https://www.newgon.net/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Brian&feedformat=atomNewgonWiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T00:46:48ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.41.0https://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Prohibited_images_of_children&diff=6172Prohibited images of children2010-01-08T17:25:08Z<p>Brian: /* Definition of "child" */</p>
<hr />
<div>A prohibited image of a child is a virtual visual representation of a minor which is illegal under the United Kingdom [[Coroners and Justice Act 2009]].<br />
<br />
==Definition of "prohibited"==<br />
<br />
According to the relevant statute, an image is "prohibited" if it is "pornographic, ''and'' grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character, ''and'' depicts any of the following scenes -<br />
<br />
* the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child;<br />
<br />
* an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a child;<br />
<br />
* an act which involves penetration of the vagina or anus of a child with a part of a person’s body or with anything else;<br />
<br />
* an act of penetration, in the presence of a child, of the vagina or anus of a person with a part of a person’s body or with anything else;<br />
<br />
* the performance by a child of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary);<br />
<br />
* the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary) in the presence of a child.<ref>http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g62</ref><br />
<br />
Under the Coroners and Justice Act, an image is "pornographic" if "it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal".<ref>http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g62</ref> <br />
<br />
The meaning of "obscene character", which was introduced by the [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act]] 2008, has not yet been defined by the courts. The legal meaning of "grossly offensive" and "disgusting" is also unclear. If a defendant argues that an image is not "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character", a jury may be asked to apply its own "understanding" of obscenity, disgust and gross offence, presumably under the guidance of a Judge.<br />
<br />
==Definition of "image"==<br />
<br />
Under the statute, an "image" is -<br />
<br />
::"(a) a moving or still image (produced by any means), or<br />
::(b) data (stored by any means) which is capable of conversion into an image within paragraph (a)".<ref>http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g65</ref><br />
<br />
An "image" is not an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph<ref>http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g65</ref>, or any image derived from an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph.<br />
<br />
==Definition of "child"==<br />
<br />
Under that statute, a child is a person (real or imaginary) who appears to be under the age of 18. According to the legislation, "an image is to be treated as an image of a child if -<br />
<br />
::(a) the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or<br />
<br />
::(b) the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child."<ref>http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g65</ref><br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
As a result of lobbying by several "children's charities", the Home Office in the UK announced plans to criminalise virtual images of "child abuse", claiming that “fantasy images themselves fuel abuse of real children by reinforcing potential abusers’ inappropriate feelings towards children”<ref>http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007-depiction-sex-abuse?view=Binary</ref>. The Home Office noted “an absence of research into the effects of these images”, but proceeded to ask if their proposal was “nevertheless justified”. In 2008, a research paper accompanying the Coroners and Justice Bill cited a 40 year old report by the Longford Committee and an appendix in a 20 year old book on photographic child pornography, purportedly as evidence<ref>http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2009/rp09-006.pdf</ref>, although neither source supported the argument that the viewing of virtual child pornography could incite the commission of contact offences<ref>http://www.attractedtochildren.org/2009/the-perverse-politics-of-virtual-child-porn-law</ref>. [[Research:_Child_Pornography|Evidence]] in fact suggests that child erotica has a positive effect on the behaviour of people with a sexual interest in children, providing a sexual relief which reduces the likelihood of contact offending.<br />
<br />
In response to the Scottish consultation on the proposed criminalisation of virtual "child pornography", a coalition of children's charities claimed that “advances in technology have made it possible to create materials which are entirely artificial but which, in turn, are indistinguishable from photographs or videos of real events”<ref>http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/crimes/pornography/childsexualabuse/ConsResp/cross-borderchis</ref>. This argument (which was later disseminated by Justice Minister Maria Eagle) was in fact misleading, as [[Indecent_images_of_children|indecent]] photo-realistic images of children were already illegal under UK law and possession of such images carries the same maximum sentence as actual photographs.<ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059</ref><br />
<br />
In a criticism of the proposal to criminalise virtual images of children, Brian Ribbon writes:<br />
<br />
::"Another argument proposed by the NSPCC and by other proponents of the legislation is that the availability of cartoon child erotica implies tolerance of child sexual abuse, therefore encouraging paedophiles to act out. The first problem with this argument is that the broad definition of “prohibited images” in the Coroners and Justice Bill includes images which simply focus on certain areas of a child’s body and are perceived to be “grossly offensive” or “disgusting”, even if no sexual activity is depicted. Furthermore, the claim that the availability of cartoon child erotica - even if it depicts sexual abuse - implies a tolerance of child abuse is unfounded and grossly illogical. Firstly, a glance at (legal) discussion boards for paedophiles - such as Annabelleigh.net - indicates that paedophiles are extremely aware of the negativity of attitudes towards paedophilia per se as well as child sexual abuse. Contrary to the argument of the proponents of the proposed legislation, the fact that child erotica is only legal in cartoon form clearly suggests that society is so opposed to any indication of child abuse that it prohibits material which depicts real children in a potentially sexual manner. By criminalising mere cartoons, the government risks providing additional justification for the (justifiable) belief that much of the crusade against paedophiles is a matter of prudism or playing on people’s fears, rather than an attempt to protect children. The prevalence of this belief is clearly problematic for a government whose policies rely heavily on a veiled politics of fear, using the “think of the children” mantra as an excuse for abuses of state power. By providing additional evidence for the belief, the government also challenges any message of the kind which the NSPCC were referring to, as it characterises pornography laws as an attempt to legislate morality rather than a disapproval of child abuse."<ref>http://www.attractedtochildren.org/2009/the-perverse-politics-of-virtual-child-porn-law</ref><br />
<br />
Many charities also claimed that contact offenders could use virtual child pornography to [[grooming|groom]] children<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/02/reid_wants_child_law/</ref>, however anybody doing such would be committing the offence of ''attempting sexual activity with a child'' and ''arranging commission of a child sex offence''<ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&ActiveTextDocId=820906</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Statutory defences==<br />
<br />
"(1) Where a person is charged with an offence under section 62(1), it is a defence for the person to prove any of the following matters—<br />
<br />
::(a) that the person had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the image concerned;<br />
<br />
::(b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be a prohibited image of a child;<br />
<br />
::(c) that the person—<br />
<br />
:::(i) was sent the image concerned without any prior request having been made by or on behalf of the person, and<br />
<br />
:::(ii) did not keep it for an unreasonable time."<ref>http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g64</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
{{reflist}}<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
*[[Child pornography]]<br />
*[[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act]]<br />
*[[Indecent images of children]]<br />
*[[NSPCC]]<br />
*[[Research: Child Pornography]]<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_1 Coroners and Justice Act 2009]<br />
* [http://www.attractedtochildren.org/2009/the-perverse-politics-of-virtual-child-porn-law The Perverse Politics of Virtual Child Porn Law]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Prohibited_images_of_children&diff=6171Prohibited images of children2010-01-08T17:20:51Z<p>Brian: </p>
<hr />
<div>A prohibited image of a child is a virtual visual representation of a minor which is illegal under the United Kingdom [[Coroners and Justice Act 2009]].<br />
<br />
==Definition of "prohibited"==<br />
<br />
According to the relevant statute, an image is "prohibited" if it is "pornographic, ''and'' grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character, ''and'' depicts any of the following scenes -<br />
<br />
* the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child;<br />
<br />
* an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a child;<br />
<br />
* an act which involves penetration of the vagina or anus of a child with a part of a person’s body or with anything else;<br />
<br />
* an act of penetration, in the presence of a child, of the vagina or anus of a person with a part of a person’s body or with anything else;<br />
<br />
* the performance by a child of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary);<br />
<br />
* the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary) in the presence of a child.<ref>http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g62</ref><br />
<br />
Under the Coroners and Justice Act, an image is "pornographic" if "it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal".<ref>http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g62</ref> <br />
<br />
The meaning of "obscene character", which was introduced by the [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act]] 2008, has not yet been defined by the courts. The legal meaning of "grossly offensive" and "disgusting" is also unclear. If a defendant argues that an image is not "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character", a jury may be asked to apply its own "understanding" of obscenity, disgust and gross offence, presumably under the guidance of a Judge.<br />
<br />
==Definition of "image"==<br />
<br />
Under the statute, an "image" is -<br />
<br />
::"(a) a moving or still image (produced by any means), or<br />
::(b) data (stored by any means) which is capable of conversion into an image within paragraph (a)".<ref>http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g65</ref><br />
<br />
An "image" is not an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph<ref>http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g65</ref>, or any image derived from an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph.<br />
<br />
==Definition of "child"==<br />
<br />
Under that statute, a child is a person (real or imaginary) who appears to be under the age of 18. According to the legislation, "an image is to be treated as an image of a child if -<br />
<br />
::"(a) the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or<br />
<br />
::(b) the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child."<ref>http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g65</ref><br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
As a result of lobbying by several "children's charities", the Home Office in the UK announced plans to criminalise virtual images of "child abuse", claiming that “fantasy images themselves fuel abuse of real children by reinforcing potential abusers’ inappropriate feelings towards children”<ref>http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007-depiction-sex-abuse?view=Binary</ref>. The Home Office noted “an absence of research into the effects of these images”, but proceeded to ask if their proposal was “nevertheless justified”. In 2008, a research paper accompanying the Coroners and Justice Bill cited a 40 year old report by the Longford Committee and an appendix in a 20 year old book on photographic child pornography, purportedly as evidence<ref>http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2009/rp09-006.pdf</ref>, although neither source supported the argument that the viewing of virtual child pornography could incite the commission of contact offences<ref>http://www.attractedtochildren.org/2009/the-perverse-politics-of-virtual-child-porn-law</ref>. [[Research:_Child_Pornography|Evidence]] in fact suggests that child erotica has a positive effect on the behaviour of people with a sexual interest in children, providing a sexual relief which reduces the likelihood of contact offending.<br />
<br />
In response to the Scottish consultation on the proposed criminalisation of virtual "child pornography", a coalition of children's charities claimed that “advances in technology have made it possible to create materials which are entirely artificial but which, in turn, are indistinguishable from photographs or videos of real events”<ref>http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/crimes/pornography/childsexualabuse/ConsResp/cross-borderchis</ref>. This argument (which was later disseminated by Justice Minister Maria Eagle) was in fact misleading, as [[Indecent_images_of_children|indecent]] photo-realistic images of children were already illegal under UK law and possession of such images carries the same maximum sentence as actual photographs.<ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059</ref><br />
<br />
In a criticism of the proposal to criminalise virtual images of children, Brian Ribbon writes:<br />
<br />
::"Another argument proposed by the NSPCC and by other proponents of the legislation is that the availability of cartoon child erotica implies tolerance of child sexual abuse, therefore encouraging paedophiles to act out. The first problem with this argument is that the broad definition of “prohibited images” in the Coroners and Justice Bill includes images which simply focus on certain areas of a child’s body and are perceived to be “grossly offensive” or “disgusting”, even if no sexual activity is depicted. Furthermore, the claim that the availability of cartoon child erotica - even if it depicts sexual abuse - implies a tolerance of child abuse is unfounded and grossly illogical. Firstly, a glance at (legal) discussion boards for paedophiles - such as Annabelleigh.net - indicates that paedophiles are extremely aware of the negativity of attitudes towards paedophilia per se as well as child sexual abuse. Contrary to the argument of the proponents of the proposed legislation, the fact that child erotica is only legal in cartoon form clearly suggests that society is so opposed to any indication of child abuse that it prohibits material which depicts real children in a potentially sexual manner. By criminalising mere cartoons, the government risks providing additional justification for the (justifiable) belief that much of the crusade against paedophiles is a matter of prudism or playing on people’s fears, rather than an attempt to protect children. The prevalence of this belief is clearly problematic for a government whose policies rely heavily on a veiled politics of fear, using the “think of the children” mantra as an excuse for abuses of state power. By providing additional evidence for the belief, the government also challenges any message of the kind which the NSPCC were referring to, as it characterises pornography laws as an attempt to legislate morality rather than a disapproval of child abuse."<ref>http://www.attractedtochildren.org/2009/the-perverse-politics-of-virtual-child-porn-law</ref><br />
<br />
Many charities also claimed that contact offenders could use virtual child pornography to [[grooming|groom]] children<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/02/reid_wants_child_law/</ref>, however anybody doing such would be committing the offence of ''attempting sexual activity with a child'' and ''arranging commission of a child sex offence''<ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&ActiveTextDocId=820906</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Statutory defences==<br />
<br />
"(1) Where a person is charged with an offence under section 62(1), it is a defence for the person to prove any of the following matters—<br />
<br />
::(a) that the person had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the image concerned;<br />
<br />
::(b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be a prohibited image of a child;<br />
<br />
::(c) that the person—<br />
<br />
:::(i) was sent the image concerned without any prior request having been made by or on behalf of the person, and<br />
<br />
:::(ii) did not keep it for an unreasonable time."<ref>http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g64</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
{{reflist}}<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
*[[Child pornography]]<br />
*[[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act]]<br />
*[[Indecent images of children]]<br />
*[[NSPCC]]<br />
*[[Research: Child Pornography]]<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_1 Coroners and Justice Act 2009]<br />
* [http://www.attractedtochildren.org/2009/the-perverse-politics-of-virtual-child-porn-law The Perverse Politics of Virtual Child Porn Law]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Prohibited_images_of_children&diff=6170Prohibited images of children2010-01-08T17:18:29Z<p>Brian: New page: A prohibited image of a child is a virtual visual representation of a minor which is illegal under the United Kingdom Coroners and Justice Act 2009. ==Definition of "prohibited"== Ac...</p>
<hr />
<div>A prohibited image of a child is a virtual visual representation of a minor which is illegal under the United Kingdom [[Coroners and Justice Act 2009]].<br />
<br />
==Definition of "prohibited"==<br />
<br />
According to the relevant statute, an image is "prohibited" if it is "pornographic, ''and'' grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character, ''and'' depicts any of the following scenes -<br />
<br />
* the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child;<br />
<br />
* an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a child;<br />
<br />
* an act which involves penetration of the vagina or anus of a child with a part of a person’s body or with anything else;<br />
<br />
* an act of penetration, in the presence of a child, of the vagina or anus of a person with a part of a person’s body or with anything else;<br />
<br />
* the performance by a child of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary);<br />
<br />
* the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary) in the presence of a child.<ref>http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g62</ref><br />
<br />
Under the Coroners and Justice Act, an image is "pornographic" if "it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal".<ref>http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g62</ref> <br />
<br />
The meaning of "obscene character", which was introduced by the [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act]] 2008, has not yet been defined by the courts. The legal meaning of "grossly offensive" and "disgusting" is also unclear. If a defendant argues that an image is not "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character", a jury may be asked to apply its own "understanding" of obscenity, disgust and gross offence, presumably under the guidance of a Judge.<br />
<br />
==Definition of "image"==<br />
<br />
Under the statute, an "image" is <br />
<br />
::(a) a moving or still image (produced by any means), or<br />
::(b) data (stored by any means) which is capable of conversion into an image within paragraph (a).<ref>http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g65</ref><br />
<br />
An "image" is not an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph<ref>http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g65</ref>, or any image derived from an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph.<br />
<br />
==Definition of "child"==<br />
<br />
Under that statute, a child is a person (real or imaginary) who appears to be under the age of 18. According to the legislation, "an image is to be treated as an image of a child if -<br />
<br />
::(a) the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or<br />
<br />
::(b) the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child."<ref>http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g65</ref><br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
As a result of lobbying by several "children's charities", the Home Office in the UK announced plans to criminalise virtual images of "child abuse", claiming that “fantasy images themselves fuel abuse of real children by reinforcing potential abusers’ inappropriate feelings towards children”<ref>http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007-depiction-sex-abuse?view=Binary</ref>. The Home Office noted “an absence of research into the effects of these images”, but proceeded to ask if their proposal was “nevertheless justified”. In 2008, a research paper accompanying the Coroners and Justice Bill cited a 40 year old report by the Longford Committee and an appendix in a 20 year old book on photographic child pornography, purportedly as evidence<ref>http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2009/rp09-006.pdf</ref>, although neither source supported the argument that the viewing of virtual child pornography could incite the commission of contact offences<ref>http://www.attractedtochildren.org/2009/the-perverse-politics-of-virtual-child-porn-law</ref>. [[Research:_Child_Pornography|Evidence]] in fact suggests that child erotica has a positive effect on the behaviour of people with a sexual interest in children, providing a sexual relief which reduces the likelihood of contact offending.<br />
<br />
In response to the Scottish consultation on the proposed criminalisation of virtual "child pornography", a coalition of children's charities claimed that “advances in technology have made it possible to create materials which are entirely artificial but which, in turn, are indistinguishable from photographs or videos of real events”<ref>http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/crimes/pornography/childsexualabuse/ConsResp/cross-borderchis</ref>. This argument (which was later disseminated by Justice Minister Maria Eagle) was in fact misleading, as [[Indecent_images_of_children|indecent]] photo-realistic images of children were already illegal under UK law and possession of such images carries the same maximum sentence as actual photographs.<ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059</ref><br />
<br />
In a criticism of the proposal to criminalise virtual images of children, Brian Ribbon writes:<br />
<br />
::"Another argument proposed by the NSPCC and by other proponents of the legislation is that the availability of cartoon child erotica implies tolerance of child sexual abuse, therefore encouraging paedophiles to act out. The first problem with this argument is that the broad definition of “prohibited images” in the Coroners and Justice Bill includes images which simply focus on certain areas of a child’s body and are perceived to be “grossly offensive” or “disgusting”, even if no sexual activity is depicted. Furthermore, the claim that the availability of cartoon child erotica - even if it depicts sexual abuse - implies a tolerance of child abuse is unfounded and grossly illogical. Firstly, a glance at (legal) discussion boards for paedophiles - such as Annabelleigh.net - indicates that paedophiles are extremely aware of the negativity of attitudes towards paedophilia per se as well as child sexual abuse. Contrary to the argument of the proponents of the proposed legislation, the fact that child erotica is only legal in cartoon form clearly suggests that society is so opposed to any indication of child abuse that it prohibits material which depicts real children in a potentially sexual manner. By criminalising mere cartoons, the government risks providing additional justification for the (justifiable) belief that much of the crusade against paedophiles is a matter of prudism or playing on people’s fears, rather than an attempt to protect children. The prevalence of this belief is clearly problematic for a government whose policies rely heavily on a veiled politics of fear, using the “think of the children” mantra as an excuse for abuses of state power. By providing additional evidence for the belief, the government also challenges any message of the kind which the NSPCC were referring to, as it characterises pornography laws as an attempt to legislate morality rather than a disapproval of child abuse."<ref>http://www.attractedtochildren.org/2009/the-perverse-politics-of-virtual-child-porn-law</ref><br />
<br />
Many charities also claimed that contact offenders could use virtual child pornography to [[grooming|groom]] children<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/02/reid_wants_child_law/</ref>, however anybody doing such would be committing the offence of ''attempting sexual activity with a child'' and ''arranging commission of a child sex offence''<ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&ActiveTextDocId=820906</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Statutory defences==<br />
<br />
"(1) Where a person is charged with an offence under section 62(1), it is a defence for the person to prove any of the following matters—<br />
<br />
::(a) that the person had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the image concerned;<br />
<br />
::(b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be a prohibited image of a child;<br />
<br />
::(c) that the person—<br />
<br />
:::(i) was sent the image concerned without any prior request having been made by or on behalf of the person, and<br />
<br />
:::(ii) did not keep it for an unreasonable time."<ref>http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g64</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
{{reflist}}<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
*[[Child pornography]]<br />
*[[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act]]<br />
*[[Indecent images of children]]<br />
*[[NSPCC]]<br />
*[[Research: Child Pornography]]<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_1 Coroners and Justice Act 2009]<br />
* [http://www.attractedtochildren.org/2009/the-perverse-politics-of-virtual-child-porn-law The Perverse Politics of Virtual Child Porn Law]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Indecent_images_of_children&diff=6169Indecent images of children2010-01-08T15:57:45Z<p>Brian: /* Human Rights Act */</p>
<hr />
<div><div style="margin-left: 25px; float: right;">__TOC__</div>An '''indecent image''' of a child is a photograph or pseudo-photograph (including one comprised in a film) which shows a child and is indecent. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
==Definition of a photograph==<br />
<br />
In <i>R v Fellows & Arnold</i> (1994), the appealant contended that an image stored electronically could not constitute an indecent photograph of a child under section 7 of the Protection of Children Act. <br />
<br />
It was ruled that an electronically stored image was a "copy of an indecent photograph of a child". The court stated that "there is no restriction on the nature of a copy, [and a copy of a photograph is data which] represents the original photograph, in another form". It was also stated that "there is nothing in the Act which makes it necessary that [a] copy should itself be a photograph within the dictionary or the statutory definition, and if there was, it would make the inclusion of the reference to a copy unnecessary. So we conclude that there is no restriction on the nature of a copy [..]" [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1996/825.html]<br />
<br />
According to section 7 of the Protection of Children Act, references to a photograph are "the negative as well as the positive version; and data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into a photograph." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&activetextdocid=1502066]<br />
<br />
So, an image stored electronically is a copy of a photograph and is illegal if it is indecent and shows a child.<br />
<br />
==Definition of a pseudo-photograph==<br />
<br />
A pseudo-photograph is an image which has the appearance of a photograph, but which is not a photograph. A pseudo-photograph of a child does not necessarily show a <i>real</i> child.<br />
<br />
==Defintion of a child==<br />
<br />
A child was originally defined as a person under the age of 16, however the [[Sexual Offences Act (2003)]] raised the defintion of "child" to a person under the age of 18.<br />
<br />
==Indecency==<br />
<br />
The decency of an image is an objective test; that is, it is decided by the jury. Indecency is considered to be a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_of_fact question of fact].<br />
<br />
===Interpretation===<br />
<br />
In order to judge whether an image is indecent, the jury must "apply[..] the recognised standards of propriety." (''R v Graham-Kerr'', 1988) [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/grahamKerr.html].<br />
<br />
In 2003, the Sentencing Advisory Panel provided guidance for Judges considering sentences for people convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act. The lowest level of indecency was described as "images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity", which would suggest that naturist images without posing are not indecent. Despite this, a number of people have been convicted of an offence for making and possessing naturist images. In 2003, Tom O'Carroll was convicted of "evading the prohibition on the importation of indecent material", for importing photographs of "young naked child[ren] engaging in normal outdoor activity such as playing on a beach". One should never assume that an image must be pornographic for it to be indecent.<br />
<br />
Put simply, a photograph or pseudo-photograph is judged to be indecent if the jury believes that it would offend the majority of the population of the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
===Context===<br />
<br />
In R v Graham-Kerr, the defendant had taken (naked) photographs of a male child during a naturists-only event at a swimming pool. The Police interviewed the defendant about his intentions in taking the photographs, and he admitted that he received "'sexual gratification by taking or looking at such photographs". The Judge stated that the jury were entitled to take into account the circumstances, motives, and sexual intentions of the take. <br />
<br />
At the appeal against conviction, the Judge ruled that "''the circumstances and the motivation of the taker may be relevant to the mens rea of the take as to whether his taking was intentional or accidental and so on, but it is not relevant to whether or not the photograph is in itself indecent''". The conviction was quashed. [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/grahamKerr.html]<br />
<br />
In ''R v Mould'' (2000), the Appeal Court ruled that "Mr Burton [representing Mr Mould] was rightly concerned that the jury, in deciding whether or not the photograph was indecent, would wrongly take into account [data showing access to paedophile discussion forums]." Although it was agreed that the jury should not use such information to make a judgment regarding the decency of the image for which Mr Mould was convicted, it was understood that "the prosecution [successfully] sought to rely on it in order to prove that the appellant had deliberately created the .bmp file." [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/mould2000.html] <br />
<br />
While a defendant's proven sexual attraction to children should not affect indecency, it may affect the perceived ''mens rea'' of an act.<br />
<br />
==Criminal offences==<br />
<br />
Under the (amended) Protection of Children Act, it is an offence for a person:<br />
<br />
<br />
:* to take, or permit to be taken, or to make any indecent photograph of a child . . .; or<br />
:* to distribute or show such indecent photographs; or<br />
:* to have in his possession such indecent photographs [outdated text removed]; or<br />
:* to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs, or intends to do so. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
Under the Sexual Offences Act (2003), it is an offence to cause, control, arrange or facilitate a child's involvement in pornography. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820967][http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820968][http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820969]<br />
<br />
It is an offence to "attempt to incite" any criminal offence in the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
===The "making" offence===<br />
<br />
Causing an indecent photograph of a child to exist on a computer screen is considered to be "making an indecent photograph of a child".<br />
<br />
"A person who either downloads images on to disc or who prints them off is making them. The Act is not only concerned with the original creation of images, but also their proliferation. Photographs or pseudo-photographs found on the Internet may have originated from outside the United Kingdom; to download or print within the jurisdiction is to create new material which hitherto may not have existed therein." (R v Bowden) [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/bowden1999.html]<br />
<br />
===Offences committed abroad===<br />
<br />
(1) If—<br />
<br />
::(a) a United Kingdom national does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom, and<br />
<br />
::(b) the act, if done in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies,<br />
<br />
the United Kingdom national is guilty in that part of the United Kingdom of that sexual offence.<br />
<br />
<br />
(2) If—<br />
<br />
::(a) a United Kingdom resident does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom,<br />
<br />
::(b) the act constitutes an offence under the law in force in that country, and<br />
<br />
::(c) the act, if done in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies,<br />
<br />
the United Kingdom resident is guilty in that part of the United Kingdom of that sexual offence. [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/041/08041.50-56.html#jNC35]<br />
<br />
This means that a United Kingdom national may be prosecuted under the Protection of Children Act (as amended by the Sexual Offences Act) if he engages in activity contrary to the Protection of Children Act while in a foreign territory. A United Kingdom resident who engages in an act contrary to the Protection of Children Act while outside of the United Kingdom may be prosecuted if the act also constituted an offence in the foreign jurisdiction.<br />
<br />
==Defences==<br />
<br />
There are a small number of defences against charges under the Protection of Children Act. Below is a list of defences set by the statutes, precedents and case law.<br />
<br />
===Marriage and other relationships===<br />
<br />
In cases where a defendant has taken or made a photographic image of a child over the age of 16, the defendant is not guilty if, at the time when he obtained the photograph, he and the child:<br />
<br />
:: (a) were married; or<br />
<br />
:: (b) lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship; and <br />
<br />
:: (c) the defendant reasonably believed that the child consented to the image being obtained. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820963]<br />
<br />
This exemption was introduced in 2003 under the Sexual Offences Act, which had changed the statutory definition of "child" (in the Protection of Children Act) from 16 to 18.<br />
<br />
===Mens Rea===<br />
<br />
The Criminal Justice Act provides that: <br />
<br />
"Where a person is charged with an offence of possession, it shall be a defence for him to prove –<br />
<br />
:: (a) that he had a legitimate reason for having the photograph or pseudo-photograph in his possession; or<br />
<br />
:: (b) that he had not himself seen the photograph or pseudo- photograph and did not know nor had any cause to suspect, it to be indecent; or<br />
<br />
:: (c) that the photograph or pseudo-photograph was sent to him without any prior request made by him or on his behalf and that he did not keep it for any unreasonable time." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=2116646&ActiveTextDocId=2116851]<br />
<br />
The same defences may be applied to the other offences under Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act.<br />
<br />
It is also a defence for the defendant to prove that he did not take, make, distribute, show or possess an image which the knowledge that the image was, or was likely to be:<br />
<br />
::* an indecent image; and<br />
::* an image of a child.<br />
<br />
This was upheld in R v Smith & Jayson, when the judge ruled that, "the mens rea necessary to constitute the offence [of making an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child] is that the act of making should be a deliberate and intentional act with knowledge that the image made is, or is likely to be, an indecent image of a child" ''(R v Smith & Jayson, 2003)''. [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/smithJayson2003.html]<br />
<br />
A defendant must be proven (beyond reasonable doubt) to be aware that a cache of images exists, in order to be convicted for the possession offence. It should be noted that, in such cases, the defendant will still be convicted of the making offence, unless another defence applies.<br />
<br />
===Collages===<br />
<br />
Lord Justice Simon Brown ruled that "an image made by an exhibit which obviously consists, as this one does, of parts of two different photographs sellotaped together cannot be said to appear to be "a photograph" [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/302.html]. This means that, if a collage does not appear to be parts of a single photograph, it does not fall within the scope of the Protection of Children Act. A photocopy or scan of a collage may fall under the Act and could therefore be illegal if it shows a child and is judged to be indecent.<br />
<br />
===Law enforcement===<br />
<br />
It is a defence for the defendant to prove that images were made "for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings"<br />
<br />
===Human Rights Act===<br />
<br />
The [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm Human Rights Act] offers a potential defence against possession and "making" charges under the ''Protection of Children Act'', however the following Articles have ''not'' been tested in court in relation to such charges.<br />
<br />
Section 3 of the Act dictates that:<br />
<br />
:"(1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.<br />
<br />
::::(2) This section—<br />
<br />
::::::(a) applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted;<br />
<br />
::::::(b) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation; and<br />
<br />
::::::(c) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible subordinate legislation if disregarding any possibility of revocation) primary legislation prevents removal of the incompatibility."<br />
<br />
The relevant convention articles are ''Article 13'' and ''Article 14''.<br />
<br />
'''Article 13:'''<br />
<br />
:"(4) The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to—<br />
<br />
::::(a) the extent to which—<br />
::::::(i) the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or<br />
::::::(ii) it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published"<br />
<br />
It is well known that nude images of children have been used, controversially, in artistic exhibitions, which implies that some people see an artistic element in nude images of children. Cases involving art galleries have never resulted in prosecution, but cases involving the downloading of questionable material from the internet do lead to prosecution. A defendant may argue that images which are on the public internet (world wide web) could be defined as having "become available to the public." Indeed, the judge of the case of ''Knuller v. DPP'' stated that "in public" [..] has a wide meaning." It appears to "cover exhibitions in all places to which the public have access either as of right or gratis or on payment."<br />
<br />
'''Article 14:'''<br />
<br />
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."<br />
