anything to take down these groups or sites is fair game. If you support free speech for pedophiles to post pix of kids and trade child porn please don't tell me about it. I will be mega pissed off. That's why I'm here. For each of these dire warnings I have examples of why. i.e. web cams- there are men that specialize in getting young girls to strip on Skype or Stckm. I can give you their usernames. Pedos posting innocent pix in a creepy way should be addressed at any site you see it. The site may do nothing. It turns out Google and You Tube were collecting data on these creeps and turning crimes over to LE. tl;dr and it's late here but I needed to answer.
Not OP here. This was posted in response to the question: “If a person posts a picture of their son/daughter/nephew/niece/whatever on Facebook, essentially publicising that picture to the world using the internet, do they have a right to expect that others won’t use said pictures for masturbation?” To be blunt, citing this Fox article seems like you reaching for a scare story rather than actually answering the question posed. Given that you state later in your comment “the pictures and website were not illegal”, and given that the Fox article described a situation far far in excess of what my question posed, can I assume that your answer to my question is ‘no’? I think it is clear we were destined to disagree on what freedoms or rights we would grant to underage users of the internet. My approach has been one of education rather than restriction, constantly emphasising to them why taking precautions is important and what the dangers are. One technique for teaching good behaviour is to reward that good behaviour, and I would consider ‘showing maturity’ and ‘common sense’ as aspects of good behaviour that should be encouraged – an important aspect of this is allowing opportunities to develop those skills But I think this has been a digression from the thrust and aims of this thread. Aside from the difficulty and inherent subjectivity of what makes a collection of pictures go from being ‘not creepy’ to ‘creepy’, and ignoring whether ‘creepy’ is even a sensible criterion to use in a discussion like this – I think you have chosen to missing the points the questions where intended raise. Is Facebook ‘creepy’ because someone browsing it will come across pictures of kids that are part of family portraits (the solution being to ban Facebook)? Is Facebook creepy because there may be pictures taken from school events (such as a school play or sports day) that have been posted by parents? Does it only become ‘creepy’ when a person or persons collate such pictures? How does a collection of separate incidents (in this case uploading pictures), performed by different people, not be creepy while the performing of the exact same acts (with the same pictures), performed by fewer people, suddenly become creepy? Particularly in the case when those ‘fewer people’ never took any of the pictures nor attended any of the locations where the pictures were taken? We are talking about situations here that have no comparison to the case of Jack McClellan. If evidence exists of trading child pornography then that should be acted on. However, ITT the OP and I (if I am misrepresenting you OP then let me know) are not discussing incidences of trading child pornography. (My emphasis above) I am noticing a theme in your comments thus far ITT, where you tend to reach for cases significantly more extreme than the thread was intended to discuss (if OP disagrees then please let me know). I can’t speak for others, but I actually find your need to do this both pointless and unhelpful. You should have just posted “THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!” and it would have been an equally valid contribution to answering the questions posed. Those questions, and the OP, where intended to try ferreting out the ‘grey areas’ for discussion – and being met with “THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!” is neither illuminating nor worthwhile. (If I have misrepresented you OP please let me know) In today’s paper I read one columnist argue in favour of the recent NSA spying, with his reasoning being that it would ‘help stop terrorists’ and ‘could be used to catch child abusers’. Unsurprisingly I think he is wrong on both counts for being valid reasoning for the spying of innocent people, and have always found such argumentation that is based on “the terrorists are going to get you” and “THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!” in support of shit like this to be ‘creepy’. Your outrage and your intention to let all those discussing this topic know about said outrage is noted. Your lack of substance within the emotive-driven comments you have left so far is also noted.