<br />
==Sentencing==<br />
<br />
The sentencing guidelines for offences committed contrary to the Protection of Children Act were decided by the Sentencing Advisory Panel, to assist with sentencing during ''R v Oliver et al''<br />
<br />
The levels of indecency are as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
{| border="1" <br />
| Level<br />
| Definition<br />
|- <br />
| Level 1<br />
| Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity<br />
|- <br />
| Level 2<br />
| Non-penetrative sexual activity between children, or solo masturbation by a child<br />
|- <br />
| Level 3<br />
| Non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children<br />
|- <br />
| Level 4<br />
| Penetrative sexual activity involving a child or children, or both children and adults<br />
|- <br />
| Level 5<br />
| Sadism or penetration of, or by, an animal<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
Judges use the following guidelines when sentencing someone who has been convicted under the <i>Protection of Children Act</i>:<br />
<br/><br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
| Starting points<br />
| Type/nature of activity<br />
| Sentencing ranges<br />
|- <br />
| Community order<br />
| Possession of a large amount of level 1 material and/or no more than a small amount of level 2, and the material is for personal use and has not been distributed or shown to others<br />
| An appropriate non-custodial sentence<br />
|- <br />
| 12 weeks custody<br />
| Offender in possession of a large amount of material at level 2 or a small amount at level 3<br />
<br />
Offender has shown or distributed material at level 1 or 2 on a limited scale <br />
<br />
Offender has exchanged images at level 1 or 2 with other collectors, but with no element of financial gain<br />
| 4 weeks-26 weeks custody<br />
|- <br />
| 26 weeks custody<br />
| Possession of a large quantity of level 3 material for personal use<br />
<br />
Possession of a small number of images at level 4 or 5<br />
<br />
Large number of level 2 images shown or distributed <br />
<br />
Small number of level 3 images shown or distributed<br />
| 4 weeks–18 months custody <br />
|- <br />
| 12 months custody<br />
| Possession of a large quantity of level 4 or 5 material for personal use only<br />
<br />
Large number of level 3 images shown or distributed<br />
| 26 weeks-2 years custody<br />
<br />
|- <br />
| 2 years custody<br />
| Offender involved in the production of, or has traded in, material at levels 1–3<br />
| 1-4 years custody<br />
|- <br />
| 3 years custody<br />
| Level 4 or 5 images shown or distributed<br />
| 2-5 years custody<br />
|-<br />
| 6 years custody<br />
| Offender commissioned or encouraged the production of level 4 or 5 images<br />
<br />
Offender involved in the production of level 4 or 5 images<br />
<br />
| 4-9 years custody<br />
<br />
|}[http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/82083-COI-SCG_final.pdf]<br />
<br />
<br />
Images which are below the threshhold for Level 1 - but which are judged to be indecent by a jury - will be treated as Level 1 images during sentencing; therefore a naturist image with no erotic posing will be treated as a Level 1 indecent image of a child, if judged to be indecent.<br />
<br />
<br />
A person who is convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act is also likely to be banned from working with children in the United Kingdom, and ordered to sign the Sex Offenders Register.<br />
<br />
==Important Notes==<br />
<br />
*Any image may <i>technically</i> be indecent under UK law. <br />
*Even if an image has been declared as decent by one jury, it may be still be declared indecent by another jury. <br />
*Despite precedents stating that the context of an image does not affect indecency, a jury may be more likely to rule that an image is indecent if they believe that the defendant is attracted to children.<br />
*Previous interpretations of the indecency suggest that "indecency" has a lower threshhold than "pornography", so what is "indecent" (and therefore illegal) is not necessarily "pornographic".<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Child Pornography]]<br />
* [[Child Pornography Laws]]<br />
* [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act]]<br />
* [[Legal Information]]<br />
* [[Sexual Offences Act (2003)]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Official Encyclopedia]][[Category:Censorship]][[Category:Law/Crime]][[Category:Law/Crime: British]][[Category:Law/Crime: Crime Types]][[Category:Child Pornography]]<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
<br />
[http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/ Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Research:_Child_Pornography&diff=5044Research: Child Pornography2009-05-26T23:45:47Z<p>Brian: </p>
<hr />
<div><div style="margin-left: 25px; float: right;">__TOC__</div><br />
:''For legal implications, see [[Child Pornography Laws]]''<br />
"Child Pornography" has no agreed definition. Legally, it can refer to various kinds of media featuring minors in situations depicting nudity or sexual conduct.<br />
<br />
==The Effects of Child Pornography==<br />
<br />
The criminalization of child pornography is, in part, justified by the assumption that it will cause viewers to commit contact offences against children. No conclusive evidence substantiates this assumption. On the contrary, child pornography appears to have a cathartic effect.<br />
<br />
The popular "backwards logic" in child porn anecdotes is virtually redundant. After selecting a sample population who are already convicted for or implicated in more serious behaviours, it should not be surprising to unearth regular use of pornography. Said population would also have a vested interest in forfeiting responsibility, excusing their behaviours and conforming to the prevailing clinical bias. To be accurate, research needs to survey the wider population and its use of different kinds of pornography, and then look for contact-offending behaviour.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Denmark.png|left|thumb|Sex crimes dropped markedly in Denmark following porn legalization.[http://www.scireview.de/pj/sexualverbrechen.html]]]<br />
*'''[[Thomas O'Carroll|O'Carroll, Tom]] (2000). "[http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/tomoc/sexpriv_backgr_text.htm Sexual Privacy for Paedophiles and Children: A Complementary Background Paper.]"'''<br />
*:"Such an effect has been proposed in relation to Denmark during the few years when child pornography was openly and legally available: in that period sex offences against children were significantly lower than either before or after. (5) A similar phenomenon occurred during a period of liberalisation in West Germany, where from 1972 to 1980 the total number of sex crimes known to the police in the Federal Republic of Germany decreased by 11%. (6) Sharpe himself, whose possession of pornography was in contention, made the astute point in an interview that if child pornography led to sexual assaults, then there would have been a huge increase in assaults as a result of the allegedly much greater availability of child porn on the Internet. (7)"<br />
<br />
{{research}}<br />
*'''Kirby, Stuart (2005). "[http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Uk/uk.politics.censorship/2005-12/msg00000.html No link between child porn and sexual abuse,]" ''Life Style Extra, UK'', 15 December.'''<br />
*:"There is no link between looking at child pornography and sexual abuse of youngsters, a senior police officer told a conference today. Studies have found no correlation between those who download graphic images of youngsters via the internet and child molesters. Dr Stuart Kirby, Detective Chief Superintendent with Lancashire Police, told the International Investigative Psychology Conference: "When you look at all the research that has been done nationally, the consensus is that there has not proven to be a link between the viewing of pornography and the committing of hands-on offences. In a follow-up study by Lancashire Police, that was found to be clearly the case." <br />
<br />
*'''Howitt, Dennis (1995). ''[http://www.ipce.info/host/howitt/6a.htm Paedophiles and Sexual Offences Against Children]'', p. 161-162.'''<br />
*:"Common-sense theories tend to be contradictory. For example, there is a lot to be said for the notion of fantasy as substitute for action, a largely separate stream of experience or a substitute for reality. The original psychoanalytic view of fantasy as wish fulfillment took a similar stance. [...]<br />
*:One cannot simply take evidence that offenders use and buy pornography as sufficient to implicate pornography causally in their offending. The most reasonable assessment based on the available research literature is that the relationship between pornography, fantasy and offending is unclear."<br />
<br />
*'''Diamond, Milton, and Uchiyama, Ayako (1999). "[http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html Pornography, rape, and sex crimes in Japan]", ''International Journal of Law and Psychiatry'', 22, 1-22.'''<br />
*:"However, there are no specific child pornography laws in Japan and SEM depicting minors are readily available and widely consumed. [...] The most dramatic decrease in sex crimes was seen when attention was focused on the number and age of rapists and victims among younger groups (Table 2). We hypothesized that the increase in pornography [in general], without age restriction and in comics, if it had any detrimental effect, would most negatively influence younger individuals. Just the opposite occurred. The number of juvenile offenders dramatically dropped every period reviewed from 1,803 perpetrators in 1972 to a low of 264 in 1995; a drop of some 85% (Table 1). The number of victims also decreased particularly among the females younger than 13 (Table 2). In 1972, 8.3% of the victims were younger than 13. In 1995 the percentage of victims younger than 13 years of age dropped to 4.0%."<br />
<br />
*'''Kendall, Todd (2006). "[http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdf Pornography, Rape, and the Internet]." Paper presented at the Stanford Law and Economics Seminar.'''<br />
*:This study found that "an increase in home internet access of 10 percentage points is associated with an 7.3% decline in [forcible] rape" of females of all ages as a group. [http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/ Slate Magazine] reported on this.<br />
<br />
*'''Stanley, Janet (2001). "[http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/issues/issues15/issues15.html Pornography, Child Abuse and the Internet]," ''Child Abuse Prevention Issues'', 15.'''<br />
*:"Research to date has not determined whether child sex offenders are more, or less, likely to offend if they view and/or collect child pornography (Queensland Crime Commission and Queensland Police Services 2000; Smallbone and Wortley 2000). Although a Queensland study found that non-familial offenders reported using adult pornography (72 per cent) and child pornography (9 per cent) (Smallbone and Wortley 2000), these findings need to be treated with caution. The study sample was almost exclusively comprised of male incarcerated offenders who had low Internet literacy (88 per cent had not used the Internet). Thus, the characteristics of incarcerated offenders may differ from the wider population of offenders and it would also appear that the Smallbone and Wortley sample may potentially represent a different group to those offenders who target children via the Internet".<br />
<br />
*'''Sheldon, Kerry & Howitt, Dennis (2008). "Sexual fantasy in paedophile offenders: Can any model explain satisfactorily new findings from a study of Internet and contact sexual offenders?", ''Legal and Criminological Psychology'', 13, 137-158.'''<br />
*:"Internet offenders may have less need to contact offend since they can generate fantasy more easily. The contact [offending] group may be unable to generate fantasies at all or may have weak and short-lived fantasies. Sex offenders are often described as concrete and/or unimaginative (Langevin, Lang, & Curnoe, 1998), and it is possible that contact child molesters do not have frequent or vivid fantasies and require activity with a child in order to generate later masturbatory thoughts. [...] Contact offenders seem to have less sexual fantasy pertinent to their offending than did Internet offenders. Fantasy deficit may be involved in contact offending against children."<br />
<br />
*'''[http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/rvsharpe.htm Decision] in [[R v. Sharpe]] by Justice Duncan Shaw in the Supreme Court of British Columbia'''<br />
*:"There is no evidence which demonstrates any significant increase of danger to children related to the confirmation or augmentation of cognitive distortions caused by pornography. There is no evidence that "mildly erotic" images are used in the "grooming process." Only assumption supports the proposition that materials that advocate or counsel sexual crimes with children have the effect of increasing the occurrence of such crimes. Sexually explicit pornography is used by some pedophiles to relieve pent-up sexual tension. A person who is prone to act on his fantasies will likely do so irrespective of the availability of pornography. There is no evidence that the production of child pornography will be significantly reduced if simple possession is a made a crime."<br />
<br />
*'''Knudsen, D.D. (1988). "Child sexual abuse and pornography: Is there a relationship?," ''Journal of Family Violence'', 3, pp. 253-267.'''<br />
*:"Perhaps the most appropriate summary of the research pertaining to pornography involving both adults and children is that there are no clear relationships that can be identified between erotica and sex crimes. Individuals for whom pornography is the primary or direct motivator of violent acts appear to be relatively rare. And most violence toward women and children is undertaken without such aids to arouse aggressive feelings, though some indirect modeling effects may be identified in lowered inhibitions. If the problem is to determine whether access to pornography directly increases the probability of sexually exploitive behaviors toward children, there appears to be a general consensus among researchers that it does not (Nelson, 1982)."<br />
<br />
==The Nature of Child Pornography==<br />
<br />
*'''[[Jan Schuijer|Schuijer, Jan]] and Rossen, Benjamin (1992). "[http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_2_1.htm The Trade in Child Pornography]," ''[[Issues in Child Abuse Accusations]]'', 4(4).'''<br />
*:"We have called the claims about child pornography "myths." The existence of child pornography is certainly not. The myths are the exaggerated estimates of the number of children, the volume and value of the trade, the profits that are alleged to have been made, and the horrifying damage said to have been done to the children."<br />
<br />
:*'''[[Thomas O'Carroll|O'Carroll, Tom]] (2000). "[http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/tomoc/sexpriv_backgr_text.htm Sexual Privacy for Paedophiles and Children: A Complementary Background Paper]."'''<br />
:::"A survey of images in commercial child porn magazines that were available in the 1970s and early 80s by Schuijer and Rossen shows that only 14% depicted children engaged in sexual conduct with adults. Most of the material, 61%, showed children either nude at play or posing erotically. (8)"<br />
<br />
*'''[[Robert Bauserman|Bauserman, Robert]] (2003). [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_2_40/ai_105518224/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1 "Child pornography online: myth, fact, and social control"], ''Journal of Sex Research'', 40(2).'''<br />
*:"Most of the CP images themselves appear to involve adolescents or children posing nude, which is not illegal in most Western countries. However, some hard-core images of adolescent and prepubescent children having sex with each other and with adults are available. While some appear to be recycled from 1970s magazines and films, other images seem to be "sex tourist" images created by men visiting Asian or Latin American countries in search of less risky sexual access to minors. Jenkins offers no estimate of the number of minors who currently appear in CP, but fortunately they seem to number far fewer than the tens or hundreds of thousands of children (defined to include adolescents) often claimed."<br />
<br />
*'''www.almapintada.com: "Child Pornography Statistics 1984-2000"'''<br />
*:"Less than an average of ten new series per year have been circulated on the internet since 1984. Only 14 of these series include children engaged in sexual intercourse, 32 in non-penetrative genital contact and 39 in fellatio. Most of these series include genital display only."<br />
<br />
*'''Lanning, Kenneth (1992). "[http://www.religioustolerance.org/fbi_02.htm Investigator's Guide to Allegations of "Ritual" Child Abuse, Chapter 2.1: "Stranger Danger."] Quantico, VA: Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime.<br />
*:"Child victims who, for example, simply behave like human beings and respond to the attention and affection of offenders by voluntarily and repeatedly returning to the offender's home are troubling. It confuses us to see the victims in child pornography giggling or laughing."<br />
<br />
*'''O'Donnel, Ian, and Milner, Claire (2007). ''Child Pornography: Crime, Computers and Society,'' p. 123.''' (Paraphrased by [[Brian Ribbon]])<br />
*:"A recent study in Ireland, undertaken by Garda, revealed the most serious content in a sample of over 100 cases involving indecent images of children. In 44% of cases, the most serious images depicted nudity or erotic posing, in 7% they depicted sexual activity between children, in 7% they depicted non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children, in 37% they depicted penetrative sexual activity between adults and children, and in 5% they depicted sadism or bestiality."<br />
<br />
*'''Ribbon, Brian (2008). [http://www.boychat.org/messages/1123851.htm "How can anyone believe these claims?"]. Boychat.org'''<br />
*:"I could only find a small number of websites (less than 20) which contained material which would be illegal if viewed in my home jurisdiction, despite the fact that my home jurisdiction prohibits simple nudity. It is clear that there are not 150,000 child pornography websites. The websites which did depict material which would be illegal if viewed in my home jurisdiction were much tamer than government-funded organisations claim. Over 99% of the images which would be illegal in the USA/UK/Australia showed no sexual contact."<br />
<br />
*'''[[Judith Levine|Levine, Judith]] (2002). ''[[Harmful to Minors]]''.<br />
*:"Aficionados and vice cops concede that practically all the sexually explicit images of children circulating cybernetically are the same stack of yellowing pages found at the back of those X-rated shops, only digitized. These pictures tend to be twenty to fifty years old, made overseas, badly re-reproduced, and for the most part pretty chaste. That may be why federal agents almost never show journalists the contraband. But when I got a peek at a stash downloaded by Don Huycke, the national program manager for child pornography at the U.S. Customs Service, in 1995, I was underwhelmed. Losing count after fifty photos, I'd put aside three that could be called pornographic: a couple of shots of adolescents masturbating and one half-dressed twelve-year-old spreading her legs in a position more like a gymnast's split than split beaver. The rest tended to be like the fifteen-year-old with a 1950s bob and an Ipana grin, sitting up straight, naked but demure, or the two towheaded six-year olds in underpants, astride their bikes."<br />
<br />
*'''[[Harris Mirkin|Mirkin, H.]] (2009). "The Social, Political, and Legal Construction of the Concept of Child Pornography ," ''Journal of Homosexuality'', 56(2), pp. 233-267.'''<br />
*:"Most of the actual acts depicted by the young models in child pornography are legal. Although some of the older pictures have sullen, battered looking children who look like they have been drugged or coerced, that is rarely true of more current photos. Impressionistically, the largest number of pictures on pornographic sites involves clothed photographs of pretty or good-looking children. Often they are in bathing suits. These are tainted simply because of their presence on pornographic sites, but, although they often have an erotic tinge, the pictures would not be considered pornographic in other settings. The next largest number consists of nudes of diverse quality and degrees of eroticism. Some pictures of boys show erections. Videos are a media that demand movement and they often show sex play and horseplay among the youths (especially boys), but no real sex (except masturbation or attempted masturbation). Masturbation, usually alone but sometimes in groups, and oral sex are also occasionally shown in still images. Generally both boys and girls look cheerful and healthy, although obviously this could be an act. Still the smiles and playfulness are often in hundreds of photographs of the same models, and giggles are ubiquitous in the films. The attempt is to portray an innocent and joyful sexuality, whether or not that is what is experienced by the models and actors. The pictures are far less tawdry and hard core than adult porn and are more playful. Domination is not an important theme and very few images (probably less than 1%) involve adults."<br />
<br />
===Child pornography subcultures===<br />
<br />
*'''[[Robert Bauserman|Bauserman, Robert]] (2003). [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_2_40/ai_105518224/pg_3?tag=artBody;col1 "Child pornography online: myth, fact, and social control"], ''Journal of Sex Research'', 40(2).'''<br />
<br />
::"Also of interest is Jenkins' finding that, like many other deviant groups (e.g., organized crime), the CP subculture does not represent a total break with conventional morality. This claim may be surprising, given the extent to which sexual interest in children or adolescents is socially and legally condemned. However, studies of deviant groups show that members may express mainstream or even conservative values on social and political issues, and share widely accepted goals such as material success. While subscribing to mainstream values, group members seek to rationalize or "neutralize" the illegal and socially condemned aspects of their behavior. Jenkins notes the use of techniques such as denial of victimization (the adolescent or child is said to be consenting), denial of harm, and condemnation of the condemners (e.g., as hypocrites). Users also self-label with nonderogatory terms such as "pedo" or "loli-lover." Reports of truly sadistic and violent crimes against children (such as the Dutroux case in Belgium, in which an offender kidnapped, raped, and killed young girls) are met with expressions of disgust and anger and claims that "true loli-lovers" are interested in mutual pleasure, not violence. Jenkins considers such statements genuine expressions of feeling, not a public front, because of the private nature of the bulletin board forums."<br />
<br />
==A Billion-Dollar Industry?==<br />
<br />
*'''Brian Rothery: "[http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=319 Every image of a child being abused]"'''<br />
*:"By now, many journalists and activists concerned with how the police deal with the child pornography laws are aware that the American police and some related agencies are the main, and likely the sole, dealers in and publishers of images of child pornography, using them for entrapment purposes."<br />
<br />
*'''Rosen, Jeffrey (2005). "The Internet Has Made Government Action Against Child Pornography Untenable," in ''Opposing Viewpoints: Mass Media''. Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press.'''<br />
*:Child pornography is often alleged to be a 20 billion dollar industry. If this is true, that would put it at twice the size of the adult porn industry: "But today, as Frank Rich reported in The New York Times Magazine last May [2002] the porn industry—much of it hard-core—generates at least $10 billion per year in revenues for more than 70,000 websites, porn networks, pay-per-view and rental movies [700 million porn rentals per year], cable and satellite television, and magazine publishers."<br />
<br />
*'''Ian O'Donnel & Claire Milner (2007). ''Child Pornography; Crime, computers and society'', p. 54.'''<br />
*:"Because there is no way of estimating the amount of child pornography that was in circulation prior to the advent of the internet, it is possible that the quantity has not increased but has simply become more available and more copied."<br />
<br />
*'''Jenkins, Philip (2001). ''Beyond Tolerance: Child Pornography on the Internet,'' p. 102.'''<br />
*:"Money is rarely involved in the child porn underworld, which is the preserve of truly motivated collectors."<br />
<br />
*'''[[Thomas O'Carroll|O'Carroll, Tom]] (2000). "[http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/tomoc/sexual_privacy.htm Sexual Privacy for Paedophiles and Children.]"'''<br />
*:"The production of such pictures is vanishingly rare, however, and there is no shortage of criminal law to deal with any perpetrators who are caught. Even in such cases, though, we would be hard put to blame the private viewer of such material for creating a market in it. There is no means, no even on the Internet, to buy and sell such material. Illegal images may be posted, but this will invariably be done anonymously or with a phoney "from" address – for obvious reasons. This means that it is impossible to make money on these activities. From time to time someone may naively hope do so, lured by claims in the media that it is a profitable business. These commercial attempts have always been stopped very quickly: If the potential customers can find the producer then so can the police. The notion that there is a vast child porn industry, organised by some ruthless mafia, is simply a myth."<br />
<br />
*'''Bialik, Carl (2006). "[http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114485422875624000.html Measuring the Child-Porn Trade]," ''The Wall Street Journal'', April 18.'''<br />
*:"Unlike, say, the soft-drink or airline industries, the child-pornography industry doesn't report its annual sales to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Yet in a press release ahead of a recent House of Representatives hearing aimed at curbing the industry, Texas Republican Joe Barton said, "Child pornography is apparently a multibillion … my staff analysis says $20 billion-a-year business. Twenty billion dollars." Some press reports said the figure applied only to the industry's online segment. The New York Times reported, "the sexual exploitation of children on the Internet is a $20 billion industry that continues to expand in the United States and abroad," citing witnesses at the hearing.<br />
*:What was Rep. Barton's staff analysis? A spokesman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee told me the source of the number was the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, a group that advocates for the protection of children. When I first talked with that group's president, Ernie Allen, he told me that Standard Chartered bank, which has worked with the NCMEC to cut off funding to child-porn traffickers, wanted a quantitative analysis of the problem, so it asked for a measurement from consulting firm McKinsey & Co. Mr. Allen faxed me an NCMEC paper that cites the McKinsey study in placing the child-porn industry at $6 billion in 1999, and $20 billion in 2004.<br />
*:But a McKinsey spokesman painted a different picture for me: "The number was not calculated or generated by McKinsey," he wrote in an email. Instead, for a pro bono analysis for Standard Chartered, he said, McKinsey used a number that appeared in a report last year by End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes, an international advocacy group.<br />
*:But the trail didn't end there: That report, in turn, attributed the number to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as did a report last year from the Council of Europe, a Strasbourg, France-based human-rights watchdog. Both of those reports noted that estimates range widely, from $3 billion to $20 billion.<br />
*:FBI spokesman Paul Bresson told me in an email, "The FBI has not stated the $20 billion figure... . I have asked many people who would know for sure if we have attached the $20 billion number to this problem. I have scoured our Web site, too. Nothing!""<br />
**'''Bialik, Carl (2006). "[http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114606007204936484.html?mod=2_1125_1 Measuring Chernobyl's Fallout]," ''The Wall Street Journal'', April 27.'''<br />
**:"Meanwhile, I heard more about the number that was the subject of last week's column -- the claim, which I couldn't verify, that the child-pornography industry generates $20 billion in annual revenue. In a 2004 report, the Council of Europe, a Strasbourg, France-based human-rights watchdog, attributed the number to Unicef. But Allison Hickling, a spokeswoman for the United Nations child agency, told me in an email, "The number is not attributable to Unicef -- we do not collect data on this issue."<br />
**:I told Alexander Seger, who worked on the Council of Europe reports, that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Unicef, both cited in Council reports, said they weren't the source for the $20 billion figure. He said the Council won't use the number in the future, and added in an email, "I think we have what I would call a case of information laundering: You state a figure on something, somebody else quotes it, and then you and others [quote] it back, and thus it becomes clean and true. ... Perhaps this discussion will help instill more rigor in the future.""<br />
<br />
==Impact on Child Models==<br />
<br />
Very little research has been done into the direct effect of modeling on children.<br />
<br />
*'''Jan Schuijer and Benjamin Rossen (1992). "[http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_2_1_5.htm Interviews with Three Boys."]<br />
*:"Despite the attempt to obtain a balanced description of the events, a remarkably black and white picture emerged. The boys described their friendship and feelings for Ferdinand in glowing terms. On the other hand the attitude towards the police is unequivocally negative."<br />
<br />
*'''Ian O'Donnell and Claire Milner (2007). "Child Pornography: Crime, computers and society". Willan Publishing, p229.'''<br />
*:"While we might feel uneasy about an individual who took sexual pleasure from photographs of children playing on beaches, it is clearly the case that such photographs are not based on an underlying act of abuse".<br />
<br />
*'''The Australian (2008). "[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23981750-16947,00.html Naked child in photo defends image]'''<br />
*:Although the photos concerned are most probably not pornographic they have been criticised as such (for containing nudity and posing). "“I'm really, really offended by what Kevin Rudd had to say about this picture,” Olympia said outside her Melbourne home, accompanied by her father, The Age art critic Robert Nelson. “I love the photo so much. It is one of my favourites, if not my favourite photo, my mum has ever taken of me and she has taken so many photos of me. “I think that the picture my mum took of me had nothing to do with being abused and I think nudity can be a part of art.”" An [http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23981607-12377,00.html adult critic] responded: "And that the child concerned defends the photographs in my view merely compounds what has happened."<br />
<br />
*'''[[Harris Mirkin|Mirkin, H.]] (2009). "The Social, Political, and Legal Construction of the Concept of Child Pornography ," ''Journal of Homosexuality'', 56(2), pp. 233-267.'''<br />
*:"People who were familiar with the child pornography world have told me that in Eastern Europe, where most of the current male child pornography is produced, many of the boys modeling and acting in child pornography are street hustlers, who survive largely by selling sex and who view it as an easy gig. There are many reasons for them to model, including money, showing off, coercion, affection for the photographer, a road to modeling career, and daredevil impulses to violate social norms. They do not think that being photographed nude is a big deal. The girl models in Japan are often treated like stars and have Web sites devoted to them. For long periods, photographs that we would currently call child pornography have been legal, and there is no evidence that the models were hurt. Artist models at various times have shown little evidence of harm, and the subjects of major photographers like Sturges, Mann, and Hamilton (who all have been accused, but exonerated, of making child pornography) have said that their experiences were positive ones.<br />
*:Based on the available evidence it is difficult to support the prevailing assumptions about universal harm to the young models and actors. Based on the Rind et al. studies, boys especially seem unlikely to suffer great harm. Probably some are hurt, some benefit, and most are not strongly affected."<br />
<br />
==Impact on "non-appreciative" Adults==<br />
<br />
It is often claimed anecdotally that officers investigating high volumes of child porn suffer from "burn out" or may have to enter counseling.<br />
<br />
*'''Inquisition 21 (2008). "[http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=337 From inside the police force."]<br />
*:"We have a report from a police insider about how many of his colleagues actually reacted to both adult and child pornography [...] He received his first, much of it shocking to him, initiation into the world of pornography from his older police colleagues who ‘sickened him with their canteen culture’. They pushed the first ever hard core magazines he had seen right in front of his face, as he put it, “Gloating over them.” [...] Only as the number of women in the force increased, especially in senior ranks, did the macho culture of open pornographic display decrease and become more covert. [...] These men were now being paid to study child pornography and soon he could hear them tell the media about fatigue and burn-out concerning images they had formerly gloated over."<br />
<br />
==Child Producers==<br />
<br />
''The criminalisation of youth is also covered in [[Criminalisation of youth|a dedicated article]].''<br />
<br />
As more facts slowly float to the surface in this stringently censored medium, the more we learn about under-age producers sharing their self-made images with other young people for recreational use, thus making prohibitions unworkable and pronouncements concerning who is "exploiting" who extremely hard to define. Whilst activists have been pointing towards this trend for some time, it has taken much longer for "Child-Protection" officers to admit that minors are capable of producing child pornography.<br />
<br />
*'''The Heraldsun (2008). "[http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23955429-2862,00.html Making child pornography is now kids' stuff."]<br />
*:"Teenagers are becoming major makers of child pornography in Victoria[Australia]. Statistics reveal adolescents last year outnumbered middle-aged men two to one as the main offenders in child porn production. Youths 10 to 14 were among the alleged offenders."<br />
<br />
*'''The Independent.ie (2008). "[http://www.independent.ie/national-news/children-producing-their-own-web-porn-1410447.html?service=Print Children producing their own web porn."]<br />
*:"CHILDREN as young as 10 years of age are taking sexually explicit pictures of themselves before uploading them onto the internet -- according to Ireland's leading Criminal Intelligence Officer at Interpol [...] Irish Detective Sergeant Michael Moran, who is one of the world's leading experts in the fight against child exploitation, has warned parents to be extra vigilant about their children uploading self-made pornography. "Everything from posing naked to actual sex acts on web cams. We are seeing a lot more self-produced child pornography to the extent that self-taking child abusive material is one of our biggest problems at the moment."<br />
<br />
*'''Inquisition 21 (2008). "[http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=342 The new pizza scam."]<br />
*:"The child sex abuse and child porn legislation have boosted the business of so-called ‘under-age’ minors scamming and blackmailing adult men. The latest to arise from the chat rooms is the pizza scam. [...] One of our other researchers went onto that chat room and asked if anyone had been approached by individuals offering to cam for pizza and one man from London replied. He said he had spoken to a male student who lived in his local area, aged 19. The student gave some sob story and said he would give a cam show for pizza. The man agreed. The boy named a local pizza place but gave another telephone number. The man phoned the number, who took his order and credit card details. Subsequently a PayPal account was set up using that credit card and money stolen from him. He reported this to PayPal who refused to do anything without a crime number. He then reported it to the police who simply took details. PayPal responded once he had a crime number, but the police apparently performed no investigation. A source close to the police has informed us that the police have a good laugh at this kind of thing. They regard the scammed as the perverts, or the guilty ones, and the scammers as having a right to sting them."<br />
<br />
[[Category:Official Encyclopedia]][[Category:Research into effects on Children]][[Category:Research on Minor Attraction]]<br />
<br />
[[fr: Recherche: Pornographie enfantine]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Research:_Child_Pornography&diff=5043Research: Child Pornography2009-05-26T23:42:28Z<p>Brian: /* The Effects of Child Pornography */</p>
<hr />
<div><div style="margin-left: 25px; float: right;">__TOC__</div><br />
:''For legal implications, see [[Child Pornography Laws]]''<br />
"Child Pornography" has no agreed definition. Legally, it refers to media featuring minors in sexual situations.<br />
<br />
==The Effects of Child Pornography==<br />
<br />
The criminalization of child pornography is, in part, justified by the assumption that it will cause viewers to commit contact offences against children. No conclusive evidence substantiates this assumption. On the contrary, child pornography appears to have a cathartic effect.<br />
<br />
The popular "backwards logic" in child porn anecdotes is virtually redundant. After selecting a sample population who are already convicted for or implicated in more serious behaviours, it should not be surprising to unearth regular use of pornography. Said population would also have a vested interest in forfeiting responsibility, excusing their behaviours and conforming to the prevailing clinical bias. To be accurate, research needs to survey the wider population and its use of different kinds of pornography, and then look for contact-offending behaviour.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Denmark.png|left|thumb|Sex crimes dropped markedly in Denmark following porn legalization.[http://www.scireview.de/pj/sexualverbrechen.html]]]<br />
*'''[[Thomas O'Carroll|O'Carroll, Tom]] (2000). "[http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/tomoc/sexpriv_backgr_text.htm Sexual Privacy for Paedophiles and Children: A Complementary Background Paper.]"'''<br />
*:"Such an effect has been proposed in relation to Denmark during the few years when child pornography was openly and legally available: in that period sex offences against children were significantly lower than either before or after. (5) A similar phenomenon occurred during a period of liberalisation in West Germany, where from 1972 to 1980 the total number of sex crimes known to the police in the Federal Republic of Germany decreased by 11%. (6) Sharpe himself, whose possession of pornography was in contention, made the astute point in an interview that if child pornography led to sexual assaults, then there would have been a huge increase in assaults as a result of the allegedly much greater availability of child porn on the Internet. (7)"<br />
<br />
{{research}}<br />
*'''Kirby, Stuart (2005). "[http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Uk/uk.politics.censorship/2005-12/msg00000.html No link between child porn and sexual abuse,]" ''Life Style Extra, UK'', 15 December.'''<br />
*:"There is no link between looking at child pornography and sexual abuse of youngsters, a senior police officer told a conference today. Studies have found no correlation between those who download graphic images of youngsters via the internet and child molesters. Dr Stuart Kirby, Detective Chief Superintendent with Lancashire Police, told the International Investigative Psychology Conference: "When you look at all the research that has been done nationally, the consensus is that there has not proven to be a link between the viewing of pornography and the committing of hands-on offences. In a follow-up study by Lancashire Police, that was found to be clearly the case." <br />
<br />
*'''Howitt, Dennis (1995). ''[http://www.ipce.info/host/howitt/6a.htm Paedophiles and Sexual Offences Against Children]'', p. 161-162.'''<br />
*:"Common-sense theories tend to be contradictory. For example, there is a lot to be said for the notion of fantasy as substitute for action, a largely separate stream of experience or a substitute for reality. The original psychoanalytic view of fantasy as wish fulfillment took a similar stance. [...]<br />
*:One cannot simply take evidence that offenders use and buy pornography as sufficient to implicate pornography causally in their offending. The most reasonable assessment based on the available research literature is that the relationship between pornography, fantasy and offending is unclear."<br />
<br />
*'''Diamond, Milton, and Uchiyama, Ayako (1999). "[http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html Pornography, rape, and sex crimes in Japan]", ''International Journal of Law and Psychiatry'', 22, 1-22.'''<br />
*:"However, there are no specific child pornography laws in Japan and SEM depicting minors are readily available and widely consumed. [...] The most dramatic decrease in sex crimes was seen when attention was focused on the number and age of rapists and victims among younger groups (Table 2). We hypothesized that the increase in pornography [in general], without age restriction and in comics, if it had any detrimental effect, would most negatively influence younger individuals. Just the opposite occurred. The number of juvenile offenders dramatically dropped every period reviewed from 1,803 perpetrators in 1972 to a low of 264 in 1995; a drop of some 85% (Table 1). The number of victims also decreased particularly among the females younger than 13 (Table 2). In 1972, 8.3% of the victims were younger than 13. In 1995 the percentage of victims younger than 13 years of age dropped to 4.0%."<br />
<br />
*'''Kendall, Todd (2006). "[http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdf Pornography, Rape, and the Internet]." Paper presented at the Stanford Law and Economics Seminar.'''<br />
*:This study found that "an increase in home internet access of 10 percentage points is associated with an 7.3% decline in [forcible] rape" of females of all ages as a group. [http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/ Slate Magazine] reported on this.<br />
<br />
*'''Stanley, Janet (2001). "[http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/issues/issues15/issues15.html Pornography, Child Abuse and the Internet]," ''Child Abuse Prevention Issues'', 15.'''<br />
*:"Research to date has not determined whether child sex offenders are more, or less, likely to offend if they view and/or collect child pornography (Queensland Crime Commission and Queensland Police Services 2000; Smallbone and Wortley 2000). Although a Queensland study found that non-familial offenders reported using adult pornography (72 per cent) and child pornography (9 per cent) (Smallbone and Wortley 2000), these findings need to be treated with caution. The study sample was almost exclusively comprised of male incarcerated offenders who had low Internet literacy (88 per cent had not used the Internet). Thus, the characteristics of incarcerated offenders may differ from the wider population of offenders and it would also appear that the Smallbone and Wortley sample may potentially represent a different group to those offenders who target children via the Internet".<br />
<br />
*'''Sheldon, Kerry & Howitt, Dennis (2008). "Sexual fantasy in paedophile offenders: Can any model explain satisfactorily new findings from a study of Internet and contact sexual offenders?", ''Legal and Criminological Psychology'', 13, 137-158.'''<br />
*:"Internet offenders may have less need to contact offend since they can generate fantasy more easily. The contact [offending] group may be unable to generate fantasies at all or may have weak and short-lived fantasies. Sex offenders are often described as concrete and/or unimaginative (Langevin, Lang, & Curnoe, 1998), and it is possible that contact child molesters do not have frequent or vivid fantasies and require activity with a child in order to generate later masturbatory thoughts. [...] Contact offenders seem to have less sexual fantasy pertinent to their offending than did Internet offenders. Fantasy deficit may be involved in contact offending against children."<br />
<br />
*'''[http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/rvsharpe.htm Decision] in [[R v. Sharpe]] by Justice Duncan Shaw in the Supreme Court of British Columbia'''<br />
*:"There is no evidence which demonstrates any significant increase of danger to children related to the confirmation or augmentation of cognitive distortions caused by pornography. There is no evidence that "mildly erotic" images are used in the "grooming process." Only assumption supports the proposition that materials that advocate or counsel sexual crimes with children have the effect of increasing the occurrence of such crimes. Sexually explicit pornography is used by some pedophiles to relieve pent-up sexual tension. A person who is prone to act on his fantasies will likely do so irrespective of the availability of pornography. There is no evidence that the production of child pornography will be significantly reduced if simple possession is a made a crime."<br />
<br />
*'''Knudsen, D.D. (1988). "Child sexual abuse and pornography: Is there a relationship?," ''Journal of Family Violence'', 3, pp. 253-267.'''<br />
*:"Perhaps the most appropriate summary of the research pertaining to pornography involving both adults and children is that there are no clear relationships that can be identified between erotica and sex crimes. Individuals for whom pornography is the primary or direct motivator of violent acts appear to be relatively rare. And most violence toward women and children is undertaken without such aids to arouse aggressive feelings, though some indirect modeling effects may be identified in lowered inhibitions. If the problem is to determine whether access to pornography directly increases the probability of sexually exploitive behaviors toward children, there appears to be a general consensus among researchers that it does not (Nelson, 1982)."<br />
<br />
==The Nature of Child Pornography==<br />
<br />
*'''[[Jan Schuijer|Schuijer, Jan]] and Rossen, Benjamin (1992). "[http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_2_1.htm The Trade in Child Pornography]," ''[[Issues in Child Abuse Accusations]]'', 4(4).'''<br />
*:"We have called the claims about child pornography "myths." The existence of child pornography is certainly not. The myths are the exaggerated estimates of the number of children, the volume and value of the trade, the profits that are alleged to have been made, and the horrifying damage said to have been done to the children."<br />
<br />
:*'''[[Thomas O'Carroll|O'Carroll, Tom]] (2000). "[http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/tomoc/sexpriv_backgr_text.htm Sexual Privacy for Paedophiles and Children: A Complementary Background Paper]."'''<br />
:::"A survey of images in commercial child porn magazines that were available in the 1970s and early 80s by Schuijer and Rossen shows that only 14% depicted children engaged in sexual conduct with adults. Most of the material, 61%, showed children either nude at play or posing erotically. (8)"<br />
<br />
*'''[[Robert Bauserman|Bauserman, Robert]] (2003). [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_2_40/ai_105518224/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1 "Child pornography online: myth, fact, and social control"], ''Journal of Sex Research'', 40(2).'''<br />
*:"Most of the CP images themselves appear to involve adolescents or children posing nude, which is not illegal in most Western countries. However, some hard-core images of adolescent and prepubescent children having sex with each other and with adults are available. While some appear to be recycled from 1970s magazines and films, other images seem to be "sex tourist" images created by men visiting Asian or Latin American countries in search of less risky sexual access to minors. Jenkins offers no estimate of the number of minors who currently appear in CP, but fortunately they seem to number far fewer than the tens or hundreds of thousands of children (defined to include adolescents) often claimed."<br />
<br />
*'''www.almapintada.com: "Child Pornography Statistics 1984-2000"'''<br />
*:"Less than an average of ten new series per year have been circulated on the internet since 1984. Only 14 of these series include children engaged in sexual intercourse, 32 in non-penetrative genital contact and 39 in fellatio. Most of these series include genital display only."<br />
<br />
*'''Lanning, Kenneth (1992). "[http://www.religioustolerance.org/fbi_02.htm Investigator's Guide to Allegations of "Ritual" Child Abuse, Chapter 2.1: "Stranger Danger."] Quantico, VA: Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime.<br />
*:"Child victims who, for example, simply behave like human beings and respond to the attention and affection of offenders by voluntarily and repeatedly returning to the offender's home are troubling. It confuses us to see the victims in child pornography giggling or laughing."<br />
<br />
*'''O'Donnel, Ian, and Milner, Claire (2007). ''Child Pornography: Crime, Computers and Society,'' p. 123.''' (Paraphrased by [[Brian Ribbon]])<br />
*:"A recent study in Ireland, undertaken by Garda, revealed the most serious content in a sample of over 100 cases involving indecent images of children. In 44% of cases, the most serious images depicted nudity or erotic posing, in 7% they depicted sexual activity between children, in 7% they depicted non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children, in 37% they depicted penetrative sexual activity between adults and children, and in 5% they depicted sadism or bestiality."<br />
<br />
*'''Ribbon, Brian (2008). [http://www.boychat.org/messages/1123851.htm "How can anyone believe these claims?"]. Boychat.org'''<br />
*:"I could only find a small number of websites (less than 20) which contained material which would be illegal if viewed in my home jurisdiction, despite the fact that my home jurisdiction prohibits simple nudity. It is clear that there are not 150,000 child pornography websites. The websites which did depict material which would be illegal if viewed in my home jurisdiction were much tamer than government-funded organisations claim. Over 99% of the images which would be illegal in the USA/UK/Australia showed no sexual contact."<br />
<br />
*'''[[Judith Levine|Levine, Judith]] (2002). ''[[Harmful to Minors]]''.<br />
*:"Aficionados and vice cops concede that practically all the sexually explicit images of children circulating cybernetically are the same stack of yellowing pages found at the back of those X-rated shops, only digitized. These pictures tend to be twenty to fifty years old, made overseas, badly re-reproduced, and for the most part pretty chaste. That may be why federal agents almost never show journalists the contraband. But when I got a peek at a stash downloaded by Don Huycke, the national program manager for child pornography at the U.S. Customs Service, in 1995, I was underwhelmed. Losing count after fifty photos, I'd put aside three that could be called pornographic: a couple of shots of adolescents masturbating and one half-dressed twelve-year-old spreading her legs in a position more like a gymnast's split than split beaver. The rest tended to be like the fifteen-year-old with a 1950s bob and an Ipana grin, sitting up straight, naked but demure, or the two towheaded six-year olds in underpants, astride their bikes."<br />
<br />
*'''[[Harris Mirkin|Mirkin, H.]] (2009). "The Social, Political, and Legal Construction of the Concept of Child Pornography ," ''Journal of Homosexuality'', 56(2), pp. 233-267.'''<br />
*:"Most of the actual acts depicted by the young models in child pornography are legal. Although some of the older pictures have sullen, battered looking children who look like they have been drugged or coerced, that is rarely true of more current photos. Impressionistically, the largest number of pictures on pornographic sites involves clothed photographs of pretty or good-looking children. Often they are in bathing suits. These are tainted simply because of their presence on pornographic sites, but, although they often have an erotic tinge, the pictures would not be considered pornographic in other settings. The next largest number consists of nudes of diverse quality and degrees of eroticism. Some pictures of boys show erections. Videos are a media that demand movement and they often show sex play and horseplay among the youths (especially boys), but no real sex (except masturbation or attempted masturbation). Masturbation, usually alone but sometimes in groups, and oral sex are also occasionally shown in still images. Generally both boys and girls look cheerful and healthy, although obviously this could be an act. Still the smiles and playfulness are often in hundreds of photographs of the same models, and giggles are ubiquitous in the films. The attempt is to portray an innocent and joyful sexuality, whether or not that is what is experienced by the models and actors. The pictures are far less tawdry and hard core than adult porn and are more playful. Domination is not an important theme and very few images (probably less than 1%) involve adults."<br />
<br />
===Child pornography subcultures===<br />
<br />
*'''[[Robert Bauserman|Bauserman, Robert]] (2003). [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_2_40/ai_105518224/pg_3?tag=artBody;col1 "Child pornography online: myth, fact, and social control"], ''Journal of Sex Research'', 40(2).'''<br />
<br />
::"Also of interest is Jenkins' finding that, like many other deviant groups (e.g., organized crime), the CP subculture does not represent a total break with conventional morality. This claim may be surprising, given the extent to which sexual interest in children or adolescents is socially and legally condemned. However, studies of deviant groups show that members may express mainstream or even conservative values on social and political issues, and share widely accepted goals such as material success. While subscribing to mainstream values, group members seek to rationalize or "neutralize" the illegal and socially condemned aspects of their behavior. Jenkins notes the use of techniques such as denial of victimization (the adolescent or child is said to be consenting), denial of harm, and condemnation of the condemners (e.g., as hypocrites). Users also self-label with nonderogatory terms such as "pedo" or "loli-lover." Reports of truly sadistic and violent crimes against children (such as the Dutroux case in Belgium, in which an offender kidnapped, raped, and killed young girls) are met with expressions of disgust and anger and claims that "true loli-lovers" are interested in mutual pleasure, not violence. Jenkins considers such statements genuine expressions of feeling, not a public front, because of the private nature of the bulletin board forums."<br />
<br />
==A Billion-Dollar Industry?==<br />
<br />
*'''Brian Rothery: "[http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=319 Every image of a child being abused]"'''<br />
*:"By now, many journalists and activists concerned with how the police deal with the child pornography laws are aware that the American police and some related agencies are the main, and likely the sole, dealers in and publishers of images of child pornography, using them for entrapment purposes."<br />
<br />
*'''Rosen, Jeffrey (2005). "The Internet Has Made Government Action Against Child Pornography Untenable," in ''Opposing Viewpoints: Mass Media''. Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press.'''<br />
*:Child pornography is often alleged to be a 20 billion dollar industry. If this is true, that would put it at twice the size of the adult porn industry: "But today, as Frank Rich reported in The New York Times Magazine last May [2002] the porn industry—much of it hard-core—generates at least $10 billion per year in revenues for more than 70,000 websites, porn networks, pay-per-view and rental movies [700 million porn rentals per year], cable and satellite television, and magazine publishers."<br />
<br />
*'''Ian O'Donnel & Claire Milner (2007). ''Child Pornography; Crime, computers and society'', p. 54.'''<br />
*:"Because there is no way of estimating the amount of child pornography that was in circulation prior to the advent of the internet, it is possible that the quantity has not increased but has simply become more available and more copied."<br />
<br />
*'''Jenkins, Philip (2001). ''Beyond Tolerance: Child Pornography on the Internet,'' p. 102.'''<br />
*:"Money is rarely involved in the child porn underworld, which is the preserve of truly motivated collectors."<br />
<br />
*'''[[Thomas O'Carroll|O'Carroll, Tom]] (2000). "[http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/tomoc/sexual_privacy.htm Sexual Privacy for Paedophiles and Children.]"'''<br />
*:"The production of such pictures is vanishingly rare, however, and there is no shortage of criminal law to deal with any perpetrators who are caught. Even in such cases, though, we would be hard put to blame the private viewer of such material for creating a market in it. There is no means, no even on the Internet, to buy and sell such material. Illegal images may be posted, but this will invariably be done anonymously or with a phoney "from" address – for obvious reasons. This means that it is impossible to make money on these activities. From time to time someone may naively hope do so, lured by claims in the media that it is a profitable business. These commercial attempts have always been stopped very quickly: If the potential customers can find the producer then so can the police. The notion that there is a vast child porn industry, organised by some ruthless mafia, is simply a myth."<br />
<br />
*'''Bialik, Carl (2006). "[http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114485422875624000.html Measuring the Child-Porn Trade]," ''The Wall Street Journal'', April 18.'''<br />
*:"Unlike, say, the soft-drink or airline industries, the child-pornography industry doesn't report its annual sales to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Yet in a press release ahead of a recent House of Representatives hearing aimed at curbing the industry, Texas Republican Joe Barton said, "Child pornography is apparently a multibillion … my staff analysis says $20 billion-a-year business. Twenty billion dollars." Some press reports said the figure applied only to the industry's online segment. The New York Times reported, "the sexual exploitation of children on the Internet is a $20 billion industry that continues to expand in the United States and abroad," citing witnesses at the hearing.<br />
*:What was Rep. Barton's staff analysis? A spokesman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee told me the source of the number was the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, a group that advocates for the protection of children. When I first talked with that group's president, Ernie Allen, he told me that Standard Chartered bank, which has worked with the NCMEC to cut off funding to child-porn traffickers, wanted a quantitative analysis of the problem, so it asked for a measurement from consulting firm McKinsey & Co. Mr. Allen faxed me an NCMEC paper that cites the McKinsey study in placing the child-porn industry at $6 billion in 1999, and $20 billion in 2004.<br />
*:But a McKinsey spokesman painted a different picture for me: "The number was not calculated or generated by McKinsey," he wrote in an email. Instead, for a pro bono analysis for Standard Chartered, he said, McKinsey used a number that appeared in a report last year by End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes, an international advocacy group.<br />
*:But the trail didn't end there: That report, in turn, attributed the number to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as did a report last year from the Council of Europe, a Strasbourg, France-based human-rights watchdog. Both of those reports noted that estimates range widely, from $3 billion to $20 billion.<br />
*:FBI spokesman Paul Bresson told me in an email, "The FBI has not stated the $20 billion figure... . I have asked many people who would know for sure if we have attached the $20 billion number to this problem. I have scoured our Web site, too. Nothing!""<br />
**'''Bialik, Carl (2006). "[http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114606007204936484.html?mod=2_1125_1 Measuring Chernobyl's Fallout]," ''The Wall Street Journal'', April 27.'''<br />
**:"Meanwhile, I heard more about the number that was the subject of last week's column -- the claim, which I couldn't verify, that the child-pornography industry generates $20 billion in annual revenue. In a 2004 report, the Council of Europe, a Strasbourg, France-based human-rights watchdog, attributed the number to Unicef. But Allison Hickling, a spokeswoman for the United Nations child agency, told me in an email, "The number is not attributable to Unicef -- we do not collect data on this issue."<br />
**:I told Alexander Seger, who worked on the Council of Europe reports, that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Unicef, both cited in Council reports, said they weren't the source for the $20 billion figure. He said the Council won't use the number in the future, and added in an email, "I think we have what I would call a case of information laundering: You state a figure on something, somebody else quotes it, and then you and others [quote] it back, and thus it becomes clean and true. ... Perhaps this discussion will help instill more rigor in the future.""<br />
<br />
==Impact on Child Models==<br />
<br />
Very little research has been done into the direct effect of modeling on children.<br />
<br />
*'''Jan Schuijer and Benjamin Rossen (1992). "[http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_2_1_5.htm Interviews with Three Boys."]<br />
*:"Despite the attempt to obtain a balanced description of the events, a remarkably black and white picture emerged. The boys described their friendship and feelings for Ferdinand in glowing terms. On the other hand the attitude towards the police is unequivocally negative."<br />
<br />
*'''Ian O'Donnell and Claire Milner (2007). "Child Pornography: Crime, computers and society". Willan Publishing, p229.'''<br />
*:"While we might feel uneasy about an individual who took sexual pleasure from photographs of children playing on beaches, it is clearly the case that such photographs are not based on an underlying act of abuse".<br />
<br />
*'''The Australian (2008). "[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23981750-16947,00.html Naked child in photo defends image]'''<br />
*:Although the photos concerned are most probably not pornographic they have been criticised as such (for containing nudity and posing). "“I'm really, really offended by what Kevin Rudd had to say about this picture,” Olympia said outside her Melbourne home, accompanied by her father, The Age art critic Robert Nelson. “I love the photo so much. It is one of my favourites, if not my favourite photo, my mum has ever taken of me and she has taken so many photos of me. “I think that the picture my mum took of me had nothing to do with being abused and I think nudity can be a part of art.”" An [http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23981607-12377,00.html adult critic] responded: "And that the child concerned defends the photographs in my view merely compounds what has happened."<br />
<br />
*'''[[Harris Mirkin|Mirkin, H.]] (2009). "The Social, Political, and Legal Construction of the Concept of Child Pornography ," ''Journal of Homosexuality'', 56(2), pp. 233-267.'''<br />
*:"People who were familiar with the child pornography world have told me that in Eastern Europe, where most of the current male child pornography is produced, many of the boys modeling and acting in child pornography are street hustlers, who survive largely by selling sex and who view it as an easy gig. There are many reasons for them to model, including money, showing off, coercion, affection for the photographer, a road to modeling career, and daredevil impulses to violate social norms. They do not think that being photographed nude is a big deal. The girl models in Japan are often treated like stars and have Web sites devoted to them. For long periods, photographs that we would currently call child pornography have been legal, and there is no evidence that the models were hurt. Artist models at various times have shown little evidence of harm, and the subjects of major photographers like Sturges, Mann, and Hamilton (who all have been accused, but exonerated, of making child pornography) have said that their experiences were positive ones.<br />
*:Based on the available evidence it is difficult to support the prevailing assumptions about universal harm to the young models and actors. Based on the Rind et al. studies, boys especially seem unlikely to suffer great harm. Probably some are hurt, some benefit, and most are not strongly affected."<br />
<br />
==Impact on "non-appreciative" Adults==<br />
<br />
It is often claimed anecdotally that officers investigating high volumes of child porn suffer from "burn out" or may have to enter counseling.<br />
<br />
*'''Inquisition 21 (2008). "[http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=337 From inside the police force."]<br />
*:"We have a report from a police insider about how many of his colleagues actually reacted to both adult and child pornography [...] He received his first, much of it shocking to him, initiation into the world of pornography from his older police colleagues who ‘sickened him with their canteen culture’. They pushed the first ever hard core magazines he had seen right in front of his face, as he put it, “Gloating over them.” [...] Only as the number of women in the force increased, especially in senior ranks, did the macho culture of open pornographic display decrease and become more covert. [...] These men were now being paid to study child pornography and soon he could hear them tell the media about fatigue and burn-out concerning images they had formerly gloated over."<br />
<br />
==Child Producers==<br />
<br />
''The criminalisation of youth is also covered in [[Criminalisation of youth|a dedicated article]].''<br />
<br />
As more facts slowly float to the surface in this stringently censored medium, the more we learn about under-age producers sharing their self-made images with other young people for recreational use, thus making prohibitions unworkable and pronouncements concerning who is "exploiting" who extremely hard to define. Whilst activists have been pointing towards this trend for some time, it has taken much longer for "Child-Protection" officers to admit that minors are capable of producing child pornography.<br />
<br />
*'''The Heraldsun (2008). "[http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23955429-2862,00.html Making child pornography is now kids' stuff."]<br />
*:"Teenagers are becoming major makers of child pornography in Victoria[Australia]. Statistics reveal adolescents last year outnumbered middle-aged men two to one as the main offenders in child porn production. Youths 10 to 14 were among the alleged offenders."<br />
<br />
*'''The Independent.ie (2008). "[http://www.independent.ie/national-news/children-producing-their-own-web-porn-1410447.html?service=Print Children producing their own web porn."]<br />
*:"CHILDREN as young as 10 years of age are taking sexually explicit pictures of themselves before uploading them onto the internet -- according to Ireland's leading Criminal Intelligence Officer at Interpol [...] Irish Detective Sergeant Michael Moran, who is one of the world's leading experts in the fight against child exploitation, has warned parents to be extra vigilant about their children uploading self-made pornography. "Everything from posing naked to actual sex acts on web cams. We are seeing a lot more self-produced child pornography to the extent that self-taking child abusive material is one of our biggest problems at the moment."<br />
<br />
*'''Inquisition 21 (2008). "[http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=342 The new pizza scam."]<br />
*:"The child sex abuse and child porn legislation have boosted the business of so-called ‘under-age’ minors scamming and blackmailing adult men. The latest to arise from the chat rooms is the pizza scam. [...] One of our other researchers went onto that chat room and asked if anyone had been approached by individuals offering to cam for pizza and one man from London replied. He said he had spoken to a male student who lived in his local area, aged 19. The student gave some sob story and said he would give a cam show for pizza. The man agreed. The boy named a local pizza place but gave another telephone number. The man phoned the number, who took his order and credit card details. Subsequently a PayPal account was set up using that credit card and money stolen from him. He reported this to PayPal who refused to do anything without a crime number. He then reported it to the police who simply took details. PayPal responded once he had a crime number, but the police apparently performed no investigation. A source close to the police has informed us that the police have a good laugh at this kind of thing. They regard the scammed as the perverts, or the guilty ones, and the scammers as having a right to sting them."<br />
<br />
[[Category:Official Encyclopedia]][[Category:Research into effects on Children]][[Category:Research on Minor Attraction]]<br />
<br />
[[fr: Recherche: Pornographie enfantine]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Research:_Child_Pornography&diff=3048Research: Child Pornography2009-01-06T15:07:02Z<p>Brian: /* The Effects of Child Pornography */</p>
<hr />
<div>:''For legal implications, see [[Child Pornography (Law)]]''<br />
"Child pornography" has no agreed definition. Legally, it refers to media featuring minors in sexual situations.<br />
__TOC__<br />
==The Effects of Child Pornography==<br />
The criminalization of child pornography is, in part, justified by the assumption that it will cause paedophiles to abuse children. No conclusive evidence substantiates this assumption. On the contrary, child pornography appears to have a cathartic effect:<br />
<br />
*'''[[Thomas O'Carroll|O'Carroll, Tom]] (2000). "[http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/tomoc/sexpriv_backgr_text.htm Sexual Privacy for Paedophiles and Children: A Complementary Background Paper.]"'''<br />
*:"Such an effect has been proposed in relation to Denmark during the few years when child pornography was openly and legally available: in that period sex offences against children were significantly lower than either before or after. (5) A similar phenomenon occurred during a period of liberalisation in West Germany, where from 1972 to 1980 the total number of sex crimes known to the police in the Federal Republic of Germany decreased by 11%. (6) Sharpe himself, whose possession of pornography was in contention, made the astute point in an interview that if child pornography led to sexual assaults, then there would have been a huge increase in assaults as a result of the allegedly much greater availability of child porn on the Internet. (7)"<br />
<br />
*'''Dr. Stuart Kirby (2005). "[http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Uk/uk.politics.censorship/2005-12/msg00000.html Unidentified Study: No link between child porn and sexual abuse.]"'''<br />
*:"When you look at all the research that has been done nationally, the consensus is that there has not proven to be a link between the viewing of pornography and the committing of hands-on offences."<br />
<br />
*'''Dennis Howitt (1995). "[http://www.ipce.info/host/howitt/6a.htm Paedophiles and Sexual Offences against Children.]"'''<br />
*:"One cannot simply take evidence that offenders use and buy pornography as sufficient to implicate pornography causally in their offending. The most reasonable assessment based on the available research literature is that the relationship between pornography, fantasy and offending is unclear."<br />
*:"Common-sense theories tend to be contradictory. For example, there is a lot to be said for the notion of fantasy as substitute for action, a largely separate stream of experience or a substitute for reality. The original psychoanalytic view of fantasy as wish fulfillment took a similar stance."<br />
<br />
*'''Diamond, Milton, and Ayako Uchiyama (1999). "[http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html Pornography, rape, and sex crimes in Japan]", ''International Journal of Law and Psychiatry'', 22: 1-22.'''<br />
*:"However, there are no specific child pornography laws in Japan and SEM depicting minors are readily available and widely consumed. [...] The most dramatic decrease in sex crimes was seen when attention was focused on the number and age of rapists and victims among younger groups (Table 2). We hypothesized that the increase in pornography [in general], without age restriction and in comics, if it had any detrimental effect, would most negatively influence younger individuals. Just the opposite occurred. The number of juvenile offenders dramatically dropped every period reviewed from 1,803 perpetrators in 1972 to a low of 264 in 1995; a drop of some 85% (Table 1). The number of victims also decreased particularly among the females younger than 13 (Table 2). In 1972, 8.3% of the victims were younger than 13. In 1995 the percentage of victims younger than 13 years of age dropped to 4.0%."<br />
<br />
*'''Kendall, Todd (2006). "[http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdfPornography, Rape, and the Internet]."'''<br />
*:This study found that "an increase in home internet access of 10 percentage points is associated with an 7.3% decline in [forcible] rape" of females of all ages as a group. [http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/ Slate Magazine] reported on this.<br />
<br />
*'''Stanley, Janet (2006). "[http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/issues/issues15/issues15.html Pornography, Child abuse and the Internet, CAPI 15, Summer 2001]."'''<br />
*:"Research to date has not determined whether child sex offenders are more, or less, likely to offend if they view and/or collect child pornography (Queensland Crime Commission and Queensland Police Services 2000; Smallbone and Wortley 2000). Although a Queensland study found that non-familial offenders reported using adult pornography (72 per cent) and child pornography (9 per cent) (Smallbone and Wortley 2000), these findings need to be treated with caution. The study sample was almost exclusively comprised of male incarcerated offenders who had low Internet literacy (88 per cent had not used the Internet). Thus, the characteristics of incarcerated offenders may differ from the wider population of offenders and it would also appear that the Smallbone and Wortley sample may potentially represent a different group to those offenders who target children via the Internet".<br />
<br />
*'''Sheldon, Kerry & Howitt, Dennis (2008). "Sexual fantasy in paedophile offenders: Can any model explain satisfactorily new findings from a study of Internet and contact sexual offenders?", Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13: 137-158<br />
*:"Internet offenders may have less need to contact offend since they can generate fantasy more easily. The contact [offending] group may be unable to generate fantasies at all or may have weak and short-lived fantasies. Sex offenders are often described as concrete and/or unimaginative (Langevin, Lang, & Curnoe, 1998), and it is possible that contact child molesters do not have frequent or vivid fantasies and require activity with a child in order to generate later masturbatory thoughts. [..] Contact offenders seem to have less sexual fantasy pertinent to their offending than did Internet offenders. Fantasy deficit may be involved in contact offending against children."<br />
<br />
==The Nature of Child Pornography==<br />
<br />
*'''Jan Schuijer and Benjamin Rossen (1992) "[http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_2_1.htm The Trade in Child Pornography.]"'''<br />
*:"We have called the claims about child pornography "myths." The existence of child pornography is certainly not. The myths are the exaggerated estimates of the number of children, the volume and value of the trade, the profits that are alleged to have been made, and the horrifying damage said to have been done to the children."<br />
<br />
:*'''[[Thomas O'Carroll|O'Carroll, Tom]] (2000). "[http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/tomoc/sexpriv_backgr_text.htm Sexual Privacy for Paedophiles and Children: A Complementary Background Paper.]"'''<br />
:::"A survey of images in commercial child porn magazines that were available in the 1970s and early 80s by Schuijer and Rossen shows that only 14% depicted children engaged in sexual conduct with adults. Most of the material, 61%, showed children either nude at play or posing erotically. (8)"<br />
<br />
*'''[[Robert Bauserman]] (2003). [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_2_40/ai_105518224/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1 "Child pornography online: myth, fact, and social control"]. Journal of Sex Research'''<br />
<br />
::"Most of the CP images themselves appear to involve adolescents or children posing nude, which is not illegal in most Western countries. However, some hard-core images of adolescent and prepubescent children having sex with each other and with adults are available. While some appear to be recycled from 1970s magazines and films, other images seem to be "sex tourist" images created by men visiting Asian or Latin American countries in search of less risky sexual access to minors. Jenkins offers no estimate of the number of minors who currently appear in CP, but fortunately they seem to number far fewer than the tens or hundreds of thousands of children (defined to include adolescents) often claimed."<br />
<br />
*'''www.almapintada.com: "Child Pornography Statistics 1984-2000"'''<br />
*:"Less than an average of ten new series per year have been circulated on the internet since 1984. Only 14 of these series include children engaged in sexual intercourse, 32 in non-penetrative genital contact and 39 in fellatio. Most of these series include genital display only."<br />
<br />
*'''Kenneth Lanning (1992). "[http://www.religioustolerance.org/fbi_02.htm Investigator's Guide to Allegations of "Ritual" Child Abuse, Chapter 2.1: "Stranger Danger."] Quantico, VA: Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime.<br />
*:"Child victims who, for example, simply behave like human beings and respond to the attention and affection of offenders by voluntarily and repeatedly returning to the offender's home are troubling. It confuses us to see the victims in child pornography giggling or laughing."<br />
<br />
*'''Ian O'Donnel & Claire Milner (2007) "Child Pornography; Crime, computers and society". p123.''' (Paraphrased by [[Brian Ribbon]])<br />
<br />
::"A recent study in Ireland, undertaken by Garda, revealed the most serious content in a sample of over 100 cases involving indecent images of children. In 44% of cases, the most serious images depicted nudity or erotic posing, in 7% they depicted sexual activity between children, in 7% they depicted non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children, in 37% they depicted penetrative sexual activity between adults and children, and in 5% they depicted sadism or bestiality."<br />
<br />
*'''Brian Ribbon (2008). [http://www.boychat.org/messages/1123851.htm "How can anyone believe these claims?"]. Boychat.org'''<br />
<br />
::"I could only find a small number of websites (less than 20) which contained material which would be illegal if viewed in my home jurisdiction, despite the fact that my home jurisdiction prohibits simple nudity. It is clear that there are not 150,000 child pornography websites. The websites which did depict material which would be illegal if viewed in my home jurisdiction were much tamer than government-funded organisations claim. Over 99% of the images which would be illegal in the USA/UK/Australia showed no sexual contact."<br />
<br />
===Child pornography subcultures===<br />
<br />
*'''[[Robert Bauserman]] (2003). [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_2_40/ai_105518224/pg_3?tag=artBody;col1 "Child pornography online: myth, fact, and social control"]. Journal of Sex Research'''<br />
<br />
::"Also of interest is Jenkins' finding that, like many other deviant groups (e.g., organized crime), the CP subculture does not represent a total break with conventional morality. This claim may be surprising, given the extent to which sexual interest in children or adolescents is socially and legally condemned. However, studies of deviant groups show that members may express mainstream or even conservative values on social and political issues, and share widely accepted goals such as material success. While subscribing to mainstream values, group members seek to rationalize or "neutralize" the illegal and socially condemned aspects of their behavior. Jenkins notes the use of techniques such as denial of victimization (the adolescent or child is said to be consenting), denial of harm, and condemnation of the condemners (e.g., as hypocrites). Users also self-label with nonderogatory terms such as "pedo" or "loli-lover." Reports of truly sadistic and violent crimes against children (such as the Dutroux case in Belgium, in which an offender kidnapped, raped, and killed young girls) are met with expressions of disgust and anger and claims that "true loli-lovers" are interested in mutual pleasure, not violence. Jenkins considers such statements genuine expressions of feeling, not a public front, because of the private nature of the bulletin board forums."<br />