1) If a person posts a picture of their son/daughter/nephew/niece/whatever on Facebook, essentially publicising that picture to the world using the internet, do they have a right to expect that others won’t use said pictures for masturbation? They have that "right to expect" if they don't understand the internet but they can't control the use of the pix once they are posted. 2) What about the case when an underage child posts pictures of themselves? The child has the "right to expect"if they don't understand the internet but they can't control the use once it's posted. We as 3) What about the case where a person collates such images into one place (such as a Flickr group)? If the group was about cars or trees or whatever we as a society don’t have any issues, but when it is the case of pictures of the sort discussed above? We as society can have "issues " but once the pictures are out there, they can be used by anyone for anything. The reason I posted the video is not because I was fear mongering. It is an example of what can happen when you post pictures of children on the internet. What he did is not illegal. Are you suggesting we all say "Oh well, it's not illegal so I will just sit here and not take action?" Then you will have pictures of your child on the internet that can be used by anyone for everything. BTW if you are not monitoring your child how do you they are on good behavior? It becomes creepy when the pictures are used in a creepy way, we will disagree on what is creepy. Which is our right. I was warning people that ordinary pictures of children- like in a bathing suit or dancing in underwear- are used by pedophiles in a creepy way (and it's up to you or me what "creepy "is) as a cover for their trade of pornography. If you don't believe that happens then check out you tube videos of children dancing in their underwear and see who has posted comments encouraging dancing in underwear, and go to their you tube channels and decide if that person is creepy or not. Your definition of creepy. OK That is what I would have posted if that's what I wanted to say
Not OP here. I’ve broken this into two sections for the purposes of seeking clarity. For the red, is it your stance that there is some sort of inherent ‘right’ to ‘expect’ a limit on the use of images when posted in ignorance? Can you unpack this a little? For the blue, there are two very different interpretations that I see. The first is that you are saying the poster of the image has no physical mechanism by which they can control the use of the images. The second is that you are saying that when material has been posted the poster has lost any ‘right’ to control said images. These are two very different interpretations and I am unsure which you are referring to (or even somewhere between the two) and I hope you will unpack what you mean here. I need a clarification on this. When you say “can be used by anyone for anything” are you saying that is the case legally or practicality? Are you saying that this is the current case and that you approve/disapprove? I’m not sure what it is you are trying to state here and there is large risk of me hacking a strawman if I don’t get clarification. While this is a technically true statement, your use of this reasoning is entirely fallacious. ‘Let’s ban all knives because some people occasionally stab people’. I reiterate a previous point, namely that you are attempting to use an example that is significantly more extreme than what the thread was intended to discuss. Frankly, I am not prepared to grant the assumption that a seedy Flickr group automatically leads to such extreme cases. Requesting a steak-knife for my meal doesn’t automatically lead to me offing the waiter. Unless monitored 24/7, no parent/guardian can have that certainty regarding a child. This is why education is such an important piece of this puzzle. (My emphasis) Three points: - If evidence exists of trading child pornography then that should be acted on. I do not think either I or the OP have ever hinted, suggested now implied others otherwise. In fact I expressly stated such in a previous comment ITT. - You objection here seems to be the trade in pornography, and not the collating of Facebook images that I am referring to. Without evidence of the former are you still objecting to the occurrence of the latter? - I challenge the premise that much of your argumentation rests on, where you assume that the latter referred to above automatically leads to the former. This is the steak-knife leading to the dead waiter again. (My emphasis) Sure, such people would qualify as creepy in my book. But this is sort of missing the point. In my previous comment I wrote that ‘creepy’ is a poor criterion to use in a discussion like this where the topic seems to be determine what should or not be permissible. That comments are ‘creepy’ should not infringe on the right of free speech for those uttering them. It may have been a poor choice on my part to formulate questions that began with “Is Facebook ‘creepy’”. My intention there was to draw an equivalency between the various acts of uploading the same pictures, and not to embark on a semantic discussion of what does and does not constitute ‘creepy’. A better way of phrasing the question would be thusly (with added emphasis): How does a collection of separate incidents (in this case uploading pictures), performed by different people, be allowable while the performing of the exact same acts (with the same pictures), performed by fewer people, suddenly cease to be allowable? Particularly in the case when those ‘fewer people’ never took any of the pictures nor attended any of the locations where the pictures were taken? We are talking about situations here that have no comparison to the case of Jack McClellan.