<br />
==A Billion-Dollar Industry?==<br />
<br />
*'''Brian Rothery: "[http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=319 Every image of a child being abused]"'''<br />
*:"By now, many journalists and activists concerned with how the police deal with the child pornography laws are aware that the American police and some related agencies are the main, and likely the sole, dealers in and publishers of images of child pornography, using them for entrapment purposes."<br />
<br />
*'''Rosen, Jeffrey (2005). "The Internet Has Made Government Action Against Child Pornography Untenable," in ''Opposing Viewpoints: Mass Media''. Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press.'''<br />
*:Child pornography is often alleged to be a 20 billion dollar industry. If this is true, that would put it at twice the size of the adult porn industry: "But today, as Frank Rich reported in The New York Times Magazine last May [2002] the porn industry—much of it hard-core—generates at least $10 billion per year in revenues for more than 70,000 websites, porn networks, pay-per-view and rental movies [700 million porn rentals per year], cable and satellite television, and magazine publishers."<br />
<br />
*'''Ian O'Donnel & Claire Milner (2007). ''Child Pornography; Crime, computers and society'', p. 54.'''<br />
*:"Because there is no way of estimating the amount of child pornography that was in circulation prior to the advent of the internet, it is possible that the quantity has not increased but has simply become more available and more copied."<br />
<br />
*'''Jenkins, Philip (2001). ''Beyond Tolerance: Child Pornography on the Internet,'' p. 102.'''<br />
*:"Money is rarely involved in the child porn underworld, which is the preserve of truly motivated collectors."<br />
<br />
*'''[[Thomas O'Carroll|O'Carroll, Tom]] (2000). "[http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/tomoc/sexual_privacy.htm Sexual Privacy for Paedophiles and Children.]"'''<br />
*:"The production of such pictures is vanishingly rare, however, and there is no shortage of criminal law to deal with any perpetrators who are caught. Even in such cases, though, we would be hard put to blame the private viewer of such material for creating a market in it. There is no means, no even on the Internet, to buy and sell such material. Illegal images may be posted, but this will invariably be done anonymously or with a phoney "from" address – for obvious reasons. This means that it is impossible to make money on these activities. From time to time someone may naively hope do so, lured by claims in the media that it is a profitable business. These commercial attempts have always been stopped very quickly: If the potential customers can find the producer then so can the police. The notion that there is a vast child porn industry, organised by some ruthless mafia, is simply a myth."<br />
<br />
==Impact on Child Models==<br />
<br />
Very little research has been done into the direct effect of modeling on children.<br />
<br />
*'''Jan Schuijer and Benjamin Rossen (1992). "[http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_2_1_5.htm Interviews with Three Boys."]<br />
*:"Despite the attempt to obtain a balanced description of the events, a remarkably black and white picture emerged. The boys described their friendship and feelings for Ferdinand in glowing terms. On the other hand the attitude towards the police is unequivocally negative."<br />
<br />
*'''Ian O'Donnell and Claire Milner (2007). "Child Pornography: Crime, computers and society". Willan Publishing, p229.'''<br />
*:"While we might feel uneasy about an individual who took sexual pleasure from photographs of children playing on beaches, it is clearly the case that such photographs are not based on an underlying act of abuse".<br />
<br />
*'''The Australian (2008). "[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23981750-16947,00.html Naked child in photo defends image]'''<br />
*:Although the photos concerned are most probably not pornographic they have been criticised as such (for containing nudity and posing). "“I'm really, really offended by what Kevin Rudd had to say about this picture,” Olympia said outside her Melbourne home, accompanied by her father, The Age art critic Robert Nelson. “I love the photo so much. It is one of my favourites, if not my favourite photo, my mum has ever taken of me and she has taken so many photos of me. “I think that the picture my mum took of me had nothing to do with being abused and I think nudity can be a part of art.”" An [http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23981607-12377,00.html adult critic] responded: "And that the child concerned defends the photographs in my view merely compounds what has happened."<br />
<br />
==Impact on "non-appreciative" Adults==<br />
<br />
It is often claimed anecdotally that officers investigating high volumes of child porn suffer from "burn out" or may have to enter counseling.<br />
<br />
*'''Inquisition 21 (2008). "[http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=337 From inside the police force."]<br />
*:"We have a report from a police insider about how many of his colleagues actually reacted to both adult and child pornography [...] He received his first, much of it shocking to him, initiation into the world of pornography from his older police colleagues who ‘sickened him with their canteen culture’. They pushed the first ever hard core magazines he had seen right in front of his face, as he put it, “Gloating over them.” [...] Only as the number of women in the force increased, especially in senior ranks, did the macho culture of open pornographic display decrease and become more covert. [...] These men were now being paid to study child pornography and soon he could hear them tell the media about fatigue and burn-out concerning images they had formerly gloated over."<br />
<br />
==Child Producers==<br />
<br />
''The criminalisation of youth is also covered in [[Adverse effects of hysteria]].''<br />
<br />
As more facts slowly float to the surface in this stringently censored medium, the more we learn about under-age producers sharing their self-made images with other young people for recreational use, thus making prohibitions unworkable and pronouncements concerning who is "exploiting" who extremely hard to define. Whilst activists have been pointing towards this trend for some time, it has taken much longer for "Child-Protection" officers to admit that minors are capable of producing child pornography.<br />
<br />
*'''The Heraldsun (2008). "[http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23955429-2862,00.html Making child pornography is now kids' stuff."]<br />
*:"Teenagers are becoming major makers of child pornography in Victoria[Australia]. Statistics reveal adolescents last year outnumbered middle-aged men two to one as the main offenders in child porn production. Youths 10 to 14 were among the alleged offenders."<br />
<br />
*'''The Independent.ie (2008). "[http://www.independent.ie/national-news/children-producing-their-own-web-porn-1410447.html?service=Print Children producing their own web porn."]<br />
*:"CHILDREN as young as 10 years of age are taking sexually explicit pictures of themselves before uploading them onto the internet -- according to Ireland's leading Criminal Intelligence Officer at Interpol [...] Irish Detective Sergeant Michael Moran, who is one of the world's leading experts in the fight against child exploitation, has warned parents to be extra vigilant about their children uploading self-made pornography. "Everything from posing naked to actual sex acts on web cams. We are seeing a lot more self-produced child pornography to the extent that self-taking child abusive material is one of our biggest problems at the moment."<br />
<br />
*'''Inquisition 21 (2008). "[http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=342 The new pizza scam."]<br />
*:"The child sex abuse and child porn legislation have boosted the business of so-called ‘under-age’ minors scamming and blackmailing adult men. The latest to arise from the chat rooms is the pizza scam. [...] One of our other researchers went onto that chat room and asked if anyone had been approached by individuals offering to cam for pizza and one man from London replied. He said he had spoken to a male student who lived in his local area, aged 19. The student gave some sob story and said he would give a cam show for pizza. The man agreed. The boy named a local pizza place but gave another telephone number. The man phoned the number, who took his order and credit card details. Subsequently a PayPal account was set up using that credit card and money stolen from him. He reported this to PayPal who refused to do anything without a crime number. He then reported it to the police who simply took details. PayPal responded once he had a crime number, but the police apparently performed no investigation. A source close to the police has informed us that the police have a good laugh at this kind of thing. They regard the scammed as the perverts, or the guilty ones, and the scammers as having a right to sting them."<br />
<br />
[[Category:Official Encyclopedia]][[Category:Research]][[Category:Research into effects on Children]][[Category:Research on Minor Attraction]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Indecent_images_of_children&diff=2978Indecent images of children2008-12-27T12:08:34Z<p>Brian: </p>
<hr />
<div>An indecent image of a child is a photograph or pseudo-photograph (including one comprised in a film) which shows a child and is indecent. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
==Definition of a photograph==<br />
<br />
In <i>R v Fellows & Arnold</i> (1994), the appealant contended that an image stored electronically could not constitute an indecent photograph of a child under section 7 of the Protection of Children Act. <br />
<br />
It was ruled that an electronically stored image was a "copy of an indecent photograph of a child". The court stated that "there is no restriction on the nature of a copy, [and a copy of a photograph is data which] represents the original photograph, in another form". It was also stated that "there is nothing in the Act which makes it necessary that [a] copy should itself be a photograph within the dictionary or the statutory definition, and if there was, it would make the inclusion of the reference to a copy unnecessary. So we conclude that there is no restriction on the nature of a copy [..]" [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1996/825.html]<br />
<br />
According to section 7 of the Protection of Children Act, references to a photograph are "the negative as well as the positive version; and data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into a photograph." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&activetextdocid=1502066]<br />
<br />
So, an image stored electronically is a copy of a photograph and is illegal if it is indecent and shows a child.<br />
<br />
==Definition of a pseudo-photograph==<br />
<br />
A pseudo-photograph is an image which has the appearance of a photograph, but which is not a photograph. A pseudo-photograph of a child does not necessarily show a <i>real</i> child.<br />
<br />
==Defintion of a child==<br />
<br />
A child was originally defined as a person under the age of 16, however the [[Sexual Offences Act (2003)]] raised the defintion of "child" to a person under the age of 18.<br />
<br />
==Indecency==<br />
<br />
The decency of an image is an objective test; that is, it is decided by the jury. Indecency is considered to be a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_of_fact question of fact].<br />
<br />
===Interpretation===<br />
<br />
In order to judge whether an image is indecent, the jury must "apply[..] the recognised standards of propriety." (''R v Graham-Kerr'', 1988) [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/grahamKerr.html].<br />
<br />
In 2003, the Sentencing Advisory Panel provided guidance for Judges considering sentences for people convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act. The lowest level of indecency was described as "images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity", which would suggest that naturist images without posing are not indecent. Despite this, a number of people have been convicted of an offence for making and possessing naturist images. In 2003, Tom O'Carroll was convicted of "evading the prohibition on the importation of indecent material", for importing photographs of "young naked child[ren] engaging in normal outdoor activity such as playing on a beach". One should never assume that an image must be pornographic for it to be indecent.<br />
<br />
Put simply, a photograph or pseudo-photograph is judged to be indecent if the jury believes that it would offend the majority of the population of the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
===Context===<br />
<br />
In R v Graham-Kerr, the defendant had taken (naked) photographs of a male child during a naturists-only event at a swimming pool. The Police interviewed the defendant about his intentions in taking the photographs, and he admitted that he received "'sexual gratification by taking or looking at such photographs". The Judge stated that the jury were entitled to take into account the circumstances, motives, and sexual intentions of the take. <br />
<br />
At the appeal against conviction, the Judge ruled that "''the circumstances and the motivation of the taker may be relevant to the mens rea of the take as to whether his taking was intentional or accidental and so on, but it is not relevant to whether or not the photograph is in itself indecent''". The conviction was quashed. [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/grahamKerr.html]<br />
<br />
In ''R v Mould'' (2000), the Appeal Court ruled that "Mr Burton [representing Mr Mould] was rightly concerned that the jury, in deciding whether or not the photograph was indecent, would wrongly take into account [data showing access to paedophile discussion forums]." Although it was agreed that the jury should not use such information to make a judgment regarding the decency of the image for which Mr Mould was convicted, it was understood that "the prosecution [successfully] sought to rely on it in order to prove that the appellant had deliberately created the .bmp file." [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/mould2000.html] <br />
<br />
While a defendant's proven sexual attraction to children should not affect indecency, it may affect the perceived ''mens rea'' of an act.<br />
<br />
==Criminal offences==<br />
<br />
Under the (amended) Protection of Children Act, it is an offence for a person:<br />
<br />
<br />
:* to take, or permit to be taken, or to make any indecent photograph of a child . . .; or<br />
:* to distribute or show such indecent photographs; or<br />
:* to have in his possession such indecent photographs [outdated text removed]; or<br />
:* to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs, or intends to do so. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
Under the Sexual Offences Act (2003), it is an offence to cause, control, arrange or facilitate a child's involvement in pornography. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820967][http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820968][http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820969]<br />
<br />
It is an offence to "attempt to incite" any criminal offence in the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
===The "making" offence===<br />
<br />
Causing an indecent photograph of a child to exist on a computer screen is considered to be "making an indecent photograph of a child".<br />
<br />
"A person who either downloads images on to disc or who prints them off is making them. The Act is not only concerned with the original creation of images, but also their proliferation. Photographs or pseudo-photographs found on the Internet may have originated from outside the United Kingdom; to download or print within the jurisdiction is to create new material which hitherto may not have existed therein." (R v Bowden) [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/bowden1999.html]<br />
<br />
===Offences committed abroad===<br />
<br />
(1) If—<br />
<br />
::(a) a United Kingdom national does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom, and<br />
<br />
::(b) the act, if done in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies,<br />
<br />
the United Kingdom national is guilty in that part of the United Kingdom of that sexual offence.<br />
<br />
<br />
(2) If—<br />
<br />
::(a) a United Kingdom resident does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom,<br />
<br />
::(b) the act constitutes an offence under the law in force in that country, and<br />
<br />
::(c) the act, if done in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies,<br />
<br />
the United Kingdom resident is guilty in that part of the United Kingdom of that sexual offence. [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/041/08041.50-56.html#jNC35]<br />
<br />
This means that a United Kingdom national may be prosecuted under the Protection of Children Act (as amended by the Sexual Offences Act) if he engages in activity contrary to the Protection of Children Act while in a foreign territory. A United Kingdom resident who engages in an act contrary to the Protection of Children Act while outside of the United Kingdom may be prosecuted if the act also constituted an offence in the foreign jurisdiction.<br />
<br />
==Defences==<br />
<br />
There are a small number of defences against charges under the Protection of Children Act. Below is a list of defences set by the statutes, precedents and case law.<br />
<br />
===Marriage and other relationships===<br />
<br />
In cases where a defendant has taken or made a photographic image of a child over the age of 16, the defendant is not guilty if, at the time when he obtained the photograph, he and the child:<br />
<br />
:: (a) were married; or<br />
<br />
:: (b) lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship; and <br />
<br />
:: (c) the defendant reasonably believed that the child consented to the image being obtained. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820963]<br />
<br />
This exemption was introduced in 2003 under the Sexual Offences Act, which had changed the statutory definition of "child" (in the Protection of Children Act) from 16 to 18.<br />
<br />
===Mens Rea===<br />
<br />
The Criminal Justice Act provides that: <br />
<br />
"Where a person is charged with an offence of possession, it shall be a defence for him to prove –<br />
<br />
:: (a) that he had a legitimate reason for having the photograph or pseudo-photograph in his possession; or<br />
<br />
:: (b) that he had not himself seen the photograph or pseudo- photograph and did not know nor had any cause to suspect, it to be indecent; or<br />
<br />
:: (c) that the photograph or pseudo-photograph was sent to him without any prior request made by him or on his behalf and that he did not keep it for any unreasonable time." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=2116646&ActiveTextDocId=2116851]<br />
<br />
The same defences may be applied to the other offences under Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act.<br />
<br />
It is also a defence for the defendant to prove that he did not take, make, distribute, show or possess an image which the knowledge that the image was, or was likely to be:<br />
<br />
::* an indecent image; and<br />
::* an image of a child.<br />
<br />
This was upheld in R v Smith & Jayson, when the judge ruled that, "the mens rea necessary to constitute the offence [of making an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child] is that the act of making should be a deliberate and intentional act with knowledge that the image made is, or is likely to be, an indecent image of a child" ''(R v Smith & Jayson, 2003)''. [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/smithJayson2003.html]<br />
<br />
A defendant must be proven (beyond reasonable doubt) to be aware that a cache of images exists, in order to be convicted for the possession offence. It should be noted that, in such cases, the defendant will still be convicted of the making offence, unless another defence applies.<br />
<br />
===Collages===<br />
<br />
Lord Justice Simon Brown ruled that "an image made by an exhibit which obviously consists, as this one does, of parts of two different photographs sellotaped together cannot be said to appear to be "a photograph" [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/302.html]. This means that, if a collage does not appear to be parts of a single photograph, it does not fall within the scope of the Protection of Children Act. A photocopy or scan of a collage may fall under the Act and could therefore be illegal if it shows a child and is judged to be indecent.<br />
<br />
===Law enforcement===<br />
<br />
It is a defence for the defendant to prove that images were made "for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings"<br />
<br />
===Human Rights Act===<br />
<br />
The [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm Human Rights Act] offers two potential defences against possession and "making" charges under the ''Protection of Children Act'', however the following Articles have ''not'' been tested in court in relation to such charges.<br />
<br />
Section 3 of the Act dictates that:<br />
<br />
:"(1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.<br />
<br />
::::(2) This section—<br />
<br />
::::::(a) applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted;<br />
<br />
::::::(b) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation; and<br />
<br />
::::::(c) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible subordinate legislation if disregarding any possibility of revocation) primary legislation prevents removal of the incompatibility."<br />
<br />
The relevant convention articles are ''Article 13'' and ''Article 14''.<br />
<br />
'''Article 13:'''<br />
<br />
:"(4) The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to—<br />
<br />
::::(a) the extent to which—<br />
::::::(i) the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or<br />
::::::(ii) it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published"<br />
<br />
It is well known that nude images of children have been used, controversially, in artistic exhibitions, which implies that some people see an artistic element in nude images of children. Cases involving art galleries have never resulted in prosecution, but cases involving the downloading of questionable material from the internet do lead to prosecution. A defendant may argue that images which are on the public internet (world wide web) could be defined as having "become available to the public." Indeed, the judge of the case of ''Knuller v. DPP'' stated that "in public" [..] has a wide meaning." It appears to "cover exhibitions in all places to which the public have access either as of right or gratis or on payment."<br />
<br />
'''Article 14:'''<br />
<br />
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."<br />
<br />
==Sentencing==<br />
<br />
The sentencing guidelines for offences committed contrary to the Protection of Children Act were decided by the Sentencing Advisory Panel, to assist with sentencing during ''R v Oliver et al''<br />
<br />
The levels of indecency are as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
{| border="1" <br />
| Level<br />
| Definition<br />
|- <br />
| Level 1<br />
| Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity<br />
|- <br />
| Level 2<br />
| Non-penetrative sexual activity between children, or solo masturbation by a child<br />
|- <br />
| Level 3<br />
| Non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children<br />
|- <br />
| Level 4<br />
| Penetrative sexual activity involving a child or children, or both children and adults<br />
|- <br />
| Level 5<br />
| Sadism or penetration of, or by, an animal<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
Judges use the following guidelines when sentencing someone who has been convicted under the <i>Protection of Children Act</i>:<br />
<br/><br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
| Starting points<br />
| Type/nature of activity<br />
| Sentencing ranges<br />
|- <br />
| Community order<br />
| Possession of a large amount of level 1 material and/or no more than a small amount of level 2, and the material is for personal use and has not been distributed or shown to others<br />
| An appropriate non-custodial sentence<br />
|- <br />
| 12 weeks custody<br />
| Offender in possession of a large amount of material at level 2 or a small amount at level 3<br />
<br />
Offender has shown or distributed material at level 1 or 2 on a limited scale <br />
<br />
Offender has exchanged images at level 1 or 2 with other collectors, but with no element of financial gain<br />
| 4 weeks-26 weeks custody<br />
|- <br />
| 26 weeks custody<br />
| Possession of a large quantity of level 3 material for personal use<br />
<br />
Possession of a small number of images at level 4 or 5<br />
<br />
Large number of level 2 images shown or distributed <br />
<br />
Small number of level 3 images shown or distributed<br />
| 4 weeks–18 months custody <br />
|- <br />
| 12 months custody<br />
| Possession of a large quantity of level 4 or 5 material for personal use only<br />
<br />
Large number of level 3 images shown or distributed<br />
| 26 weeks-2 years custody<br />
<br />
|- <br />
| 2 years custody<br />
| Offender involved in the production of, or has traded in, material at levels 1–3<br />
| 1-4 years custody<br />
|- <br />
| 3 years custody<br />
| Level 4 or 5 images shown or distributed<br />
| 2-5 years custody<br />
|-<br />
| 6 years custody<br />
| Offender commissioned or encouraged the production of level 4 or 5 images<br />
<br />
Offender involved in the production of level 4 or 5 images<br />
<br />
| 4-9 years custody<br />
<br />
|}[http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/82083-COI-SCG_final.pdf]<br />
<br />
<br />
Images which are below the threshhold for Level 1 - but which are judged to be indecent by a jury - will be treated as Level 1 images during sentencing; therefore a naturist image with no erotic posing will be treated as a Level 1 indecent image of a child, if judged to be indecent.<br />
<br />
<br />
A person who is convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act is also likely to be banned from working with children in the United Kingdom, and ordered to sign the Sex Offenders Register.<br />
<br />
==Important Notes==<br />
<br />
*Any image may <i>technically</i> be indecent under UK law. <br />
*Even if an image has been declared as decent by one jury, it may be still be declared indecent by another jury. <br />
*Despite precedents stating that the context of an image does not affect indecency, a jury may be more likely to rule that an image is indecent if they believe that the defendant is attracted to children.<br />
*Previous interpretations of the indecency suggest that "indecency" has a lower threshhold than "pornography", so what is "indecent" (and therefore illegal) is not necessarily "pornographic".<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Child Pornography]]<br />
* [[Child Pornography (Law)]]<br />
* [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act]]<br />
* [[Legal Information]]<br />
* [[Sexual Offences Act (2003)]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Official Encyclopedia]][[Category:Censorship]][[Category:Law/Crime]][[Category:Law/Crime: British]][[Category:Law/Crime: Crime Types]][[Category:Child Pornography]]<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
<br />
[http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/ Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer_controversies&diff=2671Virgin Killer controversies2008-12-10T03:05:12Z<p>Brian: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Virgin Killer controversies''' were two (almost certainly) related internet censorship disputes, firstly involving [[Chelsea Schilling]], [[Wikipedia]] and the [[FBI]] (In [[America]]), and then Wikipedia, the [[IWF]] and various other media outlets that covered the controversy (in the [[UK]]).<br />
<br />
Both controversies centre on Wikipedia's use of an image called "Virgin Killer", which depicts a naked prepubescent girl from the cover of a 1976 Scorpions (rock) album. Whilst the girl in the image has not developed breasts, and her vulva is deliberately concealed, it has been argued that the image is provocative and may in fact be [[child pornography]]. Despite the image being freely available on the internet, we do not display or link to it for legal reasons.<br />
<br />
==Timeline==<br />
<br />
'''May 06, 2008''' <br />
<br />
[[Chelsea Schilling]], a former [http://www.legistorm.com/person/Chelsea_L_Schilling/9855.html congressional staffer] and aspiring writer for the ultra-conserative, [[American]] "pro-family" website [[World Net Daily]] publishes a provocative editorial entitled "''[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63590 Is Wikipedia wicked porn?]''". In it, she attacks Wikipedia for hosting informative images that may otherwse be seen as pornographic, listing a number of inclusions that she, as an anti-gay/ultra-conservative, is offended by:<br />
<blockquote><br />
*Recordings of women experiencing orgasms<br />
*Videos of nude men participating in "ejaculation educational demonstrations"<br />
*Detailed photographs of men and women masturbating<br />
*Images of mammary intercourse<br />
*Close-up images of topless women and male and female sexual anatomy<br />
*Large-scale photos of men performing oral sex on one another (and performing oral sex on themselves)<br />
*An illustrated list of sex positions<br />
*Threesomes<br />
*Photos of nude strippers<br />
*'''An image called "Virgin Killer" depicting a naked prepubescent girl from the 1976 cover of a Scorpions album (banned in the U.S.)'''<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
'''May 07, 2008'''<br />
<br />
Schilling continues her outburst against Wikipedia, publishing a new editorial ("''[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63722 FBI investigates 'Wikipedophilia]'''") based on the following revelation:<br />
<br />
:''"In the wake of WND news coverage, the FBI is now reviewing a Wikipedia photo of a nude adolescent that could violate federal child-pornography laws. [...] The album's cover was banned in the United States due to its extremely controversial nature and was later replaced with a photo of the band. When WND brought the image to the attention of several Wikipedia representatives, they denied any knowledge of it.<br />
<br />
:''Asked if the photograph of the nude child would remain on the site or be taken down, Jay Walsh, head of communications for the Wikimedia foundation, responded:''<br />
<br />
::''"I have no idea when it will come down, as I probably already discussed with you – the foundation does not play a direct role in making edits to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a platform for use by members of the public, around the world.''<br />
<br />
::''I understand your concern has been raised with volunteer administrators and editors. They will review and consider your request, in the context of the Wikipedia editorial policies."''<br />
<br />
:''As of this evening, the photo of the nude child was still available online.<br />
<br />
:''Matt Barber, a constitutional law attorney who serves as Concerned Women for America's policy director for cultural issues, expressed outrage at Wikipedia's decision to allow sexually explicit images.''<br />
<br />
::''"Children use Wikipedia all of the time for reports for school, and this stuff is not just pornography, this is hard-core pornography," he said. "Much of it may even be in violation of our nation's obscenity laws.""''<br />
<br />
Over the following days, Wikipedia editors discuss whether to censor the image or retain it in the face of conservative uproar. Despite deletion attempts by editors including [[Richard Weiss]], a consensus to keep the image eventually develops.<br />
<br />
'''May 08, 2008'''<br />
<br />
Schilling's final editorial, entitled ''"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63770 Wikipedia debates kiddie porn action]"'' mocks the nuance with which the editors approached the topics covered in her two previous articles.<br />
<br />
The FBI refused to prosecute Wikimedia for these alleged violations.<br />
<br />
'''December 5-8, 2008'''<br />
<br />
The [[Internet Watch Foundation]], a British watchdog group, added Wikipedia's article ''Virgin Killer'' to a blacklist of websites it deems "potentially illegal". The Virgin Killer image page depicting the cover art was also blacklisted (but not the image itself). The IWF said they were first notified of the Wikipedia URL on Thursday, 4 December 2008. This followed the May 2008 reporting of the cover image by Schilling.<br />
<br />
The IWF described the image as "a potentially illegal indecent image of a child under the age of 18".[http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2008/dec/08/] Users of major ISPs were unable to access the content, despite the album cover being available unfiltered on other major sites including Amazon.co.uk and available for sale in the UK.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/dec/08/wikipedia-censorship]<br />
<br />
Usually most Internet users have a unique IP address visible to websites. However, as a result of ISPs using the IWF blacklist, traffic to Wikipedia via those affected ISPs was then routed through a small number of proxy servers.[http://www.pcworld.com/article/155112/wikipedia_article_censored_in_uk_for_the_first_time.html] This caused problems for users of the site. Since Wikipedia allows users to anonymously edit its encyclopedia articles, these individuals are identified only through their IP addresses, which are used to selectively block users who vandalise the site or otherwise break its rules. The proxy filtering makes it impossible to uniquely distinguish users, and to prevent vandalism Wikipedia "instituted a blanket ban on anonymous edits from the six ISPs, which account for 95 per cent of British residential internet users".[http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web/wikipedia-added-to-child-pornography-blacklist/2008/12/08/1228584723764.html]<br />
<br />
'''December 9, 2008'''<br />
<br />
Wikipedia was removed from the IWF blacklist [http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm IWF statement regarding Wikipedia webpage].<br />
<br />
Quoted on Channel 4 News,[http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/wikipedia%20may%20challenge%20iwf%20ban/2877057] [[Jimmy Wales]], the founder of [[Wikipedia]] reflected on the controversy:<br />
<br />
:''"My first thoughts when I was told that the Internet Watch Foundation had blocked the Wikipedia page was that we should take them to court. But because they're not a statutory body, I've been told we can't necessarily challenge their decision.''<br />
<br />
:''"The Internet Watch Foundation were clearly over reaching their remit when they blocked the text page on Wikipedia - there's nothing illegal about the description of the album. I'd also question their wisdom about trying to block the image itself."''<br />
<br />
:''"As a result of their actions, the image is actually being seen by more people, it's appearing on thousands of blogs today. It will continue to be passed on. What are they going to do? Are they going to block all of the web if it continues to be spread?"''<br />
<br />
The IWF has said that it "might yet add Amazon US to its list of 'blocked' sites for hosting the picture", which could cause major disruption to the site just before the festive season. This incident has also had an effect on Australian internet censoring plans. In the wake of this event Telstra and Internode Systems said they will no longer participate in the trials. Electronic Frontiers Australia vice-chairman Colin Jacobs said that "yesterday's incident in Britain, in which virtually the entire country was unable to edit Wikipedia because the country's Internet Watch Foundation had blacklisted a single image on the site, illustrated the pitfalls of mandatory ISP filtering".[http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/labor-plan-to-censor-internet-in-shreds/2008/12/09/1228584820006.html?page=2] ''The Sydney Morning Herald'' has commented that "Ironically, the banning of the image has only made it visible to more people as news sites publicise the issue and the image spreads across sites other than Wikipedia." This is known as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Streisand effect].<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
<br />
[[Chelsea Schilling]] follows in a fine tradition of congressional staffers who have attempted to [http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/30/2123219&from=rss censor wikipedia].<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
<br />
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Major_UK_ISPs_reduced_to_using_2_IP_addresses Discussion within Wikipedia] (includes media links)<br />
*[http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikimedia,_IWF_respond_to_block_of_Wikipedia_over_child_pornography_allegations?curid=117877 Wikinews]<br />
*[http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/12/07/1253228.shtml Slashdot]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Official Encyclopedia]][[Category:Censorship]][[Category:Child Pornography]][[Category:Hysteria]][[Category:Art]][[Category:Law/Crime]][[Category:Law/Crime: British]][[Category:Law/Crime: American]][[Category:History & Events]][[Category:History & Events: British]][[Category:History & Events: American]][[Category:History & Events: 2000s]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Virgin_Killer_controversies&diff=2670Talk:Virgin Killer controversies2008-12-10T03:01:27Z<p>Brian: </p>
<hr />
<div>Are there any better non-photo copies of the image we can host here? [[User:Rez|Rez (The Administrators - anonym)]] 21:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:That wouldn't be a good idea. The [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act#Indecent_images_of_children|Criminal Injustice and Racism Act]] criminalised any image which is derived from an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph. [[User:Brian|Brian]] 03:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Child_Pornography&diff=2275Child Pornography2008-10-31T01:28:33Z<p>Brian: definition</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Child pornography''' is a broad term which refers to nude, sexual, or pornographic depictions of children, minors, or persons under the age of consent. The definition varies across jurisdictions, often with regard to moral and cultural sensibilities such as perceptions of nudity or appropiate ages for sexual activity.<br />
<br />
For a comprehensive list of articles, see [[:Category:Child_Pornography]].<br />
<br />
To avoid confusion of this topic, we constructed a series of articles that relate to this issue.<br />
<br />
*[[Legal Advice: Child Pornography]] - Laws.<br />
*[[Research: Child Pornography]]<br />
*[[Child Pornography (Wikipedia)]] - Archive.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Official Encyclopedia]]<br />
[[Category:Child Pornography]]<br />
[[Category:Law/Crime]]<br />
[[Category:Law/Crime: Crime Types]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Indecent_images_of_children&diff=708Indecent images of children2008-07-21T14:11:35Z<p>Brian: /* Sentencing */ fix mistake</p>
<hr />
<div>An indecent image of a child is a photograph or pseudo-photograph (including one comprised in a film) which shows a child and is indecent. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
==Definition of a photograph==<br />
<br />
In <i>R v Fellows & Arnold</i> (1994), the appealant contended that an image stored electronically could not constitute an indecent photograph of a child under section 7 of the Protection of Children Act. <br />
<br />
It was ruled that an electronically stored image was a "copy of an indecent photograph of a child". The court stated that "there is no restriction on the nature of a copy, [and a copy of a photograph is data which] represents the original photograph, in another form". It was also stated that "there is nothing in the Act which makes it necessary that [a] copy should itself be a photograph within the dictionary or the statutory definition, and if there was, it would make the inclusion of the reference to a copy unnecessary. So we conclude that there is no restriction on the nature of a copy [..]" [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1996/825.html]<br />
<br />
According to section 7 of the Protection of Children Act, references to a photograph are "the negative as well as the positive version; and data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into a photograph." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&activetextdocid=1502066]<br />
<br />
So, an image stored electronically is a copy of a photograph and is illegal if it is indecent and shows a child.<br />
<br />
==Definition of a pseudo-photograph==<br />
<br />
A pseudo-photograph is an image which has the appearance of a photograph, but which is not a photograph. A pseudo-photograph of a child does not necessarily show a <i>real</i> child.<br />
<br />
==Defintion of a child==<br />
<br />
A child was originally defined as a person under the age of 16, however the [[Sexual Offences Act (2003)]] raised the defintion of "child" to a person under the age of 18.<br />
<br />
==Indecency==<br />
<br />
The decency of an image is an objective test; that is, it is decided by the jury. Indecency is considered to be a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_of_fact question of fact].<br />
<br />
===Interpretation===<br />
<br />
In order to judge whether an image is indecent, the jury must "apply[..] the recognised standards of propriety." (''R v Graham-Kerr'', 1988) [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/grahamKerr.html].<br />
<br />
In 2003, the Sentencing Advisory Panel provided guidance for Judges considering sentences for people convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act. The lowest level of indecency was described as "images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity", which would suggest that naturist images without posing are not indecent. Despite this, a number of people have been convicted of an offence for making and possessing naturist images. In 2003, Tom O'Carroll was convicted of "evading the prohibition on the importation of indecent material", for importing photographs of "young naked child[ren] engaging in normal outdoor activity such as playing on a beach". One should never assume that an image must be pornographic for it to be indecent.<br />
<br />
Put simply, a photograph or pseudo-photograph is judged to be indecent if the jury believes that it would offend the majority of the population of the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
===Context===<br />
<br />
In R v Graham-Kerr, the defendant had taken (naked) photographs of a male child during a naturists-only event at a swimming pool. The Police interviewed the defendant about his intentions in taking the photographs, and he admitted that he received "'sexual gratification by taking or looking at such photographs". The Judge stated that the jury were entitled to take into account the circumstances, motives, and sexual intentions of the take. <br />
<br />
At the appeal against conviction, the Judge ruled that "''the circumstances and the motivation of the taker may be relevant to the mens rea of the take as to whether his taking was intentional or accidental and so on, but it is not relevant to whether or not the photograph is in itself indecent''". The conviction was quashed. [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/grahamKerr.html]<br />
<br />
In ''R v Mould'' (2000), the Appeal Court ruled that "Mr Burton [representing Mr Mould] was rightly concerned that the jury, in deciding whether or not the photograph was indecent, would wrongly take into account [data showing access to paedophile discussion forums]." Although it was agreed that the jury should not use such information to make a judgment regarding the decency of the image for which Mr Mould was convicted, it was understood that "the prosecution [successfully] sought to rely on it in order to prove that the appellant had deliberately created the .bmp file." [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/mould2000.html] <br />
<br />
While a defendant's proven sexual attraction to children should not affect indecency, it may affect the perceived ''mens rea'' of an act.<br />
<br />
==Criminal offences==<br />
<br />
Under the (amended) Protection of Children Act, it is an offence for a person:<br />
<br />
<br />
:* to take, or permit to be taken, or to make any indecent photograph of a child . . .; or<br />
:* to distribute or show such indecent photographs; or<br />
:* to have in his possession such indecent photographs [outdated text removed]; or<br />
:* to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs, or intends to do so. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
Under the Sexual Offences Act (2003), it is an offence to cause, control, arrange or facilitate a child's involvement in pornography. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820967][http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820968][http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820969]<br />
<br />
It is an offence to "attempt to incite" any criminal offence in the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
===The "making" offence===<br />
<br />
Causing an indecent photograph of a child to exist on a computer screen is considered to be "making an indecent photograph of a child".<br />
<br />
"A person who either downloads images on to disc or who prints them off is making them. The Act is not only concerned with the original creation of images, but also their proliferation. Photographs or pseudo-photographs found on the Internet may have originated from outside the United Kingdom; to download or print within the jurisdiction is to create new material which hitherto may not have existed therein." (R v Bowden) [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/bowden1999.html]<br />
<br />
===Offences committed abroad===<br />
<br />
(1) If—<br />
<br />
::(a) a United Kingdom national does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom, and<br />
<br />
::(b) the act, if done in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies,<br />
<br />
the United Kingdom national is guilty in that part of the United Kingdom of that sexual offence.<br />
<br />
<br />
(2) If—<br />
<br />
::(a) a United Kingdom resident does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom,<br />
<br />
::(b) the act constitutes an offence under the law in force in that country, and<br />
<br />
::(c) the act, if done in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies,<br />
<br />
the United Kingdom resident is guilty in that part of the United Kingdom of that sexual offence. [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/041/08041.50-56.html#jNC35]<br />
<br />
This means that a United Kingdom national may be prosecuted under the Protection of Children Act (as amended by the Sexual Offences Act) if he engages in activity contrary to the Protection of Children Act while in a foreign territory. A United Kingdom resident who engages in an act contrary to the Protection of Children Act while outside of the United Kingdom may be prosecuted if the act also constituted an offence in the foreign jurisdiction.<br />
<br />
==Defences==<br />
<br />
There are a small number of defences against charges under the Protection of Children Act. Below is a list of defences set by the statutes, precedents and case law.<br />
<br />
===Marriage and other relationships===<br />
<br />
In cases where a defendant has taken or made a photographic image of a child over the age of 16, the defendant is not guilty if, at the time when he obtained the photograph, he and the child:<br />
<br />
:: (a) were married; or<br />
<br />
:: (b) lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship; and <br />
<br />
:: (c) the defendant reasonably believed that the child consented to the image being obtained. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820963]<br />
<br />
This exemption was introduced in 2003 under the Sexual Offences Act, which had changed the statutory definition of "child" (in the Protection of Children Act) from 16 to 18.<br />
<br />
===Mens Rea===<br />
<br />
The Criminal Justice Act provides that: <br />
<br />
"Where a person is charged with an offence of possession, it shall be a defence for him to prove –<br />
<br />
:: (a) that he had a legitimate reason for having the photograph or pseudo-photograph in his possession; or<br />
<br />
:: (b) that he had not himself seen the photograph or pseudo- photograph and did not know nor had any cause to suspect, it to be indecent; or<br />
<br />
:: (c) that the photograph or pseudo-photograph was sent to him without any prior request made by him or on his behalf and that he did not keep it for any unreasonable time." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=2116646&ActiveTextDocId=2116851]<br />
<br />
The same defences may be applied to the other offences under Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act.<br />
<br />
It is also a defence for the defendant to prove that he did not take, make, distribute, show or possess an image which the knowledge that the image was, or was likely to be:<br />
<br />
::* an indecent image; and<br />
::* an image of a child.<br />
<br />
This was upheld in R v Smith & Jayson, when the judge ruled that, "the mens rea necessary to constitute the offence [of making an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child] is that the act of making should be a deliberate and intentional act with knowledge that the image made is, or is likely to be, an indecent image of a child" ''(R v Smith & Jayson, 2003)''. [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/smithJayson2003.html]<br />
<br />
A defendant must be proven (beyond reasonable doubt) to be aware that a cache of images exists, in order to be convicted for the possession offence. It should be noted that, in such cases, the defendant will still be convicted of the making offence, unless another defence applies.<br />
<br />
===Collages===<br />
<br />
Lord Justice Simon Brown ruled that "an image made by an exhibit which obviously consists, as this one does, of parts of two different photographs sellotaped together cannot be said to appear to be "a photograph" [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/302.html]. This means that, if a collage does not appear to be parts of a single photograph, it does not fall within the scope of the Protection of Children Act. A photocopy or scan of a collage may fall under the Act and could therefore be illegal if it shows a child and is judged to be indecent.<br />
<br />
===Law enforcement===<br />
<br />
It is a defence for the defendant to prove that images were made "for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings"<br />
<br />
===Human Rights Act===<br />
<br />
The [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm Human Rights Act] offers two potential defences against possession and "making" charges under the ''Protection of Children Act'', however the following Articles have ''not'' been tested in court in relation to such charges.<br />
<br />
Section 3 of the Act dictates that:<br />
<br />
:"(1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.<br />
<br />
::::(2) This section—<br />
<br />
::::::(a) applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted;<br />
<br />
::::::(b) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation; and<br />
<br />
::::::(c) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible subordinate legislation if disregarding any possibility of revocation) primary legislation prevents removal of the incompatibility."<br />
<br />
The relevant convention articles are ''Article 13'' and ''Article 14''.<br />
<br />
'''Article 13:'''<br />
<br />
:"(4) The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to—<br />
<br />
::::(a) the extent to which—<br />
::::::(i) the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or<br />
::::::(ii) it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published"<br />
<br />
It is well known that nude images of children have been used, controversially, in artistic exhibitions, which implies that some people see an artistic element in nude images of children. Cases involving art galleries have never resulted in prosecution, but cases involving the downloading of questionable material from the internet do lead to prosecution. A defendant may argue that images which are on the public internet (world wide web) could be defined as having "become available to the public." Indeed, the judge of the case of ''Knuller v. DPP'' stated that "in public" [..] has a wide meaning." It appears to "cover exhibitions in all places to which the public have access either as of right or gratis or on payment."<br />
<br />
'''Article 14:'''<br />
<br />
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."<br />
<br />
==Sentencing==<br />
<br />
The sentencing guidelines for offences committed contrary to the Protection of Children Act were decided by the Sentencing Advisory Panel, to assist with sentencing during ''R v Oliver et al''<br />
<br />
The levels of indecency are as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
{| border="1" <br />
| Level<br />
| Definition<br />
|- <br />
| Level 1<br />
| Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity<br />
|- <br />
| Level 2<br />
| Non-penetrative sexual activity between children, or solo masturbation by a child<br />
|- <br />
| Level 3<br />
| Non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children<br />
|- <br />
| Level 4<br />
| Penetrative sexual activity involving a child or children, or both children and adults<br />
|- <br />
| Level 5<br />
| Sadism or penetration of, or by, an animal<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
Judges use the following guidelines when sentencing someone who has been convicted under the <i>Protection of Children Act</i>:<br />
<br/><br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
| Starting points<br />
| Type/nature of activity<br />
| Sentencing ranges<br />
|- <br />
| Community order<br />
| Possession of a large amount of level 1 material and/or no more than a small amount of level 2, and the material is for personal use and has not been distributed or shown to others<br />
| An appropriate non-custodial sentence<br />
|- <br />
| 12 weeks custody<br />
| Offender in possession of a large amount of material at level 2 or a small amount at level 3<br />
<br />
Offender has shown or distributed material at level 1 or 2 on a limited scale <br />
<br />
Offender has exchanged images at level 1 or 2 with other collectors, but with no element of financial gain<br />
| 4 weeks-26 weeks custody<br />
|- <br />
| 26 weeks custody<br />
| Possession of a large quantity of level 3 material for personal use<br />
<br />
Possession of a small number of images at level 4 or 5<br />
<br />
Large number of level 2 images shown or distributed <br />
<br />
Small number of level 3 images shown or distributed<br />
| 4 weeks–18 months custody <br />
|- <br />
| 12 months custody<br />
| Possession of a large quantity of level 4 or 5 material for personal use only<br />
<br />
Large number of level 3 images shown or distributed<br />
| 26 weeks-2 years custody<br />
<br />
|- <br />
| 2 years custody<br />
| Offender involved in the production of, or has traded in, material at levels 1–3<br />
| 1-4 years custody<br />
|- <br />
| 3 years custody<br />
| Level 4 or 5 images shown or distributed<br />
| 2-5 years custody<br />
|-<br />
| 6 years custody<br />
| Offender commissioned or encouraged the production of level 4 or 5 images<br />
<br />
Offender involved in the production of level 4 or 5 images<br />
<br />
| 4-9 years custody<br />
<br />
|}[http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/82083-COI-SCG_final.pdf]<br />
<br />
<br />
Images which are below the threshhold for Level 1 - but which are judged to be indecent by a jury - will be treated as Level 1 images during sentencing; therefore a naturist image with no erotic posing will be treated as a Level 1 indecent image of a child, if judged to be indecent.<br />
<br />
<br />
A person who is convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act is also likely to be banned from working with children in the United Kingdom, and ordered to sign the Sex Offenders Register.<br />
<br />
==Important Notes==<br />
<br />
*Any image may <i>technically</i> be indecent under UK law. <br />
*Even if an image has been declared as decent by one jury, it may be still be declared indecent by another jury. <br />
*Despite precedents stating that the context of an image does not affect indecency, a jury may be more likely to rule that an image is indecent if they believe that the defendant is attracted to children.<br />
*Previous interpretations of the indecency suggest that "indecency" has a lower threshhold than "pornography", so what is "indecent" (and therefore illegal) is not necessarily "pornographic".<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Child Pornography]]<br />
* [[Child Pornography (Law)]]<br />
* [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act]]<br />
* [[Legal Information]]<br />
* [[Sexual Offences Act (2003)]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Censorship]] [[Category:Law]] [[Category:United Kingdom Law]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Grooming&diff=694Grooming2008-07-01T21:26:12Z<p>Brian: New page: '''Grooming''' is a term used to describe the way in which an adult is popularly perceived to flirt with a person under the age of consent. In law, it typically refers to adults using ...</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Grooming''' is a term used to describe the way in which an adult is popularly perceived to flirt with a person under the age of consent. In [[law]], it typically refers to adults using the internet to solicit underage persons or minors for sex.<br />
<br />
==Law==<br />
<br />
===United Kingdom===<br />
<br />
A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—<br />
<br />
(a) A has met or communicated with another person (B) on at least two occasions and subsequently—<br />
<br />
::(i) A intentionally meets B,<br />
<br />
::(ii) A travels with the intention of meeting B in any part of the world or arranges to meet B in any part of the world, or<br />
<br />
::(iii) B travels with the intention of meeting A in any part of the world,<br />
<br />
(b) A intends to do anything to or in respect of B, during or after the meeting mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) to (iii) and in any part of the world, which if done will involve the commission by A of a relevant offence,<br />
<br />
(c) B is under 16, and<br />
<br />
(d) A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Law]] [[Category:United Kingdom Law]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Indecent_images_of_children&diff=691Indecent images of children2008-06-28T23:39:01Z<p>Brian: /* Offences committed abroad */ Delayed update</p>
<hr />
<div>An indecent image of a child is a photograph or pseudo-photograph (including one comprised in a film) which shows a child and is indecent. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
==Definition of a photograph==<br />
<br />
In <i>R v Fellows & Arnold</i> (1994), the appealant contended that an image stored electronically could not constitute an indecent photograph of a child under section 7 of the Protection of Children Act. <br />
<br />
It was ruled that an electronically stored image was a "copy of an indecent photograph of a child". The court stated that "there is no restriction on the nature of a copy, [and a copy of a photograph is data which] represents the original photograph, in another form". It was also stated that "there is nothing in the Act which makes it necessary that [a] copy should itself be a photograph within the dictionary or the statutory definition, and if there was, it would make the inclusion of the reference to a copy unnecessary. So we conclude that there is no restriction on the nature of a copy [..]" [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1996/825.html]<br />
<br />
According to section 7 of the Protection of Children Act, references to a photograph are "the negative as well as the positive version; and data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into a photograph." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&activetextdocid=1502066]<br />
<br />
So, an image stored electronically is a copy of a photograph and is illegal if it is indecent and shows a child.<br />
<br />
==Definition of a pseudo-photograph==<br />
<br />
A pseudo-photograph is an image which has the appearance of a photograph, but which is not a photograph. A pseudo-photograph of a child does not necessarily show a <i>real</i> child.<br />
<br />
==Defintion of a child==<br />
<br />
A child was originally defined as a person under the age of 16, however the [[Sexual Offences Act (2003)]] raised the defintion of "child" to a person under the age of 18.<br />
<br />
==Indecency==<br />
<br />
The decency of an image is an objective test; that is, it is decided by the jury. Indecency is considered to be a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_of_fact question of fact].<br />
<br />
===Interpretation===<br />
<br />
In order to judge whether an image is indecent, the jury must "apply[..] the recognised standards of propriety." (''R v Graham-Kerr'', 1988) [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/grahamKerr.html].<br />
<br />
In 2003, the Sentencing Advisory Panel provided guidance for Judges considering sentences for people convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act. The lowest level of indecency was described as "images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity", which would suggest that naturist images without posing are not indecent. Despite this, a number of people have been convicted of an offence for making and possessing naturist images. In 2003, Tom O'Carroll was convicted of "evading the prohibition on the importation of indecent material", for importing photographs of "young naked child[ren] engaging in normal outdoor activity such as playing on a beach". One should never assume that an image must be pornographic for it to be indecent.<br />
<br />
Put simply, a photograph or pseudo-photograph is judged to be indecent if the jury believes that it would offend the majority of the population of the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
===Context===<br />
<br />
In R v Graham-Kerr, the defendant had taken (naked) photographs of a male child during a naturists-only event at a swimming pool. The Police interviewed the defendant about his intentions in taking the photographs, and he admitted that he received "'sexual gratification by taking or looking at such photographs". The Judge stated that the jury were entitled to take into account the circumstances, motives, and sexual intentions of the take. <br />
<br />
At the appeal against conviction, the Judge ruled that "''the circumstances and the motivation of the taker may be relevant to the mens rea of the take as to whether his taking was intentional or accidental and so on, but it is not relevant to whether or not the photograph is in itself indecent''". The conviction was quashed. [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/grahamKerr.html]<br />
<br />
In ''R v Mould'' (2000), the Appeal Court ruled that "Mr Burton [representing Mr Mould] was rightly concerned that the jury, in deciding whether or not the photograph was indecent, would wrongly take into account [data showing access to paedophile discussion forums]." Although it was agreed that the jury should not use such information to make a judgment regarding the decency of the image for which Mr Mould was convicted, it was understood that "the prosecution [successfully] sought to rely on it in order to prove that the appellant had deliberately created the .bmp file." [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/mould2000.html] <br />
<br />
While a defendant's proven sexual attraction to children should not affect indecency, it may affect the perceived ''mens rea'' of an act.<br />
<br />
==Criminal offences==<br />
<br />
Under the (amended) Protection of Children Act, it is an offence for a person:<br />
<br />
<br />
:* to take, or permit to be taken, or to make any indecent photograph of a child . . .; or<br />
:* to distribute or show such indecent photographs; or<br />
:* to have in his possession such indecent photographs [outdated text removed]; or<br />
:* to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs, or intends to do so. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
Under the Sexual Offences Act (2003), it is an offence to cause, control, arrange or facilitate a child's involvement in pornography. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820967][http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820968][http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820969]<br />
<br />
It is an offence to "attempt to incite" any criminal offence in the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
===The "making" offence===<br />
<br />
Causing an indecent photograph of a child to exist on a computer screen is considered to be "making an indecent photograph of a child".<br />
<br />
"A person who either downloads images on to disc or who prints them off is making them. The Act is not only concerned with the original creation of images, but also their proliferation. Photographs or pseudo-photographs found on the Internet may have originated from outside the United Kingdom; to download or print within the jurisdiction is to create new material which hitherto may not have existed therein." (R v Bowden) [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/bowden1999.html]<br />
<br />
===Offences committed abroad===<br />
<br />
(1) If—<br />
<br />
::(a) a United Kingdom national does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom, and<br />
<br />
::(b) the act, if done in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies,<br />
<br />
the United Kingdom national is guilty in that part of the United Kingdom of that sexual offence.<br />
<br />
<br />
(2) If—<br />
<br />
::(a) a United Kingdom resident does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom,<br />
<br />
::(b) the act constitutes an offence under the law in force in that country, and<br />
<br />
::(c) the act, if done in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies,<br />
<br />
the United Kingdom resident is guilty in that part of the United Kingdom of that sexual offence. [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/041/08041.50-56.html#jNC35]<br />
<br />
This means that a United Kingdom national may be prosecuted under the Protection of Children Act (as amended by the Sexual Offences Act) if he engages in activity contrary to the Protection of Children Act while in a foreign territory. A United Kingdom resident who engages in an act contrary to the Protection of Children Act while outside of the United Kingdom may be prosecuted if the act also constituted an offence in the foreign jurisdiction.<br />
<br />
==Defences==<br />
<br />
There are a small number of defences against charges under the Protection of Children Act. Below is a list of defences set by the statutes, precedents and case law.<br />
<br />
===Marriage and other relationships===<br />
<br />
In cases where a defendant has taken or made a photographic image of a child over the age of 16, the defendant is not guilty if, at the time when he obtained the photograph, he and the child:<br />
<br />
:: (a) were married; or<br />
<br />
:: (b) lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship; and <br />
<br />
:: (c) the defendant reasonably believed that the child consented to the image being obtained. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820963]<br />
<br />
This exemption was introduced in 2003 under the Sexual Offences Act, which had changed the statutory definition of "child" (in the Protection of Children Act) from 16 to 18.<br />
<br />
===Mens Rea===<br />
<br />
The Criminal Justice Act provides that: <br />
<br />
"Where a person is charged with an offence of possession, it shall be a defence for him to prove –<br />
<br />
:: (a) that he had a legitimate reason for having the photograph or pseudo-photograph in his possession; or<br />
<br />
:: (b) that he had not himself seen the photograph or pseudo- photograph and did not know nor had any cause to suspect, it to be indecent; or<br />
<br />
:: (c) that the photograph or pseudo-photograph was sent to him without any prior request made by him or on his behalf and that he did not keep it for any unreasonable time." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=2116646&ActiveTextDocId=2116851]<br />
<br />
The same defences may be applied to the other offences under Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act.<br />
<br />
It is also a defence for the defendant to prove that he did not take, make, distribute, show or possess an image which the knowledge that the image was, or was likely to be:<br />
<br />
::* an indecent image; and<br />
::* an image of a child.<br />
<br />
This was upheld in R v Smith & Jayson, when the judge ruled that, "the mens rea necessary to constitute the offence [of making an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child] is that the act of making should be a deliberate and intentional act with knowledge that the image made is, or is likely to be, an indecent image of a child" ''(R v Smith & Jayson, 2003)''. [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/smithJayson2003.html]<br />
<br />
A defendant must be proven (beyond reasonable doubt) to be aware that a cache of images exists, in order to be convicted for the possession offence. It should be noted that, in such cases, the defendant will still be convicted of the making offence, unless another defence applies.<br />
<br />
===Collages===<br />
<br />
Lord Justice Simon Brown ruled that "an image made by an exhibit which obviously consists, as this one does, of parts of two different photographs sellotaped together cannot be said to appear to be "a photograph" [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/302.html]. This means that, if a collage does not appear to be parts of a single photograph, it does not fall within the scope of the Protection of Children Act. A photocopy or scan of a collage may fall under the Act and could therefore be illegal if it shows a child and is judged to be indecent.<br />
<br />
===Law enforcement===<br />
<br />
It is a defence for the defendant to prove that images were made "for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings"<br />
<br />
===Human Rights Act===<br />
<br />
The [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm Human Rights Act] offers two potential defences against possession and "making" charges under the ''Protection of Children Act'', however the following Articles have ''not'' been tested in court in relation to such charges.<br />
<br />
Section 3 of the Act dictates that:<br />
<br />
:"(1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.<br />
<br />
::::(2) This section—<br />
<br />
::::::(a) applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted;<br />
<br />
::::::(b) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation; and<br />
<br />
::::::(c) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible subordinate legislation if disregarding any possibility of revocation) primary legislation prevents removal of the incompatibility."<br />
<br />
The relevant convention articles are ''Article 13'' and ''Article 14''.<br />
<br />
'''Article 13:'''<br />
<br />
:"(4) The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to—<br />
<br />
::::(a) the extent to which—<br />
::::::(i) the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or<br />
::::::(ii) it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published"<br />
<br />
It is well known that nude images of children have been used, controversially, in artistic exhibitions, which implies that some people see an artistic element in nude images of children. Cases involving art galleries have never resulted in prosecution, but cases involving the downloading of questionable material from the internet do lead to prosecution. A defendant may argue that images which are on the public internet (world wide web) could be defined as having "become available to the public." Indeed, the judge of the case of ''Knuller v. DPP'' stated that "in public" [..] has a wide meaning." It appears to "cover exhibitions in all places to which the public have access either as of right or gratis or on payment."<br />
<br />
'''Article 14:'''<br />
<br />
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."<br />
<br />
==Sentencing==<br />
<br />
The sentencing guidelines for offences committed contrary to the Protection of Children Act were decided by the Sentencing Advisory Panel, to assist with sentencing during ''R v Oliver et al''<br />
<br />
The levels of indecency are as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
{| border="1" <br />
| Level<br />
| Definition<br />
|- <br />
| Level 1<br />
| Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity<br />
|- <br />
| Level 2<br />
| Non-penetrative sexual activity between children, or solo masturbation by a child<br />
|- <br />
| Level 3<br />
| Non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children<br />
|- <br />
| Level 4<br />
| Penetrative sexual activity involving a child or children, or both children and adults<br />
|- <br />
| Level 5<br />
| Sadism or penetration of, or by, an animal<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
Judges use the following guidelines when sentencing someone who has been convicted under the <i>Protection of Children Act</i>:<br />
<br/><br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
| Starting points<br />
| Type/nature of activity<br />
| Sentencing ranges<br />
|- <br />
| Community order<br />
| Possession of a large amount of level 1 material and/or no more than a small amount of level 2, and the material is for personal use and has not been distributed or shown to others<br />
| An appropriate non-custodial sentence<br />
|- <br />
| 12 weeks custody<br />
| Offender in possession of a large amount of material at level 2 or a small amount at level 3<br />
<br />
Offender has shown or distributed material at level 1 or 2 on a limited scale <br />
<br />
Offender has exchanged images at level 1 or 2 with other collectors, but with no element of financial gain<br />
| 4 weeks-26 weeks custody<br />
|- <br />
| 26 weeks custody<br />
| Offender in possession of a large amount of material at level 2 or a small amount at level 3<br />
Offender has shown or distributed material at level 1 or 2 on a limited scale. <br />
<br />
Offender has exchanged images at level 1 or 2 with other collectors, but with no element of financial gain<br />
| 4 weeks–18 months custody <br />
|- <br />
| 12 months custody<br />
| Possession of a large quantity of level 4 or 5 material for personal use only<br />
<br />
Large number of level 3 images shown or distributed<br />
| 26 weeks-2 years custody<br />
<br />
|- <br />
| 2 years custody<br />
| Offender involved in the production of, or has traded in, material at levels 1–3<br />
| 1-4 years custody<br />
|- <br />
| 3 years custody<br />
| Level 4 or 5 images shown or distributed<br />
| 2-5 years custody<br />
|-<br />
| 6 years custody<br />
| Offender commissioned or encouraged the production of level 4 or 5 images<br />
<br />
Offender involved in the production of level 4 or 5 images<br />
<br />
| 4-9 years custody<br />
<br />
|}[http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/82083-COI-SCG_final.pdf]<br />
<br />
<br />
Images which are below the threshhold for Level 1 - but which are judged to be indecent by a jury - will be treated as Level 1 images during sentencing; therefore a naturist image with no erotic posing will be treated as a Level 1 indecent image of a child, if judged to be indecent.<br />
<br />
<br />
A person who is convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act is also likely to be banned from working with children in the United Kingdom, and ordered to sign the Sex Offenders Register.<br />
<br />
==Important Notes==<br />
<br />
*Any image may <i>technically</i> be indecent under UK law. <br />
*Even if an image has been declared as decent by one jury, it may be still be declared indecent by another jury. <br />
*Despite precedents stating that the context of an image does not affect indecency, a jury may be more likely to rule that an image is indecent if they believe that the defendant is attracted to children.<br />
*Previous interpretations of the indecency suggest that "indecency" has a lower threshhold than "pornography", so what is "indecent" (and therefore illegal) is not necessarily "pornographic".<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Child Pornography]]<br />
* [[Child Pornography (Law)]]<br />
* [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act]]<br />
* [[Legal Information]]<br />
* [[Sexual Offences Act (2003)]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Censorship]] [[Category:Law]] [[Category:United Kingdom Law]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Indecent_images_of_children&diff=688Indecent images of children2008-06-24T12:18:24Z<p>Brian: /* Sentencing */</p>
<hr />
<div>An indecent image of a child is a photograph or pseudo-photograph (including one comprised in a film) which shows a child and is indecent. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
==Definition of a photograph==<br />
<br />
In <i>R v Fellows & Arnold</i> (1994), the appealant contended that an image stored electronically could not constitute an indecent photograph of a child under section 7 of the Protection of Children Act. <br />
<br />
It was ruled that an electronically stored image was a "copy of an indecent photograph of a child". The court stated that "there is no restriction on the nature of a copy, [and a copy of a photograph is data which] represents the original photograph, in another form". It was also stated that "there is nothing in the Act which makes it necessary that [a] copy should itself be a photograph within the dictionary or the statutory definition, and if there was, it would make the inclusion of the reference to a copy unnecessary. So we conclude that there is no restriction on the nature of a copy [..]" [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1996/825.html]<br />
<br />
According to section 7 of the Protection of Children Act, references to a photograph are "the negative as well as the positive version; and data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into a photograph." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&activetextdocid=1502066]<br />
<br />
So, an image stored electronically is a copy of a photograph and is illegal if it is indecent and shows a child.<br />
<br />
==Definition of a pseudo-photograph==<br />
<br />
A pseudo-photograph is an image which has the appearance of a photograph, but which is not a photograph. A pseudo-photograph of a child does not necessarily show a <i>real</i> child.<br />
<br />
==Defintion of a child==<br />
<br />
A child was originally defined as a person under the age of 16, however the [[Sexual Offences Act (2003)]] raised the defintion of "child" to a person under the age of 18.<br />
<br />
==Indecency==<br />
<br />
The decency of an image is an objective test; that is, it is decided by the jury. Indecency is considered to be a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_of_fact question of fact].<br />
<br />
===Interpretation===<br />
<br />
In order to judge whether an image is indecent, the jury must "apply[..] the recognised standards of propriety." (''R v Graham-Kerr'', 1988) [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/grahamKerr.html].<br />
<br />
In 2003, the Sentencing Advisory Panel provided guidance for Judges considering sentences for people convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act. The lowest level of indecency was described as "images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity", which would suggest that naturist images without posing are not indecent. Despite this, a number of people have been convicted of an offence for making and possessing naturist images. In 2003, Tom O'Carroll was convicted of "evading the prohibition on the importation of indecent material", for importing photographs of "young naked child[ren] engaging in normal outdoor activity such as playing on a beach". One should never assume that an image must be pornographic for it to be indecent.<br />
<br />
Put simply, a photograph or pseudo-photograph is judged to be indecent if the jury believes that it would offend the majority of the population of the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
===Context===<br />
<br />
In R v Graham-Kerr, the defendant had taken (naked) photographs of a male child during a naturists-only event at a swimming pool. The Police interviewed the defendant about his intentions in taking the photographs, and he admitted that he received "'sexual gratification by taking or looking at such photographs". The Judge stated that the jury were entitled to take into account the circumstances, motives, and sexual intentions of the take. <br />
<br />
At the appeal against conviction, the Judge ruled that "''the circumstances and the motivation of the taker may be relevant to the mens rea of the take as to whether his taking was intentional or accidental and so on, but it is not relevant to whether or not the photograph is in itself indecent''". The conviction was quashed. [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/grahamKerr.html]<br />
<br />
In ''R v Mould'' (2000), the Appeal Court ruled that "Mr Burton [representing Mr Mould] was rightly concerned that the jury, in deciding whether or not the photograph was indecent, would wrongly take into account [data showing access to paedophile discussion forums]." Although it was agreed that the jury should not use such information to make a judgment regarding the decency of the image for which Mr Mould was convicted, it was understood that "the prosecution [successfully] sought to rely on it in order to prove that the appellant had deliberately created the .bmp file." [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/mould2000.html] <br />