Disambiguation said: ↑ They have that "right to expect" if they don't understand the internet but they can't control the use of the pix once they are posted. Ordinary people have a right to expect that innocent pictures they post on-line will not be used for fapping. That means they don't understand the internet. ^^ this. ^^This It is an example of what can happen when you post pictures of children on the internet. ^^This ^^ This - Yes Pedophiles use innocent images of children, used in creepy ways, as an advertisment "Get your child porn here" uh...I'm lost. wat. Yes Good It's allowable, I'm going to do something about it. That's allowable too. Dox that these people never took pix or went to public functions and took pix. I'm warning people about Jack McClellen, who is a pedo that takes pix and posts them on the internet for the purposes of child porn. He is not the worst, people who approach children in playgrounds are worse. I'm using him as the most public example. Anonymous, 40 minutes ago Edit Delete Anonymous Report #13 Bookmark Reply
For a interesting story about freedom of speech and open groups for pedophiles to post innocent pictures/ or not so innocent pictures refer to the Reddit story about doxing a mod. They happily posted away, reddit supported their actions with arguments about free speech, sponsors and groups complained, LE watched, they got caught trading child porn openly ("send me that pic!"), the mod got doxed, the activists used their freedom of speech to tell his boss, he lost his job and was banned from reddit. https://whyweprotest.net/community/...-deleted-child-porn-the-mod-was-doxed.111345/
Why though? This requires a serious explanation and some supporting argumentation I would have though. I don’t really dispute that, but are you claiming that every instance of a seedy Flickr group is a mask for an undercurrent of child porn? It seems to me this assumption is being used to avoid confronting the difficulty this thread was/is attempting to highlight – what makes one set of actions ok (uploading a set of images) but the exact same set of actions not ok (uploading exactly the same images)? I’m highlighting the absurdity of your premise by using an analogy. You are, in essence, claiming that every seedy Flickr group leads to trade in child porn – and you use this as a basis for arguing against the existence of such groups. This is similar to, in essence, claiming that every knife leads to a stabbing – and that such should be sufficient for the banning of knives. You are basically arguing against the existence of seedy Flickr groups while sidestepping the fact that, thus far, you haven’t actually addressed those Flickr groups in and of themselves – you reach for the extreme case each and every time rather than tackle it directly. I interpret the underlined to be your way of saying “it doesn’t” to the question posed. Can I make a really helpful suggestion, and one that I have found extremely helpful in online discussions? Try reading the full comment you are responding to, taking into account the full context, when you respond. I’ll re-quote the relevant portion here (with added emphasis): “Is Facebook ‘creepy’ because someone browsing it will come across pictures of kids that are part of family portraits (the solution being to ban Facebook)? Is Facebook creepy because there may be pictures taken from school events (such as a school play or sports day) that have been posted by parents? Does it only become ‘creepy’ when a person or persons collate such pictures? How does a collection of separate incidents (in this case uploading pictures), performed by different people, not be creepy while the performing of the exact same acts (with the same pictures), performed by fewer people, suddenly become creepy? Particularly in the case when those ‘fewer people’ never took any of the pictures nor attended any of the locations where the pictures were taken?” From the context you can see I am taking about collating images from Facebook – hence the reference to the ‘fewer people’ that never “took any of the pictures nor attended any of the locations where the pictures were taken”. Hence the reason why I state this case has no comparison with what McClellan did. Hence the reason why the reddit case you later cite, which involved trading child porn, also has no comparison. I’ll state it again in a slightly different way in the hopes that you won’t misrepresent/misunderstand it this time. Suppose a person makes a Flickr group composed of pictures entirely sourced from Facebook. If it was ok for a parent/guardian/whatever to post the original image, why is it now suddenly not ok to post the exact same identical image (an image sourced from Facebook) on a different webpage? Why do you think I posed the following in my first post ITT????: “And anyone thinking about posting regarding copyright issues just GTFO – this thread clearly isn’t about that.”
I'll do this blow by blow later. Maybe. As to creepy-ness- it's in the eye of the beholder. you and I don't have to have the same definition of creepy. A anti-pedophile activist will see some things creepy when you don't. When I urged you to check this out on you tube I meant that as an answer to many of your concerns about creepy-ness. Check it out and you will get a feel for how seemingly innocent comments are not. You have to investigate this for yourself if you don't agree with my assertions. Investigate it for yourself.
You might be surprised about that. The difference between us is that I don’t regard ‘creepy’ as a relevant metric for determining what should or should not be allowable. You can see when I am the one posting in this forum section courtesy of mod-powahs, and so far I have participated in only three threads here iirc. In that time how many sources and papers have I quoted and/or linked to on these issues? You linked a series of papers and articles in another thread – I not only know about them from previous researching, but had done sufficient background research that I was able to point out relevant information regarding said papers and articles. If you want to insinuate that I hold my views because I haven’t investigated for myself, you can do so. You would be wrong, but you can do so.
I'm not insinuating. The only way I can answer you points is to go to YouTube and Flickr and link you to YouTube channels, Flickr groups so you can see what I'm trying to describe. I'm not going there again, I did it for years I do not put myself in the position of risking seeing child porn anymore. This is why I told you to investigate.
Way. To. Miss. The. Point. Can you, for once, try not reaching for the extreme cases and try dealing with the situations described ITT? And, please, try to stop labouring under the delusion that you are only one ITT who has seen the bottom-feeder cesspool shit you describe. It’s getting old.