<br />
While a defendant's proven sexual attraction to children should not affect indecency, it may affect the perceived ''mens rea'' of an act.<br />
<br />
==Criminal offences==<br />
<br />
Under the (amended) Protection of Children Act, it is an offence for a person:<br />
<br />
<br />
:* to take, or permit to be taken, or to make any indecent photograph of a child . . .; or<br />
:* to distribute or show such indecent photographs; or<br />
:* to have in his possession such indecent photographs [outdated text removed]; or<br />
:* to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs, or intends to do so. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
Under the Sexual Offences Act (2003), it is an offence to cause, control, arrange or facilitate a child's involvement in pornography. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820967][http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820968][http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820969]<br />
<br />
It is an offence to "attempt to incite" any criminal offence in the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
===The "making" offence===<br />
<br />
Causing an indecent photograph of a child to exist on a computer screen is considered to be "making an indecent photograph of a child".<br />
<br />
"A person who either downloads images on to disc or who prints them off is making them. The Act is not only concerned with the original creation of images, but also their proliferation. Photographs or pseudo-photographs found on the Internet may have originated from outside the United Kingdom; to download or print within the jurisdiction is to create new material which hitherto may not have existed therein." (R v Bowden) [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/bowden1999.html]<br />
<br />
===Offences committed abroad===<br />
<br />
Any act done by a person (who was on 1st September 1997, or has since become, a British citizen or resident in the United Kingdom) in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom which—<br />
<br />
:: (a) constituted an offence under the law in force in that country or territory, and<br />
<br />
:: (b) would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies if it had been done in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland,<br />
<br />
constitutes that sexual offence under the law of that part of the United Kingdom. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820998]<br />
<br />
This means that one may be prosecuted under the Protection of Children Act (as amended by the Sexual Offences Act) if he commits a child sex offence in a foreign territory (under that territory's laws), which would also have constituted an offence if it were done in England, Wales, or Northern Ireland.<br />
<br />
The [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act]] will amend the relevant section of the Sexual Offences Act. The Act provides that:<br />
<br />
(1) If—<br />
<br />
::(a) a United Kingdom national does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom, and<br />
<br />
::(b) the act, if done in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies,<br />
<br />
the United Kingdom national is guilty in that part of the United Kingdom of that sexual offence.<br />
<br />
<br />
(2) If—<br />
<br />
::(a) a United Kingdom resident does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom,<br />
<br />
::(b) the act constitutes an offence under the law in force in that country, and<br />
<br />
::(c) the act, if done in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies,<br />
<br />
the United Kingdom resident is guilty in that part of the United Kingdom of that sexual offence. [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/041/08041.50-56.html#jNC35]<br />
<br />
This means that a United Kingdom national may be prosecuted under the Protection of Children Act (as amended by the Sexual Offences Act) if he engages in activity contrary to the Protection of Children Act while in a foreign territory. A United Kingdom resident who engages in an act contrary to the Protection of Children Act while outside of the United Kingdom may be prosecuted if the act also constituted an offence in the foreign jurisdiction.<br />
<br />
==Defences==<br />
<br />
There are a small number of defences against charges under the Protection of Children Act. Below is a list of defences set by the statutes, precedents and case law.<br />
<br />
===Marriage and other relationships===<br />
<br />
In cases where a defendant has taken or made a photographic image of a child over the age of 16, the defendant is not guilty if, at the time when he obtained the photograph, he and the child:<br />
<br />
:: (a) were married; or<br />
<br />
:: (b) lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship; and <br />
<br />
:: (c) the defendant reasonably believed that the child consented to the image being obtained. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820963]<br />
<br />
This exemption was introduced in 2003 under the Sexual Offences Act, which had changed the statutory definition of "child" (in the Protection of Children Act) from 16 to 18.<br />
<br />
===Mens Rea===<br />
<br />
The Criminal Justice Act provides that: <br />
<br />
"Where a person is charged with an offence of possession, it shall be a defence for him to prove –<br />
<br />
:: (a) that he had a legitimate reason for having the photograph or pseudo-photograph in his possession; or<br />
<br />
:: (b) that he had not himself seen the photograph or pseudo- photograph and did not know nor had any cause to suspect, it to be indecent; or<br />
<br />
:: (c) that the photograph or pseudo-photograph was sent to him without any prior request made by him or on his behalf and that he did not keep it for any unreasonable time." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=2116646&ActiveTextDocId=2116851]<br />
<br />
The same defences may be applied to the other offences under Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act.<br />
<br />
It is also a defence for the defendant to prove that he did not take, make, distribute, show or possess an image which the knowledge that the image was, or was likely to be:<br />
<br />
::* an indecent image; and<br />
::* an image of a child.<br />
<br />
This was upheld in R v Smith & Jayson, when the judge ruled that, "the mens rea necessary to constitute the offence [of making an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child] is that the act of making should be a deliberate and intentional act with knowledge that the image made is, or is likely to be, an indecent image of a child" ''(R v Smith & Jayson, 2003)''. [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/smithJayson2003.html]<br />
<br />
A defendant must be proven (beyond reasonable doubt) to be aware that a cache of images exists, in order to be convicted for the possession offence. It should be noted that, in such cases, the defendant will still be convicted of the making offence, unless another defence applies.<br />
<br />
===Collages===<br />
<br />
Lord Justice Simon Brown ruled that "an image made by an exhibit which obviously consists, as this one does, of parts of two different photographs sellotaped together cannot be said to appear to be "a photograph" [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/302.html]. This means that, if a collage does not appear to be parts of a single photograph, it does not fall within the scope of the Protection of Children Act. A photocopy or scan of a collage may fall under the Act and could therefore be illegal if it shows a child and is judged to be indecent.<br />
<br />
===Law enforcement===<br />
<br />
It is a defence for the defendant to prove that images were made "for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings"<br />
<br />
===Human Rights Act===<br />
<br />
The [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm Human Rights Act] offers two potential defences against possession and "making" charges under the ''Protection of Children Act'', however the following Articles have ''not'' been tested in court in relation to such charges.<br />
<br />
Section 3 of the Act dictates that:<br />
<br />
:"(1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.<br />
<br />
::::(2) This section—<br />
<br />
::::::(a) applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted;<br />
<br />
::::::(b) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation; and<br />
<br />
::::::(c) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible subordinate legislation if disregarding any possibility of revocation) primary legislation prevents removal of the incompatibility."<br />
<br />
The relevant convention articles are ''Article 13'' and ''Article 14''.<br />
<br />
'''Article 13:'''<br />
<br />
:"(4) The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to—<br />
<br />
::::(a) the extent to which—<br />
::::::(i) the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or<br />
::::::(ii) it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published"<br />
<br />
It is well known that nude images of children have been used, controversially, in artistic exhibitions, which implies that some people see an artistic element in nude images of children. Cases involving art galleries have never resulted in prosecution, but cases involving the downloading of questionable material from the internet do lead to prosecution. A defendant may argue that images which are on the public internet (world wide web) could be defined as having "become available to the public." Indeed, the judge of the case of ''Knuller v. DPP'' stated that "in public" [..] has a wide meaning." It appears to "cover exhibitions in all places to which the public have access either as of right or gratis or on payment."<br />
<br />
'''Article 14:'''<br />
<br />
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."<br />
<br />
==Sentencing==<br />
<br />
The sentencing guidelines for offences committed contrary to the Protection of Children Act were decided by the Sentencing Advisory Panel, to assist with sentencing during ''R v Oliver et al''<br />
<br />
The levels of indecency are as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
{| border="1" <br />
| Level<br />
| Definition<br />
|- <br />
| Level 1<br />
| Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity<br />
|- <br />
| Level 2<br />
| Non-penetrative sexual activity between children, or solo masturbation by a child<br />
|- <br />
| Level 3<br />
| Non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children<br />
|- <br />
| Level 4<br />
| Penetrative sexual activity involving a child or children, or both children and adults<br />
|- <br />
| Level 5<br />
| Sadism or penetration of, or by, an animal<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
Judges use the following guidelines when sentencing someone who has been convicted under the <i>Protection of Children Act</i>:<br />
<br/><br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
| Starting points<br />
| Type/nature of activity<br />
| Sentencing ranges<br />
|- <br />
| Community order<br />
| Possession of a large amount of level 1 material and/or no more than a small amount of level 2, and the material is for personal use and has not been distributed or shown to others<br />
| An appropriate non-custodial sentence<br />
|- <br />
| 12 weeks custody<br />
| Offender in possession of a large amount of material at level 2 or a small amount at level 3<br />
<br />
Offender has shown or distributed material at level 1 or 2 on a limited scale <br />
<br />
Offender has exchanged images at level 1 or 2 with other collectors, but with no element of financial gain<br />
| 4 weeks-26 weeks custody<br />
|- <br />
| 26 weeks custody<br />
| Offender in possession of a large amount of material at level 2 or a small amount at level 3<br />
Offender has shown or distributed material at level 1 or 2 on a limited scale. <br />
<br />
Offender has exchanged images at level 1 or 2 with other collectors, but with no element of financial gain<br />
| 4 weeks–18 months custody <br />
|- <br />
| 12 months custody<br />
| Possession of a large quantity of level 4 or 5 material for personal use only<br />
<br />
Large number of level 3 images shown or distributed<br />
| 26 weeks-2 years custody<br />
<br />
|- <br />
| 2 years custody<br />
| Offender involved in the production of, or has traded in, material at levels 1–3<br />
| 1-4 years custody<br />
|- <br />
| 3 years custody<br />
| Level 4 or 5 images shown or distributed<br />
| 2-5 years custody<br />
|-<br />
| 6 years custody<br />
| Offender commissioned or encouraged the production of level 4 or 5 images<br />
<br />
Offender involved in the production of level 4 or 5 images<br />
<br />
| 4-9 years custody<br />
<br />
|}[http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/82083-COI-SCG_final.pdf]<br />
<br />
<br />
Images which are below the threshhold for Level 1 - but which are judged to be indecent by a jury - will be treated as Level 1 images during sentencing; therefore a naturist image with no erotic posing will be treated as a Level 1 indecent image of a child, if judged to be indecent.<br />
<br />
<br />
A person who is convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act is also likely to be banned from working with children in the United Kingdom, and ordered to sign the Sex Offenders Register.<br />
<br />
==Important Notes==<br />
<br />
*Any image may <i>technically</i> be indecent under UK law. <br />
*Even if an image has been declared as decent by one jury, it may be still be declared indecent by another jury. <br />
*Despite precedents stating that the context of an image does not affect indecency, a jury may be more likely to rule that an image is indecent if they believe that the defendant is attracted to children.<br />
*Previous interpretations of the indecency suggest that "indecency" has a lower threshhold than "pornography", so what is "indecent" (and therefore illegal) is not necessarily "pornographic".<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Child Pornography]]<br />
* [[Child Pornography (Law)]]<br />
* [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act]]<br />
* [[Legal Information]]<br />
* [[Sexual Offences Act (2003)]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Censorship]] [[Category:Law]] [[Category:United Kingdom Law]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Indecent_images_of_children&diff=687Indecent images of children2008-06-24T12:12:57Z<p>Brian: /* Sentencing */ update</p>
<hr />
<div>An indecent image of a child is a photograph or pseudo-photograph (including one comprised in a film) which shows a child and is indecent. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
==Definition of a photograph==<br />
<br />
In <i>R v Fellows & Arnold</i> (1994), the appealant contended that an image stored electronically could not constitute an indecent photograph of a child under section 7 of the Protection of Children Act. <br />
<br />
It was ruled that an electronically stored image was a "copy of an indecent photograph of a child". The court stated that "there is no restriction on the nature of a copy, [and a copy of a photograph is data which] represents the original photograph, in another form". It was also stated that "there is nothing in the Act which makes it necessary that [a] copy should itself be a photograph within the dictionary or the statutory definition, and if there was, it would make the inclusion of the reference to a copy unnecessary. So we conclude that there is no restriction on the nature of a copy [..]" [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1996/825.html]<br />
<br />
According to section 7 of the Protection of Children Act, references to a photograph are "the negative as well as the positive version; and data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into a photograph." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&activetextdocid=1502066]<br />
<br />
So, an image stored electronically is a copy of a photograph and is illegal if it is indecent and shows a child.<br />
<br />
==Definition of a pseudo-photograph==<br />
<br />
A pseudo-photograph is an image which has the appearance of a photograph, but which is not a photograph. A pseudo-photograph of a child does not necessarily show a <i>real</i> child.<br />
<br />
==Defintion of a child==<br />
<br />
A child was originally defined as a person under the age of 16, however the [[Sexual Offences Act (2003)]] raised the defintion of "child" to a person under the age of 18.<br />
<br />
==Indecency==<br />
<br />
The decency of an image is an objective test; that is, it is decided by the jury. Indecency is considered to be a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_of_fact question of fact].<br />
<br />
===Interpretation===<br />
<br />
In order to judge whether an image is indecent, the jury must "apply[..] the recognised standards of propriety." (''R v Graham-Kerr'', 1988) [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/grahamKerr.html].<br />
<br />
In 2003, the Sentencing Advisory Panel provided guidance for Judges considering sentences for people convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act. The lowest level of indecency was described as "images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity", which would suggest that naturist images without posing are not indecent. Despite this, a number of people have been convicted of an offence for making and possessing naturist images. In 2003, Tom O'Carroll was convicted of "evading the prohibition on the importation of indecent material", for importing photographs of "young naked child[ren] engaging in normal outdoor activity such as playing on a beach". One should never assume that an image must be pornographic for it to be indecent.<br />
<br />
Put simply, a photograph or pseudo-photograph is judged to be indecent if the jury believes that it would offend the majority of the population of the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
===Context===<br />
<br />
In R v Graham-Kerr, the defendant had taken (naked) photographs of a male child during a naturists-only event at a swimming pool. The Police interviewed the defendant about his intentions in taking the photographs, and he admitted that he received "'sexual gratification by taking or looking at such photographs". The Judge stated that the jury were entitled to take into account the circumstances, motives, and sexual intentions of the take. <br />
<br />
At the appeal against conviction, the Judge ruled that "''the circumstances and the motivation of the taker may be relevant to the mens rea of the take as to whether his taking was intentional or accidental and so on, but it is not relevant to whether or not the photograph is in itself indecent''". The conviction was quashed. [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/grahamKerr.html]<br />
<br />
In ''R v Mould'' (2000), the Appeal Court ruled that "Mr Burton [representing Mr Mould] was rightly concerned that the jury, in deciding whether or not the photograph was indecent, would wrongly take into account [data showing access to paedophile discussion forums]." Although it was agreed that the jury should not use such information to make a judgment regarding the decency of the image for which Mr Mould was convicted, it was understood that "the prosecution [successfully] sought to rely on it in order to prove that the appellant had deliberately created the .bmp file." [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/mould2000.html] <br />
<br />
While a defendant's proven sexual attraction to children should not affect indecency, it may affect the perceived ''mens rea'' of an act.<br />
<br />
==Criminal offences==<br />
<br />
Under the (amended) Protection of Children Act, it is an offence for a person:<br />
<br />
<br />
:* to take, or permit to be taken, or to make any indecent photograph of a child . . .; or<br />
:* to distribute or show such indecent photographs; or<br />
:* to have in his possession such indecent photographs [outdated text removed]; or<br />
:* to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs, or intends to do so. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
Under the Sexual Offences Act (2003), it is an offence to cause, control, arrange or facilitate a child's involvement in pornography. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820967][http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820968][http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820969]<br />
<br />
It is an offence to "attempt to incite" any criminal offence in the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
===The "making" offence===<br />
<br />
Causing an indecent photograph of a child to exist on a computer screen is considered to be "making an indecent photograph of a child".<br />
<br />
"A person who either downloads images on to disc or who prints them off is making them. The Act is not only concerned with the original creation of images, but also their proliferation. Photographs or pseudo-photographs found on the Internet may have originated from outside the United Kingdom; to download or print within the jurisdiction is to create new material which hitherto may not have existed therein." (R v Bowden) [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/bowden1999.html]<br />
<br />
===Offences committed abroad===<br />
<br />
Any act done by a person (who was on 1st September 1997, or has since become, a British citizen or resident in the United Kingdom) in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom which—<br />
<br />
:: (a) constituted an offence under the law in force in that country or territory, and<br />
<br />
:: (b) would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies if it had been done in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland,<br />
<br />
constitutes that sexual offence under the law of that part of the United Kingdom. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820998]<br />
<br />
This means that one may be prosecuted under the Protection of Children Act (as amended by the Sexual Offences Act) if he commits a child sex offence in a foreign territory (under that territory's laws), which would also have constituted an offence if it were done in England, Wales, or Northern Ireland.<br />
<br />
The [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act]] will amend the relevant section of the Sexual Offences Act. The Act provides that:<br />
<br />
(1) If—<br />
<br />
::(a) a United Kingdom national does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom, and<br />
<br />
::(b) the act, if done in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies,<br />
<br />
the United Kingdom national is guilty in that part of the United Kingdom of that sexual offence.<br />
<br />
<br />
(2) If—<br />
<br />
::(a) a United Kingdom resident does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom,<br />
<br />
::(b) the act constitutes an offence under the law in force in that country, and<br />
<br />
::(c) the act, if done in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies,<br />
<br />
the United Kingdom resident is guilty in that part of the United Kingdom of that sexual offence. [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/041/08041.50-56.html#jNC35]<br />
<br />
This means that a United Kingdom national may be prosecuted under the Protection of Children Act (as amended by the Sexual Offences Act) if he engages in activity contrary to the Protection of Children Act while in a foreign territory. A United Kingdom resident who engages in an act contrary to the Protection of Children Act while outside of the United Kingdom may be prosecuted if the act also constituted an offence in the foreign jurisdiction.<br />
<br />
==Defences==<br />
<br />
There are a small number of defences against charges under the Protection of Children Act. Below is a list of defences set by the statutes, precedents and case law.<br />
<br />
===Marriage and other relationships===<br />
<br />
In cases where a defendant has taken or made a photographic image of a child over the age of 16, the defendant is not guilty if, at the time when he obtained the photograph, he and the child:<br />
<br />
:: (a) were married; or<br />
<br />
:: (b) lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship; and <br />
<br />
:: (c) the defendant reasonably believed that the child consented to the image being obtained. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820963]<br />
<br />
This exemption was introduced in 2003 under the Sexual Offences Act, which had changed the statutory definition of "child" (in the Protection of Children Act) from 16 to 18.<br />
<br />
===Mens Rea===<br />
<br />
The Criminal Justice Act provides that: <br />
<br />
"Where a person is charged with an offence of possession, it shall be a defence for him to prove –<br />
<br />
:: (a) that he had a legitimate reason for having the photograph or pseudo-photograph in his possession; or<br />
<br />
:: (b) that he had not himself seen the photograph or pseudo- photograph and did not know nor had any cause to suspect, it to be indecent; or<br />
<br />
:: (c) that the photograph or pseudo-photograph was sent to him without any prior request made by him or on his behalf and that he did not keep it for any unreasonable time." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=2116646&ActiveTextDocId=2116851]<br />
<br />
The same defences may be applied to the other offences under Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act.<br />
<br />
It is also a defence for the defendant to prove that he did not take, make, distribute, show or possess an image which the knowledge that the image was, or was likely to be:<br />
<br />
::* an indecent image; and<br />
::* an image of a child.<br />
<br />
This was upheld in R v Smith & Jayson, when the judge ruled that, "the mens rea necessary to constitute the offence [of making an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child] is that the act of making should be a deliberate and intentional act with knowledge that the image made is, or is likely to be, an indecent image of a child" ''(R v Smith & Jayson, 2003)''. [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/smithJayson2003.html]<br />
<br />
A defendant must be proven (beyond reasonable doubt) to be aware that a cache of images exists, in order to be convicted for the possession offence. It should be noted that, in such cases, the defendant will still be convicted of the making offence, unless another defence applies.<br />
<br />
===Collages===<br />
<br />
Lord Justice Simon Brown ruled that "an image made by an exhibit which obviously consists, as this one does, of parts of two different photographs sellotaped together cannot be said to appear to be "a photograph" [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/302.html]. This means that, if a collage does not appear to be parts of a single photograph, it does not fall within the scope of the Protection of Children Act. A photocopy or scan of a collage may fall under the Act and could therefore be illegal if it shows a child and is judged to be indecent.<br />
<br />
===Law enforcement===<br />
<br />
It is a defence for the defendant to prove that images were made "for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings"<br />
<br />
===Human Rights Act===<br />
<br />
The [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm Human Rights Act] offers two potential defences against possession and "making" charges under the ''Protection of Children Act'', however the following Articles have ''not'' been tested in court in relation to such charges.<br />
<br />
Section 3 of the Act dictates that:<br />
<br />
:"(1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.<br />
<br />
::::(2) This section—<br />
<br />
::::::(a) applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted;<br />
<br />
::::::(b) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation; and<br />
<br />
::::::(c) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible subordinate legislation if disregarding any possibility of revocation) primary legislation prevents removal of the incompatibility."<br />
<br />
The relevant convention articles are ''Article 13'' and ''Article 14''.<br />
<br />
'''Article 13:'''<br />
<br />
:"(4) The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to—<br />
<br />
::::(a) the extent to which—<br />
::::::(i) the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or<br />
::::::(ii) it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published"<br />
<br />
It is well known that nude images of children have been used, controversially, in artistic exhibitions, which implies that some people see an artistic element in nude images of children. Cases involving art galleries have never resulted in prosecution, but cases involving the downloading of questionable material from the internet do lead to prosecution. A defendant may argue that images which are on the public internet (world wide web) could be defined as having "become available to the public." Indeed, the judge of the case of ''Knuller v. DPP'' stated that "in public" [..] has a wide meaning." It appears to "cover exhibitions in all places to which the public have access either as of right or gratis or on payment."<br />
<br />
'''Article 14:'''<br />
<br />
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."<br />
<br />
==Sentencing==<br />
<br />
The sentencing guidelines for offences committed contrary to the Protection of Children Act were decided by the Sentencing Advisory Panel, to assist with sentencing during ''R v Oliver et al''<br />
<br />
The levels of indecency are as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
{| border="1" <br />
| Level<br />
| Definition<br />
|- <br />
| Level 1<br />
| Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity<br />
|- <br />
| Level 2<br />
| Non-penetrative sexual activity between children, or solo masturbation by a child<br />
|- <br />
| Level 3<br />
| Non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children<br />
|- <br />
| Level 4<br />
| Penetrative sexual activity involving a child or children, or both children and adults<br />
|- <br />
| Level 5<br />
| Sadism or penetration of, or by, an animal<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
Judges use the following guidelines when sentencing someone who has been convicted under the <i>Protection of Children Act</i>:<br />
<br/><br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
| Type/nature of activity<br />
| Starting points<br />
| Sentencing ranges<br />
|- <br />
| Community order<br />
| Possession of a large amount of level 1 material and/or no more than a small amount of level 2, and the material is for personal use and has not been distributed or shown to others<br />
| An appropriate non-custodial sentence<br />
|- <br />
| 12 weeks custody<br />
| Offender in possession of a large amount of material at level 2 or a small amount at level 3<br />
<br />
Offender has shown or distributed material at level 1 or 2 on a limited scale <br />
<br />
Offender has exchanged images at level 1 or 2 with other collectors, but with no element of financial gain<br />
| 4 weeks-26 weeks custody<br />
|- <br />
| 26 weeks custody<br />
| Offender in possession of a large amount of material at level 2 or a small amount at level 3<br />
Offender has shown or distributed material at level 1 or 2 on a limited scale. <br />
<br />
Offender has exchanged images at level 1 or 2 with other collectors, but with no element of financial gain<br />
| 4 weeks–18 months custody <br />
|- <br />
| 12 months custody<br />
| Possession of a large quantity of level 4 or 5 material for personal use only<br />
<br />
Large number of level 3 images shown or distributed<br />
| 26 weeks-2 years custody<br />
<br />
|- <br />
| 2 years custody<br />
| Offender involved in the production of, or has traded in, material at levels 1–3<br />
| 1-4 years custody<br />
|- <br />
| 3 years custody<br />
| Level 4 or 5 images shown or distributed<br />
| 2-5 years custody<br />
|-<br />
| 6 years custody<br />
| Offender commissioned or encouraged the production of level 4 or 5 images<br />
<br />
Offender involved in the production of level 4 or 5 images<br />
<br />
| 4-9 years custody<br />
<br />
|}[http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/82083-COI-SCG_final.pdf]<br />
<br />
<br />
Images which are below the threshhold for Level 1 - but which are judged to be indecent by a jury - will be treated as Level 1 images during sentencing; therefore a naturist image with no erotic posing will be treated as a Level 1 indecent image of a child, if judged to be indecent.<br />
<br />
<br />
A person who is convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act is also likely to be banned from working with children in the United Kingdom, and ordered to sign the Sex Offenders Register.<br />
<br />
==Important Notes==<br />
<br />
*Any image may <i>technically</i> be indecent under UK law. <br />
*Even if an image has been declared as decent by one jury, it may be still be declared indecent by another jury. <br />
*Despite precedents stating that the context of an image does not affect indecency, a jury may be more likely to rule that an image is indecent if they believe that the defendant is attracted to children.<br />
*Previous interpretations of the indecency suggest that "indecency" has a lower threshhold than "pornography", so what is "indecent" (and therefore illegal) is not necessarily "pornographic".<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Child Pornography]]<br />
* [[Child Pornography (Law)]]<br />
* [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act]]<br />
* [[Legal Information]]<br />
* [[Sexual Offences Act (2003)]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Censorship]] [[Category:Law]] [[Category:United Kingdom Law]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Research:_Child_Pornography&diff=581Research: Child Pornography2008-05-22T18:32:49Z<p>Brian: </p>
<hr />
<div>:''For legal implications, see [[Child Pornography (Law)]]''<br />
"Child pornography" has no agreed definition. Legally, it refers to media featuring minors in sexual situations.<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
==The Effects of Child Pornography==<br />
The criminalization of child pornography is, in part, justified by the assumption that it will cause paedophiles to abuse children. No conclusive evidence substantiates this assumption. On the contrary, child pornography appears to have a cathartic effect:<br />
<br />
*'''[[Thomas O'Carroll|O'Carroll, Tom]] (2000). "[http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/tomoc/sexpriv_backgr_text.htm Sexual Privacy for Paedophiles and Children: A Complementary Background Paper.]"'''<br />
*:"Such an effect has been proposed in relation to Denmark during the few years when child pornography was openly and legally available: in that period sex offences against children were significantly lower than either before or after. (5) A similar phenomenon occurred during a period of liberalisation in West Germany, where from 1972 to 1980 the total number of sex crimes known to the police in the Federal Republic of Germany decreased by 11%. (6) Sharpe himself, whose possession of pornography was in contention, made the astute point in an interview that if child pornography led to sexual assaults, then there would have been a huge increase in assaults as a result of the allegedly much greater availability of child porn on the Internet. (7)"<br />
<br />
*'''Dr. Stuart Kirby (2005)'''. "[http://www.lifestyleextra.com/ShowStory.asp?story=HF1520736Z&news_headline=no_link_between_child_porn_and_sexual_abuse Unidentified Study: No link between child porn and sexual abuse.]"'''<br />
*:"When you look at all the research that has been done nationally, the consensus is that there has not proven to be a link between the viewing of pornography and the committing of hands-on offences."<br />
<br />
*'''Dennis Howitt (1995)'''. "[http://www.ipce.info/host/howitt/6a.htm Paedophiles and Sexual Offences against Children.]"'''<br />
*:"One cannot simply take evidence that offenders use and buy pornography as sufficient to implicate pornography causally in their offending. The most reasonable assessment based on the available research literature is that the relationship between pornography, fantasy and offending is unclear."<br />
<br />
*'''Diamond, Milton, and Ayako Uchiyama (1999). "[http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html Pornography, rape, and sex crimes in Japan]", ''International Journal of Law and Psychiatry'', 22: 1-22.'''<br />
*:"However, there are no specific child pornography laws in Japan and SEM depicting minors are readily available and widely consumed. [...] The most dramatic decrease in sex crimes was seen when attention was focused on the number and age of rapists and victims among younger groups (Table 2). We hypothesized that the increase in pornography [in general], without age restriction and in comics, if it had any detrimental effect, would most negatively influence younger individuals. Just the opposite occurred. The number of juvenile offenders dramatically dropped every period reviewed from 1,803 perpetrators in 1972 to a low of 264 in 1995; a drop of some 85% (Table 1). The number of victims also decreased particularly among the females younger than 13 (Table 2). In 1972, 8.3% of the victims were younger than 13. In 1995 the percentage of victims younger than 13 years of age dropped to 4.0%."<br />
<br />
*'''Kendall, Todd (2006). "[http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdfPornography, Rape, and the Internet]."'''<br />
*:This study found that "an increase in home internet access of 10 percentage points is associated with an 7.3% decline in [forcible] rape" of females of all ages as a group. [http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/ Slate Magazine] reported on this.<br />
<br />
==The Nature of Child Pornography==<br />
<br />
*'''Jan Schuijer and Benjamin Rossen (1992) "[http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_2_1.htm The Trade in Child Pornography.]"'''<br />
*:"We have called the claims about child pornography "myths." The existence of child pornography is certainly not. The myths are the exaggerated estimates of the number of children, the volume and value of the trade, the profits that are alleged to have been made, and the horrifying damage said to have been done to the children."<br />
<br />
:*'''[[Thomas O'Carroll|O'Carroll, Tom]] (2000). "[http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/tomoc/sexpriv_backgr_text.htm Sexual Privacy for Paedophiles and Children: A Complementary Background Paper.]"'''<br />
:::"A survey of images in commercial child porn magazines that were available in the 1970s and early 80s by Schuijer and Rossen shows that only 14% depicted children engaged in sexual conduct with adults. Most of the material, 61%, showed children either nude at play or posing erotically. (8)"<br />
<br />
*'''www.almapintada.com: Child Pornography Statistics 1984-2000'''<br />
*:"Less than an average of ten new series per year have been circulated on the internet since 1984. Only 14 of these series include children engaged in sexual intercourse, 32 in non-penetrative genital contact and 39 in fellatio. Most of these series include genital display only."<br />
<br />
*'''Kenneth Lanning (1992). "[http://www.religioustolerance.org/fbi_02.htm Investigator's Guide to Allegations of "Ritual" Child Abuse, Chapter 2.1: "Stranger Danger."] Quantico, VA: Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime.<br />
*:"Child victims who, for example, simply behave like human beings and respond to the attention and affection of offenders by voluntarily and repeatedly returning to the offender's home are troubling. It confuses us to see the victims in child pornography giggling or laughing."<br />
<br />
*'''Ian O'Donnel & Claire Milner (2007) "Child Pornography; Crime, computers and society". p123.''' [ Paraphrased by [[User:Brian|Brian Ribbon]] ]<br />
<br />
:"A recent study in Ireland, undertaken by Garda, revealed the most serious content in a sample of over 100 cases involving indecent images of children. In 44% of cases, the most serious images depicted nudity or erotic posing, in 7% they depicted sexual activity between children, in 7% they depicted non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children, in 37% they depicted penetrative sexual activity between adults and children, and in 5% they depicted sadism or bestiality."<br />
<br />
*'''Brian Ribbon (2008). [http://www.boychat.org/messages/1123851.htm How can anyone believe these claims?]. Boychat.org'''<br />
<br />
:"I could only find a small number of websites (less than 20) which contained material which would be illegal if viewed in my home jurisdiction, despite the fact that my home jurisdiction prohibits simple nudity. It is clear that there are not 150,000 child pornography websites. The websites which did depict material which would be illegal if viewed in my home jurisdiction were much tamer than government-funded organisations claim. Over 99% of the images which would be illegal in the USA/UK/Australia showed no sexual contact."<br />
<br />
==A Billion-Dollar Industry?==<br />
<br />
*'''Brian Rothery: "[http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=319 Every image of a child being abused]"'''<br />
*:"By now, many journalists and activists concerned with how the police deal with the child pornography laws are aware that the American police and some related agencies are the main, and likely the sole, dealers in and publishers of images of child pornography, using them for entrapment purposes."<br />
<br />
*'''Rosen, Jeffrey (2005). "The Internet Has Made Government Action Against Child Pornography Untenable," in ''Opposing Viewpoints: Mass Media''. Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press.'''<br />
*:Child pornography is often alleged to be a 20 billion dollar industry. If this is true, that would put it at twice the size of the adult porn industry: "But today, as Frank Rich reported in The New York Times Magazine last May [2002] the porn industry—much of it hard-core—generates at least $10 billion per year in revenues for more than 70,000 websites, porn networks, pay-per-view and rental movies [700 million porn rentals per year], cable and satellite television, and magazine publishers."<br />
<br />
*'''Ian O'Donnel & Claire Milner (2007) "Child Pornography; Crime, computers and society". p54.'''<br />
*:"Because there is no way of estimating the amount of child pornography that was in circulation prior to the advent of the internet, it is possible that the quantity has not increased but has simply become more available and more copied."<br />
<br />
==Impact on Child Models==<br />
<br />
Very little research has been done into the direct effect of modeling on children.<br />
<br />
*'''Jan Schuijer and Benjamin Rossen (1992). "[http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_2_1_5.htm Interviews with Three Boys."]<br />
*:"Despite the attempt to obtain a balanced description of the events, a remarkably black and white picture emerged. The boys described their friendship and feelings for Ferdinand in glowing terms. On the other hand the attitude towards the police is unequivocally negative."<br />
<br />
*'''Ian O'Donnell and Claire Milner (2007). "Child Pornography: Crime, computers and society". Willan Publishing, p229.'''<br />
*:"While we might feel uneasy about an individual who took sexual pleasure from photographs of children playing on beaches, it is clearly the case that such photographs are not based on an underlying act of abuse".<br />
<br />
==Impact on "non-appreciative" Adults==<br />
<br />
It is often claimed anecdotally that officers investigating high volumes of child porn suffer from "burn out" or may have to enter counseling.<br />
<br />
*'''Inquisition 21 (2008). "[http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=331 From inside the police force."]<br />
*:"We have a report from a police insider about how many of his colleagues actually reacted to both adult and child pornography [...] He received his first, much of it shocking to him, initiation into the world of pornography from his older police colleagues who ‘sickened him with their canteen culture’. They pushed the first ever hard core magazines he had seen right in front of his face, as he put it, “Gloating over them.” [...] Only as the number of women in the force increased, especially in senior ranks, did the macho culture of open pornographic display decrease and become more covert. [...] These men were now being paid to study child pornography and soon he could hear them tell the media about fatigue and burn-out concerning images they had formerly gloated over."</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Research:_Child_Pornography&diff=580Research: Child Pornography2008-05-22T18:17:26Z<p>Brian: /* The Nature of Child Pornography */ formatting</p>
<hr />
<div>:''For legal implications, see [[Child Pornography (Law)]]''<br />
"Child pornography" has no agreed definition. Legally, it refers to media featuring minors in sexual situations.<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
==The Effects of Child Pornography==<br />
The criminalization of child pornography is, in part, justified by the assumption that it will cause paedophiles to abuse children. No conclusive evidence substantiates this assumption. On the contrary, child pornography appears to have a cathartic effect:<br />
<br />
*'''[[Thomas O'Carroll|O'Carroll, Tom]] (2000). "[http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/tomoc/sexpriv_backgr_text.htm Sexual Privacy for Paedophiles and Children: A Complementary Background Paper.]"'''<br />
*:"Such an effect has been proposed in relation to Denmark during the few years when child pornography was openly and legally available: in that period sex offences against children were significantly lower than either before or after. (5) A similar phenomenon occurred during a period of liberalisation in West Germany, where from 1972 to 1980 the total number of sex crimes known to the police in the Federal Republic of Germany decreased by 11%. (6) Sharpe himself, whose possession of pornography was in contention, made the astute point in an interview that if child pornography led to sexual assaults, then there would have been a huge increase in assaults as a result of the allegedly much greater availability of child porn on the Internet. (7)"<br />
<br />
*'''Dr. Stuart Kirby (2005)'''. "[http://www.lifestyleextra.com/ShowStory.asp?story=HF1520736Z&news_headline=no_link_between_child_porn_and_sexual_abuse Unidentified Study: No link between child porn and sexual abuse.]"'''<br />
*:"When you look at all the research that has been done nationally, the consensus is that there has not proven to be a link between the viewing of pornography and the committing of hands-on offences."<br />
<br />
*'''Dennis Howitt (1995)'''. "[http://www.ipce.info/host/howitt/6a.htm Paedophiles and Sexual Offences against Children.]"'''<br />
*:"One cannot simply take evidence that offenders use and buy pornography as sufficient to implicate pornography causally in their offending. The most reasonable assessment based on the available research literature is that the relationship between pornography, fantasy and offending is unclear."<br />
<br />
*'''Diamond, Milton, and Ayako Uchiyama (1999). "[http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html Pornography, rape, and sex crimes in Japan]", ''International Journal of Law and Psychiatry'', 22: 1-22.'''<br />
*:"However, there are no specific child pornography laws in Japan and SEM depicting minors are readily available and widely consumed. [...] The most dramatic decrease in sex crimes was seen when attention was focused on the number and age of rapists and victims among younger groups (Table 2). We hypothesized that the increase in pornography [in general], without age restriction and in comics, if it had any detrimental effect, would most negatively influence younger individuals. Just the opposite occurred. The number of juvenile offenders dramatically dropped every period reviewed from 1,803 perpetrators in 1972 to a low of 264 in 1995; a drop of some 85% (Table 1). The number of victims also decreased particularly among the females younger than 13 (Table 2). In 1972, 8.3% of the victims were younger than 13. In 1995 the percentage of victims younger than 13 years of age dropped to 4.0%."<br />
<br />
*'''Kendall, Todd (2006). "[http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdfPornography, Rape, and the Internet]."'''<br />
*:This study found that "an increase in home internet access of 10 percentage points is associated with an 7.3% decline in [forcible] rape" of females of all ages as a group. [http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/ Slate Magazine] reported on this.<br />
<br />
==The Nature of Child Pornography==<br />
<br />
*'''Jan Schuijer and Benjamin Rossen (1992) "[http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_2_1.htm The Trade in Child Pornography.]"'''<br />
*:"We have called the claims about child pornography "myths." The existence of child pornography is certainly not. The myths are the exaggerated estimates of the number of children, the volume and value of the trade, the profits that are alleged to have been made, and the horrifying damage said to have been done to the children."<br />
<br />
:*'''[[Thomas O'Carroll|O'Carroll, Tom]] (2000). "[http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/tomoc/sexpriv_backgr_text.htm Sexual Privacy for Paedophiles and Children: A Complementary Background Paper.]"'''<br />
:::"A survey of images in commercial child porn magazines that were available in the 1970s and early 80s by Schuijer and Rossen shows that only 14% depicted children engaged in sexual conduct with adults. Most of the material, 61%, showed children either nude at play or posing erotically. (8)"<br />
<br />
*'''www.almapintada.com: Child Pornography Statistics 1984-2000'''<br />
*:"Less than an average of ten new series per year have been circulated on the internet since 1984. Only 14 of these series include children engaged in sexual intercourse, 32 in non-penetrative genital contact and 39 in fellatio. Most of these series include genital display only."<br />
<br />
*'''Kenneth Lanning (1992). "[http://www.religioustolerance.org/fbi_02.htm Investigator's Guide to Allegations of "Ritual" Child Abuse, Chapter 2.1: "Stranger Danger."] Quantico, VA: Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime.<br />
*:"Child victims who, for example, simply behave like human beings and respond to the attention and affection of offenders by voluntarily and repeatedly returning to the offender's home are troubling. It confuses us to see the victims in child pornography giggling or laughing."<br />
<br />
*'''Ian O'Donnel & Claire Milner (2007) "Child Pornography; Crime, computers and society". p123.''' [ Paraphrased by [[User:Brian|Brian Ribbon]] ]<br />
<br />
:"A recent study in Ireland, undertaken by Garda, revealed the most serious content in a sample of over 100 cases involving indecent images of children. In 44% of cases, the most serious images depicted nudity or erotic posing, in 7% they depicted sexual activity between children, in 7% they depicted non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children, in 37% they depicted penetrative sexual activity between adults and children, and in 5% they depicted sadism or bestiality."<br />
<br />
*'''Brian Ribbon (2008). [http://www.boychat.org/messages/1123851.htm How can anyone believe these claims?]. Boychat.org'''<br />
<br />
:"I could only find a small number of websites (less than 20) which contained material which would be illegal if viewed in my home jurisdiction, despite the fact that my home jurisdiction prohibits simple nudity. It is clear that there are not 150,000 child pornography websites. The websites which did depict material which would be illegal if viewed in my home jurisdiction were much tamer than government-funded organisations claim. Over 99% of the images which would be illegal in the USA/UK/Australia showed no sexual contact."<br />
<br />
==A Billion-Dollar Industry?==<br />
<br />
*'''Brian Rothery: "[http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=319 Every image of a child being abused]"'''<br />
*:"By now, many journalists and activists concerned with how the police deal with the child pornography laws are aware that the American police and some related agencies are the main, and likely the sole, dealers in and publishers of images of child pornography, using them for entrapment purposes."<br />
<br />
*'''Rosen, Jeffrey (2005). "The Internet Has Made Government Action Against Child Pornography Untenable," in ''Opposing Viewpoints: Mass Media''. Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press.'''<br />
*:Child pornography is often alleged to be a 20 billion dollar industry. If this is true, that would put it at twice the size of the adult porn industry: "But today, as Frank Rich reported in The New York Times Magazine last May [2002] the porn industry—much of it hard-core—generates at least $10 billion per year in revenues for more than 70,000 websites, porn networks, pay-per-view and rental movies [700 million porn rentals per year], cable and satellite television, and magazine publishers."<br />
<br />
==Impact on Child Models==<br />
<br />
Very little research has been done into the direct effect of modeling on children.<br />
<br />
*'''Jan Schuijer and Benjamin Rossen (1992). "[http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_2_1_5.htm Interviews with Three Boys."]<br />
*:"Despite the attempt to obtain a balanced description of the events, a remarkably black and white picture emerged. The boys described their friendship and feelings for Ferdinand in glowing terms. On the other hand the attitude towards the police is unequivocally negative."<br />
<br />
*'''Ian O'Donnell and Claire Milner (2007). "Child Pornography: Crime, computers and society". Willan Publishing, p229.'''<br />
*:"While we might feel uneasy about an individual who took sexual pleasure from photographs of children playing on beaches, it is clearly the case that such photographs are not based on an underlying act of abuse".<br />
<br />
==Impact on "non-appreciative" Adults==<br />
<br />
It is often claimed anecdotally that officers investigating high volumes of child porn suffer from "burn out" or may have to enter counseling.<br />
<br />
*'''Inquisition 21 (2008). "[http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=331 From inside the police force."]<br />
*:"We have a report from a police insider about how many of his colleagues actually reacted to both adult and child pornography [...] He received his first, much of it shocking to him, initiation into the world of pornography from his older police colleagues who ‘sickened him with their canteen culture’. They pushed the first ever hard core magazines he had seen right in front of his face, as he put it, “Gloating over them.” [...] Only as the number of women in the force increased, especially in senior ranks, did the macho culture of open pornographic display decrease and become more covert. [...] These men were now being paid to study child pornography and soon he could hear them tell the media about fatigue and burn-out concerning images they had formerly gloated over."</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Research:_Child_Pornography&diff=579Research: Child Pornography2008-05-22T18:16:14Z<p>Brian: /* The Nature of Child Pornography */ I hope it's okay to add text written by myself</p>
<hr />
<div>:''For legal implications, see [[Child Pornography (Law)]]''<br />
"Child pornography" has no agreed definition. Legally, it refers to media featuring minors in sexual situations.<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
==The Effects of Child Pornography==<br />
The criminalization of child pornography is, in part, justified by the assumption that it will cause paedophiles to abuse children. No conclusive evidence substantiates this assumption. On the contrary, child pornography appears to have a cathartic effect:<br />
<br />
*'''[[Thomas O'Carroll|O'Carroll, Tom]] (2000). "[http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/tomoc/sexpriv_backgr_text.htm Sexual Privacy for Paedophiles and Children: A Complementary Background Paper.]"'''<br />
*:"Such an effect has been proposed in relation to Denmark during the few years when child pornography was openly and legally available: in that period sex offences against children were significantly lower than either before or after. (5) A similar phenomenon occurred during a period of liberalisation in West Germany, where from 1972 to 1980 the total number of sex crimes known to the police in the Federal Republic of Germany decreased by 11%. (6) Sharpe himself, whose possession of pornography was in contention, made the astute point in an interview that if child pornography led to sexual assaults, then there would have been a huge increase in assaults as a result of the allegedly much greater availability of child porn on the Internet. (7)"<br />
<br />
*'''Dr. Stuart Kirby (2005)'''. "[http://www.lifestyleextra.com/ShowStory.asp?story=HF1520736Z&news_headline=no_link_between_child_porn_and_sexual_abuse Unidentified Study: No link between child porn and sexual abuse.]"'''<br />
*:"When you look at all the research that has been done nationally, the consensus is that there has not proven to be a link between the viewing of pornography and the committing of hands-on offences."<br />
<br />
*'''Dennis Howitt (1995)'''. "[http://www.ipce.info/host/howitt/6a.htm Paedophiles and Sexual Offences against Children.]"'''<br />
*:"One cannot simply take evidence that offenders use and buy pornography as sufficient to implicate pornography causally in their offending. The most reasonable assessment based on the available research literature is that the relationship between pornography, fantasy and offending is unclear."<br />
<br />
*'''Diamond, Milton, and Ayako Uchiyama (1999). "[http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html Pornography, rape, and sex crimes in Japan]", ''International Journal of Law and Psychiatry'', 22: 1-22.'''<br />
*:"However, there are no specific child pornography laws in Japan and SEM depicting minors are readily available and widely consumed. [...] The most dramatic decrease in sex crimes was seen when attention was focused on the number and age of rapists and victims among younger groups (Table 2). We hypothesized that the increase in pornography [in general], without age restriction and in comics, if it had any detrimental effect, would most negatively influence younger individuals. Just the opposite occurred. The number of juvenile offenders dramatically dropped every period reviewed from 1,803 perpetrators in 1972 to a low of 264 in 1995; a drop of some 85% (Table 1). The number of victims also decreased particularly among the females younger than 13 (Table 2). In 1972, 8.3% of the victims were younger than 13. In 1995 the percentage of victims younger than 13 years of age dropped to 4.0%."<br />
<br />
*'''Kendall, Todd (2006). "[http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdfPornography, Rape, and the Internet]."'''<br />
*:This study found that "an increase in home internet access of 10 percentage points is associated with an 7.3% decline in [forcible] rape" of females of all ages as a group. [http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/ Slate Magazine] reported on this.<br />
<br />
==The Nature of Child Pornography==<br />
<br />
*'''Jan Schuijer and Benjamin Rossen (1992) "[http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_2_1.htm The Trade in Child Pornography.]"'''<br />
*:"We have called the claims about child pornography "myths." The existence of child pornography is certainly not. The myths are the exaggerated estimates of the number of children, the volume and value of the trade, the profits that are alleged to have been made, and the horrifying damage said to have been done to the children."<br />
<br />
:*'''[[Thomas O'Carroll|O'Carroll, Tom]] (2000). "[http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/tomoc/sexpriv_backgr_text.htm Sexual Privacy for Paedophiles and Children: A Complementary Background Paper.]"'''<br />
:::"A survey of images in commercial child porn magazines that were available in the 1970s and early 80s by Schuijer and Rossen shows that only 14% depicted children engaged in sexual conduct with adults. Most of the material, 61%, showed children either nude at play or posing erotically. (8)"<br />
<br />
*'''www.almapintada.com: Child Pornography Statistics 1984-2000'''<br />
*:"Less than an average of ten new series per year have been circulated on the internet since 1984. Only 14 of these series include children engaged in sexual intercourse, 32 in non-penetrative genital contact and 39 in fellatio. Most of these series include genital display only."<br />
<br />
*'''Kenneth Lanning (1992). "[http://www.religioustolerance.org/fbi_02.htm Investigator's Guide to Allegations of "Ritual" Child Abuse, Chapter 2.1: "Stranger Danger."] Quantico, VA: Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime.<br />
*:"Child victims who, for example, simply behave like human beings and respond to the attention and affection of offenders by voluntarily and repeatedly returning to the offender's home are troubling. It confuses us to see the victims in child pornography giggling or laughing."<br />
<br />
*'''Ian O'Donnel & Claire Milner (2007) "Child Pornography; Crime, computers and society". p123.''' [ Paraphrased by [[User:Brian|Brian Ribbon]] ]<br />
<br />
:"A recent study in Ireland, undertaken by Garda, revealed the most serious content in a sample of over 100 cases involving indecent images of children. In 44% of cases, the most serious images depicted nudity or erotic posing, in 7% they depicted sexual activity between children, in 7% they depicted non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children, in 37% they depicted penetrative sexual activity between adults and children, and in 5% they depicted sadism or bestiality."<br />
<br />
*'''Brian Ribbon (2008). [http://www.boychat.org/messages/1123851.htm How can anyone believe these claims?. Boychat.org'''<br />
<br />
:"I could only find a small number of websites (less than 20) which contained material which would be illegal if viewed in my home jurisdiction, despite the fact that my home jurisdiction prohibits simple nudity. It is clear that there are not 150,000 child pornography websites. The websites which did depict material which would be illegal if viewed in my home jurisdiction were much tamer than government-funded organisations claim. Over 99% of the images which would be illegal in the USA/UK/Australia showed no sexual contact."<br />
<br />
==A Billion-Dollar Industry?==<br />
<br />
*'''Brian Rothery: "[http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=319 Every image of a child being abused]"'''<br />
*:"By now, many journalists and activists concerned with how the police deal with the child pornography laws are aware that the American police and some related agencies are the main, and likely the sole, dealers in and publishers of images of child pornography, using them for entrapment purposes."<br />
<br />
*'''Rosen, Jeffrey (2005). "The Internet Has Made Government Action Against Child Pornography Untenable," in ''Opposing Viewpoints: Mass Media''. Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press.'''<br />
*:Child pornography is often alleged to be a 20 billion dollar industry. If this is true, that would put it at twice the size of the adult porn industry: "But today, as Frank Rich reported in The New York Times Magazine last May [2002] the porn industry—much of it hard-core—generates at least $10 billion per year in revenues for more than 70,000 websites, porn networks, pay-per-view and rental movies [700 million porn rentals per year], cable and satellite television, and magazine publishers."<br />
<br />
==Impact on Child Models==<br />
<br />
Very little research has been done into the direct effect of modeling on children.<br />
<br />
*'''Jan Schuijer and Benjamin Rossen (1992). "[http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_2_1_5.htm Interviews with Three Boys."]<br />
*:"Despite the attempt to obtain a balanced description of the events, a remarkably black and white picture emerged. The boys described their friendship and feelings for Ferdinand in glowing terms. On the other hand the attitude towards the police is unequivocally negative."<br />
<br />
*'''Ian O'Donnell and Claire Milner (2007). "Child Pornography: Crime, computers and society". Willan Publishing, p229.'''<br />
*:"While we might feel uneasy about an individual who took sexual pleasure from photographs of children playing on beaches, it is clearly the case that such photographs are not based on an underlying act of abuse".<br />
<br />
==Impact on "non-appreciative" Adults==<br />
<br />
It is often claimed anecdotally that officers investigating high volumes of child porn suffer from "burn out" or may have to enter counseling.<br />
<br />
*'''Inquisition 21 (2008). "[http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=331 From inside the police force."]<br />
*:"We have a report from a police insider about how many of his colleagues actually reacted to both adult and child pornography [...] He received his first, much of it shocking to him, initiation into the world of pornography from his older police colleagues who ‘sickened him with their canteen culture’. They pushed the first ever hard core magazines he had seen right in front of his face, as he put it, “Gloating over them.” [...] Only as the number of women in the force increased, especially in senior ranks, did the macho culture of open pornographic display decrease and become more covert. [...] These men were now being paid to study child pornography and soon he could hear them tell the media about fatigue and burn-out concerning images they had formerly gloated over."</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Sexual_Offences_Act_(2003)&diff=578Sexual Offences Act (2003)2008-05-22T17:59:34Z<p>Brian: Undid revision 573 - Section 72 of the SOA (as amended by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act) criminalises the commission of relevant offences in all parts of the world</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Sexual Offences Act (2003)''' is an [[Act of Parliament]] in the [[United Kingdom]] which was enacted in 2003. It was introduced as "An Act to make new provision about sexual offences, their prevention and the protection of children from harm from other sexual acts, and for connected purposes." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&ActiveTextDocId=820905]<br />
<br />
The Act introduced many new sexual offences and, due to a recent amendment enacted as part of the [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act]], provides that UK nationals who act contrary to UK child sex offence laws abroad may be prosecuted in the United Kingdom. [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/051/08051.52-57.html#jNC35] It also defines penetrative sexual activity between two children under the age of 13 as rape. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&ActiveTextDocId=820916]<br />
<br />
The Act makes it an offence to encourage, arrange or facilitate certain child sex offences, including both contact [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&ActiveTextDocId=820926] and non-contact [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=parentActiveTextDocId=820904&ActiveTextDocId=820969] offences.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
*[[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act]]<br />
*[[Legal Information]]<br />
*[[Indecent images of children]]<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
<br />
[http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?activeTextDocId=820904 Sexual Offences Act (2003) at the Statute Law Database]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Law]] [[Category:United Kingdom Law]] [[Category:International Law]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Research:_Child_Pornography&diff=547Talk:Research: Child Pornography2008-05-21T01:53:59Z<p>Brian: </p>
<hr />
<div>The table data: http://anu.nfshost.com/2008/the-content-of-indecent-images may also be of interest. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] 03:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The data contained within the table is discussed within the section titled ''The Nature of Child Pornography''. [[User:Brian|Brian]] 22:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I thought I'd added that data to this article, but I hadn't. I've added it now. [[User:Brian|Brian]] 01:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=458&invol=747 New York v. Ferber]'''<br />
*:In 1977, child pornography and child prostitution were reported to be "highly organized, multimillion dollar industries." If both this statistic and the current multibillion claim are accurate, then the ban on child pornography must have been accompanied by a drastic increase in its profitability.</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Research:_Child_Pornography&diff=546Research: Child Pornography2008-05-21T01:50:48Z<p>Brian: /* The Nature of Child Pornography */</p>
<hr />
<div>:''For legal implications, see [[Child Pornography (Law)]]''<br />
"Child pornography" has no agreed definition. Legally, it refers to media featuring minors in sexual situations.<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
==The Effects of Child Pornography==<br />
The criminalization of child pornography is, in part, justified by the assumption that it will cause paedophiles to abuse children. No conclusive evidence substantiates this assumption. On the contrary, child pornography appears to have a cathartic effect:<br />
<br />
*'''[[Thomas O'Carroll|O'Carroll, Tom]] (2000). "[http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/tomoc/sexpriv_backgr_text.htm Sexual Privacy for Paedophiles and Children: A Complementary Background Paper.]"'''<br />
*:"Such an effect has been proposed in relation to Denmark during the few years when child pornography was openly and legally available: in that period sex offences against children were significantly lower than either before or after. (5) A similar phenomenon occurred during a period of liberalisation in West Germany, where from 1972 to 1980 the total number of sex crimes known to the police in the Federal Republic of Germany decreased by 11%. (6) Sharpe himself, whose possession of pornography was in contention, made the astute point in an interview that if child pornography led to sexual assaults, then there would have been a huge increase in assaults as a result of the allegedly much greater availability of child porn on the Internet. (7)"<br />
<br />
*'''Dr. Stuart Kirby (2005)'''. "[http://www.lifestyleextra.com/ShowStory.asp?story=HF1520736Z&news_headline=no_link_between_child_porn_and_sexual_abuse Unidentified Study: No link between child porn and sexual abuse.]"'''<br />
*:"When you look at all the research that has been done nationally, the consensus is that there has not proven to be a link between the viewing of pornography and the committing of hands-on offences."<br />
<br />
*'''Dennis Howitt (1995)'''. "[http://www.ipce.info/host/howitt/6a.htm Paedophiles and Sexual Offences against Children.]"'''<br />
*:"One cannot simply take evidence that offenders use and buy pornography as sufficient to implicate pornography causally in their offending. The most reasonable assessment based on the available research literature is that the relationship between pornography, fantasy and offending is unclear."<br />
<br />
*'''Diamond, Milton, and Ayako Uchiyama (1999). "[http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html Pornography, rape, and sex crimes in Japan]", ''International Journal of Law and Psychiatry'', 22: 1-22.'''<br />
*:"However, there are no specific child pornography laws in Japan and SEM depicting minors are readily available and widely consumed. [...] The most dramatic decrease in sex crimes was seen when attention was focused on the number and age of rapists and victims among younger groups (Table 2). We hypothesized that the increase in pornography [in general], without age restriction and in comics, if it had any detrimental effect, would most negatively influence younger individuals. Just the opposite occurred. The number of juvenile offenders dramatically dropped every period reviewed from 1,803 perpetrators in 1972 to a low of 264 in 1995; a drop of some 85% (Table 1). The number of victims also decreased particularly among the females younger than 13 (Table 2). In 1972, 8.3% of the victims were younger than 13. In 1995 the percentage of victims younger than 13 years of age dropped to 4.0%."<br />
<br />
*'''Kendall, Todd (2006). "[http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdfPornography, Rape, and the Internet]."'''<br />
*:This study found that "an increase in home internet access of 10 percentage points is associated with an 7.3% decline in [forcible] rape" of females of all ages as a group. [http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/ Slate Magazine] reported on this.<br />
<br />
==The Nature of Child Pornography==<br />
<br />
*'''Jan Schuijer and Benjamin Rossen (1992) "[http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_2_1.htm The Trade in Child Pornography.]"'''<br />
*:"We have called the claims about child pornography "myths." The existence of child pornography is certainly not. The myths are the exaggerated estimates of the number of children, the volume and value of the trade, the profits that are alleged to have been made, and the horrifying damage said to have been done to the children."<br />
<br />
:*'''[[Thomas O'Carroll|O'Carroll, Tom]] (2000). "[http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/tomoc/sexpriv_backgr_text.htm Sexual Privacy for Paedophiles and Children: A Complementary Background Paper.]"'''<br />
:::"A survey of images in commercial child porn magazines that were available in the 1970s and early 80s by Schuijer and Rossen shows that only 14% depicted children engaged in sexual conduct with adults. Most of the material, 61%, showed children either nude at play or posing erotically. (8)"<br />
<br />
*'''www.almapintada.com: Child Pornography Statistics 1984-2000'''<br />
*:"Less than an average of ten new series per year have been circulated on the internet since 1984. Only 14 of these series include children engaged in sexual intercourse, 32 in non-penetrative genital contact and 39 in fellatio. Most of these series include genital display only."<br />
<br />
*'''Kenneth Lanning (1992). "[http://www.religioustolerance.org/fbi_02.htm Investigator's Guide to Allegations of "Ritual" Child Abuse, Chapter 2.1: "Stranger Danger."] Quantico, VA: Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime.<br />
*:"Child victims who, for example, simply behave like human beings and respond to the attention and affection of offenders by voluntarily and repeatedly returning to the offender's home are troubling. It confuses us to see the victims in child pornography giggling or laughing."<br />
<br />
*'''Ian O'Donnel & Claire Milner (2007) "Child Pornography; Crime, computers and society". p123.''' [ Paraphrased by [[User:Brian|Brian Ribbon]] ]<br />
<br />
:"A recent study in Ireland, undertaken by Garda, revealed the most serious content in a sample of over 100 cases involving indecent images of children. In 44% of cases, the most serious images depicted nudity or erotic posing, in 7% they depicted sexual activity between children, in 7% they depicted non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children, in 37% they depicted penetrative sexual activity between adults and children, and in 5% they depicted sadism or bestiality.<br />
<br />
==A Billion-Dollar Industry?==<br />
<br />
*'''Brian Rothery: "[http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=319 Every image of a child being abused]"'''<br />
*:"By now, many journalists and activists concerned with how the police deal with the child pornography laws are aware that the American police and some related agencies are the main, and likely the sole, dealers in and publishers of images of child pornography, using them for entrapment purposes."<br />
<br />
*'''Rosen, Jeffrey (2005). "The Internet Has Made Government Action Against Child Pornography Untenable," in ''Opposing Viewpoints: Mass Media''. Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press.'''<br />
*:Child pornography is often alleged to be a 20 billion dollar industry. If this is true, that would put it at twice the size of the adult porn industry: "But today, as Frank Rich reported in The New York Times Magazine last May [2002] the porn industry—much of it hard-core—generates at least $10 billion per year in revenues for more than 70,000 websites, porn networks, pay-per-view and rental movies [700 million porn rentals per year], cable and satellite television, and magazine publishers."<br />
<br />
==Impact on Child Models==<br />
<br />
Very little research has been done into the direct effect of modeling on children.<br />
<br />
*'''Jan Schuijer and Benjamin Rossen (1992). "[http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_2_1_5.htm Interviews with Three Boys."]<br />
*:"Despite the attempt to obtain a balanced description of the events, a remarkably black and white picture emerged. The boys described their friendship and feelings for Ferdinand in glowing terms. On the other hand the attitude towards the police is unequivocally negative."<br />
<br />
*'''Ian O'Donnell and Claire Milner (2007). "Child Pornography: Crime, computers and society". Willan Publishing, p229.'''<br />
*:"While we might feel uneasy about an individual who took sexual pleasure from photographs of children playing on beaches, it is clearly the case that such photographs are not based on an underlying act of abuse".<br />
<br />
==Impact on "non-appreciative" Adults==<br />
<br />
It is often claimed anecdotally that officers investigating high volumes of child porn suffer from "burn out" or may have to enter counseling.<br />
<br />
*'''Inquisition 21 (2008). "[http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=331 From inside the police force."]<br />
*:"We have a report from a police insider about how many of his colleagues actually reacted to both adult and child pornography [...] He received his first, much of it shocking to him, initiation into the world of pornography from his older police colleagues who ‘sickened him with their canteen culture’. They pushed the first ever hard core magazines he had seen right in front of his face, as he put it, “Gloating over them.” [...] Only as the number of women in the force increased, especially in senior ranks, did the macho culture of open pornographic display decrease and become more covert. [...] These men were now being paid to study child pornography and soon he could hear them tell the media about fatigue and burn-out concerning images they had formerly gloated over."</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=List_of_anti-MAP_quotes&diff=499List of anti-MAP quotes2008-05-14T13:11:08Z<p>Brian: /* Quotes */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page lists quotes which show the extreme hatred faced by paedophiles and the pathology of many of the individuals who discriminate against paedophiles.<br />
<br />
==Quotes==<br />
<br />
:[When questioned about his anti-pedophile organisation's role in child protection] "''No, it’s because pedophiles are disgusting people. Like you. That’s why we go after them. Protecting kids is just a side benefit.''"<br />
<br />
:"''My goal is not to protect minors. It's to go after pedophiles.''"<br />
<br />
- '''von Erck, Xavier. "[http://anu.nfshost.com/miscellaneous/xavier-von-erck IM]"'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"''Now, he never said in this note whether or not he had acted on his attraction, did he? But he did say that he kept himself distant from his own children "so that I would not harm you in anyway.''"<br />
<br />
:''I think that statement is very important, and most especially considering they are his final words. And yet....he goes on to hurt them anyway doesn't he? Just like all pedoheads sooner or later they just can't keep their mouths shut. He's killing himself because he can't bear being a filthy pedophile and he's gonna slap down everybody in his life as he goes. Never mind that his children and family will be suffering over his death, now they also have to deal with the shock and shame that their loved one was a filthy, stinking pedophile. He made his family victims in the end, didn't he?''"<br />
<br />
[..]<br />
<br />
:''Society is bad for thinking you're all wasted use of good oxygen? I don't know, it doesn't sound right, because we just talked about this the other day. And all I can think is''<br />
<br />
:''Nickless!<br />
:Dude!!<br />
:It's working already!!!''<br />
<br />
[..]<br />
<br />
:''I'm not sympathetic at all. In fact, the proudest day of my life will be when one of them kills himself and leaves a note saying''<br />
<br />
:::''"I can't take it anymore. Stitches drove me to it"''"<br />
<br />
<br />
- '''H., Marina (2007). "[http://absolutezerounited.blogspot.com/2007/06/its-working.html It's working!]"'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"''Paedophile is a diagnostic name for those who have a sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. We will now refer to them as "Child Sex Abusers.''"<br />
<br />
[..]<br />
<br />
:''The interest in the child is SINISTER.''"<br />
<br />
- '''Hawes, Marilyn. "[http://www.enoughabuse.co.uk/page106.htm Definition of a Paedophile]"'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"''you need to see the wood through the trees, if we kill all paedophiles then children and their parents will no longer be supressed'''.<br />
<br />
:''DEATH TO ALL PAEDOPHILES''"<br />
<br />
- '''Branel, Cole (2007). "[http://www.mrcrip.com/blog/childrens-dance-festival-no-cameras-allowed-at-tudor-rose-festival/ Childrens Dance Festival - No Cameras Allowed at Tudor Rose Festival!]"'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"''For any long time readers you will know my views - Death and execution to all all paedophiles and that would apply to all types of downloaded child porn and not just the very worst.''"<br />
<br />
'''Branel, Cole (2007). "[http://www.mrcrip.com/blog/chris-langham-paedophile-or-honest-research/ Chris Langham - Paedophile or Honest Research?]"'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:''"if ever there was a subject that makes me foam at the mouth like a rabid dog, it is those sick, disgusting, depraved people we all loathe - Paedophiles''.<br />
<br />