OP welcomes this discussion, but was actually focused on a specific set of issues surrounding the production (and, by extension, the distribution) of, shall we say, "questionable material" by the aforementioned parties - artists, nudists, naturalists, maybe some other examples, like certain tourists to nudist/naturalist locales. If the producers of this material are not child pornographers, and the material they are producing is not child pornography, and thus it is legal to publish/share, then what of the people who collect and fap to these images and/or videos?
OK I'm game. Please concisely state you points/questions so I can give you answer without getting lost ITT.
What of them? Like what should we do? what do I think about them? We are having a bit of a language problem.
OP here. Irony of your handle aside, the point I am trying to make is that there would seem to be a large gray area here. If you agree that the material in question is not "child pornography" by current legal standards, then it seems reasonable to reframe this debate with the questions asked by the other anon poster: Since it is the exact same material that is not child pornography when it is produced, but some say it becomes child pornography when it is collected and shared by certain people, then that would seem to be a significant legal gray area in need of disambiguation. Where is the line? When does it become "child pornography?" When does it become illegal or immoral or actionable ("I will do something about it, file complaints," etc), in your view? Is this based solely on what is written in public comments on said websites? What if such a website existed, but had a mod who took down offensive public comments, and thus the website truly seemed devoted to artistic/documentary content? Why should the viewers of this legal, but perhaps questionable, material receive the persecution of OpInnocence, but not the producers?
We seem to be talking at cross purposes. We both speak English, but this whole conversation I think I'm answering the question- to be told I am not answering the question. So "What of them? Like what should we do? what do I think about them? " I do not think collections of innocent pictures (children in bathing suits or dancing) is porn. I do not think collection of pictures of children on You Tube or Flickr are porn. I have said this in several different ways, but it's not coming thru as an answer to your points. Pedophiles use innocent pictures of children to fap to. The innocent pictures are not CP. There is no law against pictures of children dancing. There should never be a law against posting pictures of children. The REALITY is that collections of innocent pictures of children are sexualized by pedophiles. They fucking use collections of innocent pictures of children as fucking advertising. It's not illegal. I don't want it to be illegal. Its not child porn. Sexualized pictures of children engaged in sexual acts (child porn) are illegal. Pictures of children that are used for sexual purposes may not be child porn. The only "line" is the line between innocently posting pictures of children acting out sexually (humping the dog) ( pole dancing )(masterbating) and child porn.. People should have fucking sense. Another grey area is porn using animae. That's illegal in the USA now.
My biggest fear right now: the Mormons working for the NSA out there in Utah might not have a sense of humor.
You are indeed dodging my points and talking at cross purposes.. I am talking specifically about pictures or videos of nude children, which, under current definitions, are not child porn when the nudity serves an artistic or documentary purpose, and the children are not sexualized or posed indecently. This. Is. Why. I. Keep. Mentioning. Nudists. This. Is. Why. The. Title. Of. The. Thread. Is. About. Charles. Dodgson. Who. Photographed. Children. In. The. Nude. Please, disambiguate the documentation of the lives of nudist or naturalist minors by their parents or family friends from the production/dissemination of child pornography. Artists have a similar exemption for photographing children in the nude, though it is far riskier for them. Historical documentary photographs have similar exemption. Many of us have seen records of the victims of the Holocaust, or the photograph of the napalmed, naked Vietnamese girl. Do you think any of this material would be child pornography? Yes or no? Does it become child pornography when it is collected and shared on the internet? Yes or no? If the answer to the 2nd question is yes, then why does it become child pornography when it is collected and shared, it it wasn't child pornogrpahy when it was produced? Please reconsider all the questions I have asked, specifically for material featuring NUDE CHILDREN.
You are arguing that there is a historical, innocent, cultural exemptions to child porn. I have a very clear idea in my head about what is/ is not child porn. You don't seem to. Fortunately it is not on me to define this for you. You seem to think I must continue to answer your point by point pointed questions. Lol.
No, I am arguing that there are historical, artistic, and cultural exemptions for the production of material featuring naked minors, and that sometimes this material is misconstrued as child pornography. I do think that you would do well to answer my pointed questions, since you are a mod for OpInnocence. You should be able to credibly address pointed questions regarding the subject matter of OpInnocence if you're modding this part of our forum, IMHO. It is also ironic that you resist addressing my points directly when your handle is Disambiguation. Maybe you should change it to Dodgevasion.
Thanks for the pictures. I welcome anyone else who is participating in OpInnocence to address any or all these questions, since Disambiguation refuses to engage directly.