:''Andrew Barker - Convicted Paedophile from Worthing West Sussex.I’m sick of this moderate society we live in, I’m sick of the do-gooders who think there is good in everyone. I’m sick of religion and of religious people. I’m sick of the nanny state authority''.<br />
<br />
:''Believe me, we live in a dictatorship, not a democratic society! It’s just that most people are too stupid to realise'''.<br />
<br />
:''BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY - LET’S RID THIS ONCE GREAT NATION OF THE SCUM!''<br />
<br />
:''I’m sick of it all because the millions of decent people who live in the UK are subjected to inferior lives because the liberal people in authority insist on keeping scum such as paedophiles alive.''"<br />
<br />
- '''Branel, Cole (2007). "[http://www.mrcrip.com/blog/kill-paedophiles-like-andrew-barker/ Kill Paedophiles like Andrew Barker]"<br />
'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"''Why didn't you use that rifle to kill yourself? It's what you wanted to do. It's what you still want to do. Coward. Don't presume that you have the right to judge me. You don't. But I have judged you. And I find you guilty and deserving of a slow and merciless death for all the pain and suffering that you have caused.''"<br />
<br />
:"''how about a final "solution", filth? step into my oven, it's time for a pedophile holocaust!''"<br />
<br />
:"''And if the loss of my soul is the price I have to pay for destroying evil like you, I will do it gladly and without hesitation. Can you say the same, filth?''" (etc)<br />
<br />
- '''User comments on a now deleted blog.'''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
:"''Chronic sexual predators [to Vachss, pedophiles] have crossed an osmotic membrane. They can’t step back to the other side - our side. And they don't want to. If we don't kill them or release them, we have but one choice. Call them monsters and isolate them.... I’ve spoken to many predators over the years. They always exhibit amazement that we do not hunt them. And that when we capture them, we eventually let them go. Our attitude is a deliberate interference with Darwinism - an endangerment of our species.''"<br />
<br />
- '''Vachss, Andrew (1993). Quoted in [http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jpj1/sin.htm "Go and Sin No More": Therapy and Exorcism in the Contemporary Rhetoric of Deviance].'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"''"Now, me, paedophiles, if it was left to me, I would hurt them so much it would upset and shock everybody in the country. I can think of really nasty things that I would like to see done to them. And I wouldn't care if it didn't change their behaviour - it would just certainly put them on notice that if you do this, you will have your skin removed, you will be made to go around to do really painful things before you're allowed to die.''"<br />
<br />
- '''Griffiths, Richard (2006). Quoted in [http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,,1884165,00.html A break in the clouds].'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"The best thing us anti’s can do ist expose all of you and let the vigilantes beat your fucking brains out"<br />
<br />
- '''"Appleford, Frank (2007). "[http://newgon.com/blog/?p=9#comment-125 Finished]"'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"Just to clarify gentlemen, I am neither irrational nor vengeful, and I am most certainly no fool. The majority of Canadians support the reinstatement of the death penalty and have done so ever since it was abolished in Canada in the 70s. I happen to be in that majority. A recent, admittedly non-scientfic, poll in my community indicates just under 70% of the respondents favour the death penalty for pedophiles. We can't all possibly be insane and vengeful now can we? They and I support the death penalty because we know pedophiles are dangerous to the wellbeing of our children. It really is that simple."<br />
<br />
- '''"Sojourner" (2007). [http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=21714&p=366953#p366906 Richard Dawkins and Paedophilia]'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"peadophilles, by definition, intend harm and trauma to children, who are the most innocent people on this planet. dont you dare try and claim that you deserve respect."<br />
<br />
- '''Unknown, YouTube.com'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"Jail is the only proper place for him, not just because of what he has [ possessed [[indecent images of children]] ] done but because of the fact he promotes those views."<br />
<br />
- '''Keenan, Shy (2007). [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article577444.ece Paedo's 'life" term slashed]'''<br />
<br />
<br />
===Quotes about [http://anu.nfshost.com/category/jack-mcclellan/ Jack McClellan]===<br />
<br />
<br />
:"Remember, this isn't a guy that's "suspected" of anything - we *know* he's a pedophile. He freely admits to it. And one day, he *will* attempt illegal sexual contact."<br />
<br />
- '''"KarmaC" (2007). [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=329158 Sound Off]'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"I don't understand why he cannot be charged with a terroristic act because I live in absolute terror that what he does will put my grandchildren in danger. If that's not terrorism, what is? I'm more afraid of him that I am of Osama bin Laden."<br />
<br />
- '''Unknown (deleted comment) (2007). [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/329158_pedophile27.html Sound Off]'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"if that dude was your neighbor, you'd run him out of town too.<br />
<br />
[..]<br />
<br />
:now, if he were skulking around my neighborhood, he should look behind himself at all times. i'd hate to see somebody jump him. it may even be a group of people, who knows? you can't be too careful these days, you know?"<br />
<br />
- '''"CletusJR" (2007). [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=329158 Sound Off]'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"if he's trying to "prove" something by creating that website, then shame on him! That kind of thing terrifies parents, aunts, grandparents, etc. He can't possibly think that people won't be up in arms regarding something like this."<br />
<br />
- '''"why_we_do" (2007). [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=329158 Sound Off]'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"The notion that all we have to do is watch and wait for this guy to do something isn't very helpful. He should be in a theraputic setting. If he can't be "cured," at least the mental health and/or criminal justice communities could learn something about the course of the pathology."<br />
<br />
- '''"7Null_Seven" (2007). [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=329158 Sound Off]'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"McClellan hasn't been convicted of child rape or molestation, YET, but if allowed he WILL molest, he WILL rape, he is a ticking time bomb...<br />
<br />
[..]<br />
<br />
:"No one can change my opinion of pedophiles and no one can stop us from doing what we do, outing as many of them as we possibly can..."<br />
<br />
- '''"Fred Witzell" (2007). [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=329158 Sound Off]'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"The problem, for him, is the he has verbalized his sick, pathetic thoughts. Now, anyone with an aluminum bat and some balls should turn his knees into jello."<br />
<br />
- '''"PsyCoug" (2007). [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=329158 Sound Off]'''</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=List_of_anti-MAP_quotes&diff=498List of anti-MAP quotes2008-05-14T13:08:12Z<p>Brian: /* Quotes */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page lists quotes which show the extreme hatred faced by paedophiles and the pathology of many of the individuals who discriminate against paedophiles.<br />
<br />
==Quotes==<br />
<br />
:[When questioned about his anti-pedophile organisation's role in child protection] "''No, it’s because pedophiles are disgusting people. Like you. That’s why we go after them. Protecting kids is just a side benefit.''"<br />
<br />
:"''My goal is not to protect minors. It's to go after pedophiles.''"<br />
<br />
- '''von Erck, Xavier. "[http://anu.nfshost.com/miscellaneous/xavier-von-erck IM]"'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"''Now, he never said in this note whether or not he had acted on his attraction, did he? But he did say that he kept himself distant from his own children "so that I would not harm you in anyway.''"<br />
<br />
:''I think that statement is very important, and most especially considering they are his final words. And yet....he goes on to hurt them anyway doesn't he? Just like all pedoheads sooner or later they just can't keep their mouths shut. He's killing himself because he can't bear being a filthy pedophile and he's gonna slap down everybody in his life as he goes. Never mind that his children and family will be suffering over his death, now they also have to deal with the shock and shame that their loved one was a filthy, stinking pedophile. He made his family victims in the end, didn't he?''"<br />
<br />
[..]<br />
<br />
:''Society is bad for thinking you're all wasted use of good oxygen? I don't know, it doesn't sound right, because we just talked about this the other day. And all I can think is''<br />
<br />
:''Nickless!<br />
:Dude!!<br />
:It's working already!!!''<br />
<br />
[..]<br />
<br />
:''I'm not sympathetic at all. In fact, the proudest day of my life will be when one of them kills himself and leaves a note saying''<br />
<br />
:::''"I can't take it anymore. Stitches drove me to it"''"<br />
<br />
<br />
- '''H., Marina (2007). "[http://absolutezerounited.blogspot.com/2007/06/its-working.html It's working!]"'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"''Paedophile is a diagnostic name for those who have a sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. We will now refer to them as "Child Sex Abusers.''"<br />
<br />
[..]<br />
<br />
:''The interest in the child is SINISTER.''"<br />
<br />
- '''Hawes, Marilyn. "[http://www.enoughabuse.co.uk/page106.htm Definition of a Paedophile]"'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"''you need to see the wood through the trees, if we kill all paedophiles then children and their parents will no longer be supressed'''.<br />
<br />
:''DEATH TO ALL PAEDOPHILES''"<br />
<br />
- '''Branel, Cole (2007). "[http://www.mrcrip.com/blog/childrens-dance-festival-no-cameras-allowed-at-tudor-rose-festival/ Childrens Dance Festival - No Cameras Allowed at Tudor Rose Festival!]"'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"''For any long time readers you will know my views - Death and execution to all all paedophiles and that would apply to all types of downloaded child porn and not just the very worst.''"<br />
<br />
'''Branel, Cole (2007). "[http://www.mrcrip.com/blog/chris-langham-paedophile-or-honest-research/ Chris Langham - Paedophile or Honest Research?]"'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:''"if ever there was a subject that makes me foam at the mouth like a rabid dog, it is those sick, disgusting, depraved people we all loathe - Paedophiles''.<br />
<br />
:''Andrew Barker - Convicted Paedophile from Worthing West Sussex.I’m sick of this moderate society we live in, I’m sick of the do-gooders who think there is good in everyone. I’m sick of religion and of religious people. I’m sick of the nanny state authority''.<br />
<br />
:''Believe me, we live in a dictatorship, not a democratic society! It’s just that most people are too stupid to realise'''.<br />
<br />
:''BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY - LET’S RID THIS ONCE GREAT NATION OF THE SCUM!''<br />
<br />
:''I’m sick of it all because the millions of decent people who live in the UK are subjected to inferior lives because the liberal people in authority insist on keeping scum such as paedophiles alive.''"<br />
<br />
- '''Branel, Cole (2007). "[http://www.mrcrip.com/blog/kill-paedophiles-like-andrew-barker/ Kill Paedophiles like Andrew Barker]"<br />
'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"''Why didn't you use that rifle to kill yourself? It's what you wanted to do. It's what you still want to do. Coward. Don't presume that you have the right to judge me. You don't. But I have judged you. And I find you guilty and deserving of a slow and merciless death for all the pain and suffering that you have caused.''"<br />
<br />
:"''how about a final "solution", filth? step into my oven, it's time for a pedophile holocaust!''"<br />
<br />
:"''And if the loss of my soul is the price I have to pay for destroying evil like you, I will do it gladly and without hesitation. Can you say the same, filth?''" (etc)<br />
<br />
- '''User comments on a now deleted blog.'''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
:"''Chronic sexual predators [to Vachss, pedophiles] have crossed an osmotic membrane. They can’t step back to the other side - our side. And they don't want to. If we don't kill them or release them, we have but one choice. Call them monsters and isolate them.... I’ve spoken to many predators over the years. They always exhibit amazement that we do not hunt them. And that when we capture them, we eventually let them go. Our attitude is a deliberate interference with Darwinism - an endangerment of our species.''"<br />
<br />
- '''Vachss, Andrew (1993). Quoted in [http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jpj1/sin.htm "Go and Sin No More": Therapy and Exorcism in the Contemporary Rhetoric of Deviance].'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"''"Now, me, paedophiles, if it was left to me, I would hurt them so much it would upset and shock everybody in the country. I can think of really nasty things that I would like to see done to them. And I wouldn't care if it didn't change their behaviour - it would just certainly put them on notice that if you do this, you will have your skin removed, you will be made to go around to do really painful things before you're allowed to die.''"<br />
<br />
- '''Griffiths, Richard (2006). Quoted in [http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,,1884165,00.html A break in the clouds].'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"The best thing us anti’s can do ist expose all of you and let the vigilantes beat your fucking brains out"<br />
<br />
- '''"Appleford, Frank (2007). "[http://newgon.com/blog/?p=9#comment-125 Finished]"'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"Just to clarify gentlemen, I am neither irrational nor vengeful, and I am most certainly no fool. The majority of Canadians support the reinstatement of the death penalty and have done so ever since it was abolished in Canada in the 70s. I happen to be in that majority. A recent, admittedly non-scientfic, poll in my community indicates just under 70% of the respondents favour the death penalty for pedophiles. We can't all possibly be insane and vengeful now can we? They and I support the death penalty because we know pedophiles are dangerous to the wellbeing of our children. It really is that simple."<br />
<br />
- '''"Sojourner"''' (2007). [http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=21714&p=366953#p366906 Richard Dawkins and Paedophilia]'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"peadophilles, by definition, intend harm and trauma to children, who are the most innocent people on this planet. dont you dare try and claim that you deserve respect."<br />
<br />
- '''Unknown, YouTube.com'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"Jail is the only proper place for him, not just because of what he has [ possessed [[indecent images of children]] ] done but because of the fact he promotes those views."<br />
<br />
- '''Keenan, Shy (2007). [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article577444.ece Paedo's 'life" term slashed]'''<br />
<br />
<br />
===Quotes about [http://anu.nfshost.com/category/jack-mcclellan/ Jack McClellan]===<br />
<br />
:"Remember, this isn't a guy that's "suspected" of anything - we *know* he's a pedophile. He freely admits to it. And one day, he *will* attempt illegal sexual contact."<br />
<br />
- '''"KarmaC" (2007). [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=329158 Sound Off]'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"I don't understand why [ [http://anu.nfshost.com/category/jack-mcclellan/ Jack McClellan] ] cannot be charged with a terroristic act because I live in absolute terror that what he does will put my grandchildren in danger. If that's not terrorism, what is? I'm more afraid of him that I am of Osama bin Laden."<br />
<br />
- '''Unknown (deleted comment) (2007). [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/329158_pedophile27.html Sound Off]'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"if that dude was your neighbor, you'd run him out of town too.<br />
<br />
[..]<br />
<br />
:now, if he were skulking around my neighborhood, he should look behind himself at all times. i'd hate to see somebody jump him. it may even be a group of people, who knows? you can't be too careful these days, you know?"<br />
<br />
- '''"CletusJR" (2007). [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=329158 Sound Off]'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"if he's trying to "prove" something by creating that website, then shame on him! That kind of thing terrifies parents, aunts, grandparents, etc. He can't possibly think that people won't be up in arms regarding something like this."<br />
<br />
- '''"why_we_do" (2007). [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=329158 Sound Off]'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"The notion that all we have to do is watch and wait for this guy to do something isn't very helpful. He should be in a theraputic setting. If he can't be "cured," at least the mental health and/or criminal justice communities could learn something about the course of the pathology."<br />
<br />
- '''"7Null_Seven" (2007). [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=329158 Sound Off]'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"McClellan hasn't been convicted of child rape or molestation, YET, but if allowed he WILL molest, he WILL rape, he is a ticking time bomb...<br />
<br />
[..]<br />
<br />
:"No one can change my opinion of pedophiles and no one can stop us from doing what we do, outing as many of them as we possibly can..."<br />
<br />
- '''"Fred Witzell" (2007). [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=329158 Sound Off]'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"The problem, for him, is the he has verbalized his sick, pathetic thoughts. Now, anyone with an aluminum bat and some balls should turn his knees into jello."<br />
<br />
- '''"PsyCoug" (2007). [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=329158 Sound Off]'''</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=List_of_anti-MAP_quotes&diff=471List of anti-MAP quotes2008-05-12T20:10:31Z<p>Brian: short list - please expand</p>
<hr />
<div>This page lists quotes which show the extreme hatred faced by paedophiles and the pathology of many of the individuals who discriminate against paedophiles.<br />
<br />
==Quotes==<br />
<br />
:"''Now, he never said in this note whether or not he had acted on his attraction, did he? But he did say that he kept himself distant from his own children "so that I would not harm you in anyway.''"<br />
<br />
:''I think that statement is very important, and most especially considering they are his final words. And yet....he goes on to hurt them anyway doesn't he? Just like all pedoheads sooner or later they just can't keep their mouths shut. He's killing himself because he can't bear being a filthy pedophile and he's gonna slap down everybody in his life as he goes. Never mind that his children and family will be suffering over his death, now they also have to deal with the shock and shame that their loved one was a filthy, stinking pedophile. He made his family victims in the end, didn't he?''"<br />
<br />
[..]<br />
<br />
:''Society is bad for thinking you're all wasted use of good oxygen? I don't know, it doesn't sound right, because we just talked about this the other day. And all I can think is''<br />
<br />
:''Nickless!<br />
:Dude!!<br />
:It's working already!!!''<br />
<br />
[..]<br />
<br />
:''I'm not sympathetic at all. In fact, the proudest day of my life will be when one of them kills himself and leaves a note saying''<br />
<br />
:::''"I can't take it anymore. Stitches drove me to it"''"<br />
<br />
<br />
- '''Hammond, Marina (2007). "[http://absolutezerounited.blogspot.com/2007/06/its-working.html It's working!]"'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"''Paedophile is a diagnostic name for those who have a sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. We will now refer to them as "Child Sex Abusers.''"<br />
<br />
[..]<br />
<br />
:''The interest in the child is SINISTER.''"<br />
<br />
- '''Hawes, Marilyn. "[http://www.enoughabuse.co.uk/page106.htm Definition of a Paedophile]"'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"''you need to see the wood through the trees, if we kill all paedophiles then children and their parents will no longer be supressed'''.<br />
<br />
:''DEATH TO ALL PAEDOPHILES''"<br />
<br />
- '''Branel, Cole (2007). "[http://www.mrcrip.com/blog/childrens-dance-festival-no-cameras-allowed-at-tudor-rose-festival/ Childrens Dance Festival - No Cameras Allowed at Tudor Rose Festival!]"'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:"''For any long time readers you will know my views - Death and execution to all all paedophiles and that would apply to all types of downloaded child porn and not just the very worst.''"<br />
<br />
'''Branel, Cole (2007). "[http://www.mrcrip.com/blog/chris-langham-paedophile-or-honest-research/ Chris Langham - Paedophile or Honest Research?]"'''<br />
<br />
<br />
:''"if ever there was a subject that makes me foam at the mouth like a rabid dog, it is those sick, disgusting, depraved people we all loathe - Paedophiles''.<br />
<br />
:''Andrew Barker - Convicted Paedophile from Worthing West Sussex.I’m sick of this moderate society we live in, I’m sick of the do-gooders who think there is good in everyone. I’m sick of religion and of religious people. I’m sick of the nanny state authority''.<br />
<br />
:''Believe me, we live in a dictatorship, not a democratic society! It’s just that most people are too stupid to realise'''.<br />
<br />
:''BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY - LET’S RID THIS ONCE GREAT NATION OF THE SCUM!''<br />
<br />
:''I’m sick of it all because the millions of decent people who live in the UK are subjected to inferior lives because the liberal people in authority insist on keeping scum such as paedophiles alive.''"<br />
<br />
- '''Branel, Cole (2007). "[http://www.mrcrip.com/blog/kill-paedophiles-like-andrew-barker/ Kill Paedophiles like Andrew Barker]"<br />
'''</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Brian&diff=467User talk:Brian2008-05-12T19:08:56Z<p>Brian: /* Hey... */</p>
<hr />
<div>==[[Legal Information]]==<br />
<br />
I set up a portal for you to work from, and created the new article on Child Porn. I like the category idea, and think it could add another level of organisation to the wiki. I am however, keeping the wiki structure linear, mirroring the site as a whole. therefore, you will see that everything is linked from the main page. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] 13:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks [[User:Brian|Brian]] 17:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==[[Debate Guide]]==<br />
<br />
http://newgon.com/w/index.php?title=Debate_Guide&diff=prev&oldid=232<br />
<br />
I've opened a new section that only concerns pedophile arguments. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] 14:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Thanks. I'll work on that when I've completed the legal articles and the categorisation of current articles. [[User:Brian|Brian]] 23:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Wikipedia ==<br />
<br />
I don't think that PS and JAR are WeissPuppets. They can spell and have a basic reading of CSA for a starter. They may be Eide and Becker respectively, though. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] 08:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACole_Dealton&diff=209758395&oldid=209726608 This edit] looks like a Weiss edit ("Thanks, [psuedonym]"), however I agree that more evidence is required. [[User:Brian|Brian]] 22:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Hey... ==<br />
<br />
...I like it:<br />
<br />
:"Paedophile is a diagnostic name for those who have a sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. We will now refer to them as "Child Sex Abusers.""<br />
<br />
http://www.enoughabuse.co.uk/page106.htm<br />
<br />
I think Michelle Elliot is involved. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] 01:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:LOL. We could create a list of absurd anti-paedophile quotes about paedophilia. [[User:Brian|Brian]] 12:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::“In fact, the proudest day of my life will be when one of them kills himself and leaves a note saying “I can't take it anymore. Stitches drove me to it””<br />
<br />
::“The best thing us anti’s can do ist expose all of you and let the vigilantes beat your fucking brains out”<br />
<br />
::“Just to clarify gentlemen, I am neither irrational nor vengeful, and I am most certainly no fool. The majority of Canadians support the reinstatement of the death penalty and have done so ever since it was abolished in Canada in the 70s. I happen to be in that majority. A recent, admittedly non-scientfic, poll in my community indicates just under 70% of the respondents favour the death penalty for pedophiles. We can't all possibly be insane and vengeful now can we? They and I support the death penalty because we know pedophiles are dangerous to the wellbeing of our children. It really is that simple.”<br />
<br />
::"peadophilles, by definition, intend harm and trauma to children, who are the most innocent people on this planet. dont you dare try and claim that you deserve respect."<br />
<br />
::"the criminal justice system should be changed to protect the public from these beasts, they should all be implanted with electronic chips so they can be tracked 24/7.<br />
::repeat offenders should be castrated and have "beast" tattood on their foreheads, criminals rights?..pff.. our children have the right to live safely from these perverts..anyone who argues againdt this is probably a beast."<br />
<br />
::"I don't understand why he cannot be charged with a terroristic act because I live in absolute terror that what he does will put my grandchildren in danger. If that's not terrorism, what is? I'm more afraid of him that I am of Osama bin Laden." <br />
<br />
::There could indeed be a tribute page. A very large one. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] 12:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Do you have authors/usernames for those quotes? [[User:Brian|Brian]] 19:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=NewgonWiki:Linkblog&diff=465NewgonWiki:Linkblog2008-05-12T12:16:03Z<p>Brian: /* List */</p>
<hr />
<div>A chronological list of links that may be of interest to administrators at Newgon.com, or readers.<br />
<br />
Links are not checked for functionality, and should be left, as the list may be checked by archivists.<br />
<br />
==List==<br />
<br />
http://www.kirotv.com/video/10228911/index.html - Attacks on SOs.<br />
<br />
http://www.d2l.org/prevent07/montage.asp<br />
<br />
http://www.saferchildren.net/index.html<br />
<br />
http://www.challengeteamuk.org/ - Radical christians posing as sex educators.<br />
<br />
http://blhost.info/<br />
<br />
http://www.boyloveradio.net/<br />
<br />
http://www.boytalkradio.net/<br />
<br />
http://ia341236.us.archive.org/1/items/TheEQ.FoundationEQFHomePage/EQF.html<br />
<br />
http://www.cerius.org/ped/Jack%20McClellan/index.htm Jack<br />
<br />
http://www.truthtree.com/pederasty.shtml History<br />
<br />
http://www.darkness2light.org/ <br />
<br />
http://www.nikkicraft.com/ <br />
<br />
http://www.enoughabuse.co.uk/page52.htm Anti orgs [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] 00:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*"[http://www.youthsexualfreedom.org/ Youth Sexual Freedom]" [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] 22:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*"[http://ir.sun.ac.za/dspace/handle/10019/262 Reconstructing Paedophilia: an analysis of current discourses and the construct of close]" - full text of a masters thesis promoting a value-free approach to paedophilia and adult-child sex [Jillium, 6 may]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Brian&diff=464User talk:Brian2008-05-12T12:10:56Z<p>Brian: /* Hey... */</p>
<hr />
<div>==[[Legal Information]]==<br />
<br />
I set up a portal for you to work from, and created the new article on Child Porn. I like the category idea, and think it could add another level of organisation to the wiki. I am however, keeping the wiki structure linear, mirroring the site as a whole. therefore, you will see that everything is linked from the main page. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] 13:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks [[User:Brian|Brian]] 17:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==[[Debate Guide]]==<br />
<br />
http://newgon.com/w/index.php?title=Debate_Guide&diff=prev&oldid=232<br />
<br />
I've opened a new section that only concerns pedophile arguments. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] 14:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Thanks. I'll work on that when I've completed the legal articles and the categorisation of current articles. [[User:Brian|Brian]] 23:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Wikipedia ==<br />
<br />
I don't think that PS and JAR are WeissPuppets. They can spell and have a basic reading of CSA for a starter. They may be Eide and Becker respectively, though. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] 08:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACole_Dealton&diff=209758395&oldid=209726608 This edit] looks like a Weiss edit ("Thanks, [psuedonym]"), however I agree that more evidence is required. [[User:Brian|Brian]] 22:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Hey... ==<br />
<br />
...I like it:<br />
<br />
:"Paedophile is a diagnostic name for those who have a sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. We will now refer to them as "Child Sex Abusers.""<br />
<br />
http://www.enoughabuse.co.uk/page106.htm<br />
<br />
I think Michelle Elliot is involved. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] 01:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:LOL. We could create a list of absurd anti-paedophile quotes about paedophilia. [[User:Brian|Brian]] 12:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Debate_Guide:_Pedophiles_chose_their_condition&diff=440Debate Guide: Pedophiles chose their condition2008-05-12T00:09:02Z<p>Brian: source</p>
<hr />
<div>''"Sick pedophiles chose to be the way they are."''<br />
<br />
Pedophilia is an "incurable" sexual orientation just like any other. Present classifications can do nothing to alter this timeless fact. See the research topic, [[A "cure" for pedophilia?]].<br />
<br />
This argument also relies on faulty thinking on the issue of free will. [http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SthbQdrxeLw Here] is a rather eccentric teenage boy saying the right things about free will.<br />
<br />
The comments of Fred Berlin, a man who has for many years attempted to reform pedophiles, are quite telling:<br />
<br />
:"It may be no easier for a person with pedophilia to change his or her sexual orientation than it is for a homosexual or heterosexual individual to do so." [http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/157/5/838]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Sexual_Offences_Act_(2003)&diff=432Sexual Offences Act (2003)2008-05-11T23:55:48Z<p>Brian: see also - legal information</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Sexual Offences Act (2003)''' is an [[Act of Parliament]] in the [[United Kingdom]] which was enacted in 2003. It was introduced as "An Act to make new provision about sexual offences, their prevention and the protection of children from harm from other sexual acts, and for connected purposes." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&ActiveTextDocId=820905]<br />
<br />
The Act introduced many new sexual offences and, due to a recent amendment enacted as part of the [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act]], provides that UK nationals who act contrary to UK child sex offence laws abroad may be prosecuted in the United Kingdom. [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/051/08051.52-57.html#jNC35] It also defines penetrative sexual activity between two children under the age of 13 as rape. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&ActiveTextDocId=820916]<br />
<br />
The Act makes it an offence to encourage, arrange or facilitate certain child sex offences, including both contact [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&ActiveTextDocId=820926] and non-contact [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=parentActiveTextDocId=820904&ActiveTextDocId=820969] offences.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
*[[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act]]<br />
*[[Legal Information]]<br />
*[[Indecent images of children]]<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
<br />
[http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?activeTextDocId=820904 Sexual Offences Act (2003) at the Statute Law Database]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Law]] [[Category:United Kingdom Law]] [[Category:International Law]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Child_Pornography_Laws&diff=430Child Pornography Laws2008-05-11T23:53:04Z<p>Brian: see also</p>
<hr />
<div>:''For research, see [[Child Pornography]]''<br />
<br />
'''Child pornography''' refers to pornographic or "indecent" depictions of children.<br />
<br />
==Definition==<br />
<br />
The exact definition of "child pornography" is the subject of much debate, particularly in courts. The legal definition varies across jurisdictions, however most countries prohibit photographs depicting minors engaged in sexual activity. Many jurisdictions, notably [[Canada]], also prohibit non-photographic pornographic media featuring children, including computer-generated images, texts, and even audio recordings. In many countries, including the [[United Kingdom]] and [[Australia]], nudist depictions of children are generally prohibited.<br />
<br />
==Australia==<br />
<br />
===Australian Capital Territory (ACT)===<br />
<br />
In the Australian Capital Territory, Australia, it is an offence to produce, publish, offer, sell, or possess child pornography. Child pornography is defined as "anything that represents":<br />
<br />
::(a) the sexual parts of a child; or<br />
::(b) a child engaged in an activity of a sexual nature; or<br />
::(c) someone else engaged in an activity of a sexual nature in the presence of a child;<br />
substantially for the sexual arousal or sexual gratification of someone other<br />
than the child.<br />
<br />
A representation includes a "film, photograph, drawing, audiotape, videotape, computer game, the internet or anything else."<br />
<br />
It is also illegal to - using electronic means - "suggest to a young person that the young person commit or take part in, or watch someone else committing or taking part in, an act of a sexual nature." An "act of a sexual nature" is defined as "sexual intercourse or an act of indecency."<br />
===Queensland===<br />
<br />
In Queensland, Australia, it is illegal to produce, sell, distribute, advertise or possess a "child abuse" photograph, publication or film. It is also illegal to produce, publish, make, or print a "prohibited publication".<br />
<br />
A person must also not have possession of - or make - an "objectionable film" for the purpose of sale.<br />
<br />
===Tasmania===<br />
<br />
''Unknown''.<br />
<br />
===Victoria===<br />
<br />
In Victoria, Australia, it is illegal to possess an item which "depict[s] a person who is or appears to be under [16] years of age engaged in sexual activity or in an indecent context or manner". Defences against such charges include:<br />
<br />
::1) item was classified; or<br />
::2) item was for medical/legal/scientific/educational purposes; or<br />
::3) item had artistic merit - this defence is unavailable if the child was actually under sixteen (16) years; or<br />
::4) defendant believed on reasonable grounds that the child was sixteen (16) years or over, or was the defendant's spouse; or<br />
::5) defendant was not more than 2 years older than the child was or appeared to be at the time of offence; or<br />
::6) child depicted was the defendant.<br />
<br />
It is also illegal to produce, sell, exhibit, deliver, or possess "indecent or offensive material in which a child (whether engaged in sexual activity or not) is depicted or described in a way that is likely to cause serious and general offence amongst reasonable adult members of the community". The definition of "material" includes:<br />
<br />
::a. any written or printed material; or<br />
::b. any picture, painting or drawing; or<br />
::c. any carving sculpture, statue of figure; or<br />
::d. any photograph, film, video tape or other object from which an image may be reproduced; or<br />
::e. any computer data or the computer record or system containing the data; or<br />
::f. any other material or object on which an image or representation is recorded or from which an image or representation may be reproduced.<br />
<br />
Procuring or inviting a minor to be involved in the production of child pornography is also an offence.<br />
<br />
===Western Australia===<br />
<br />
(1) A person who —<br />
<br />
::(a) with intent to sell or supply the child pornography or the copy to another, possesses or copies child pornography; or<br />
<br />
::(b) sells or supplies, or offers to sell or supply, to another, child pornography, <br />
<br />
is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 7 years.<br />
<br />
(2) A person who publishes —<br />
<br />
::(a) anything likely to be understood as conveying that the person publishes or supplies child pornography; or<br />
<br />
::(b) an advertisement for child pornography, <br />
<br />
is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 5 years.<br />
<br />
(3) A person who displays, exhibits or demonstrates child pornography is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 5 years.<br />
<br />
(4) A person who possesses or copies child pornography is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 5 years.<br />
<br />
"Child pornography" is defined as "an article that describes or depicts, in a manner that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or who looks like, a child under 16 years of age (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not)".<br />
<br />
==Canada==<br />
<br />
In Canada, it is illegal to make, print, publish, distribute, sell, import, or possess any material which - for a sexual purpose - depicts a child under the age of 18. Material which has an "artistic, educational, scientific or medical purpose" is not prohibited; [[Robin Sharpe]] successfully used this defence in relation to "pornographic" texts depicting children.<br />
<br />
The definition of "material" is not limited to specific media, meaning that audio recordings, texts and cartoons are illegal if they depict a child for a sexual purpose.<br />
<br />
==United Kingdom==<br />
<br />
''See [[Indecent images of children]]''.<br />
<br />
In the United Kingdom, it is illegal to take, make, distribute, show, or possess indecent images of children. An indecent image of a child is a photograph or pseudo-photograph (including one comprised in a film) which shows a child and is indecent. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Child Pornography]]<br />
* [[Indecent images of children]]<br />
* [[Legal Information]]<br />
<br />
==Resources==<br />
<br />
*[http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/ Indecent Acts]<br />
<br />
[[Category: Law]] [[Category: International Law]] [[Category: United Kingdom Law]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Indecent_images_of_children&diff=429Indecent images of children2008-05-11T23:51:01Z<p>Brian: see also</p>
<hr />
<div>An indecent image of a child is a photograph or pseudo-photograph (including one comprised in a film) which shows a child and is indecent. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
==Definition of a photograph==<br />
<br />
In <i>R v Fellows & Arnold</i> (1994), the appealant contended that an image stored electronically could not constitute an indecent photograph of a child under section 7 of the Protection of Children Act. <br />
<br />
It was ruled that an electronically stored image was a "copy of an indecent photograph of a child". The court stated that "there is no restriction on the nature of a copy, [and a copy of a photograph is data which] represents the original photograph, in another form". It was also stated that "there is nothing in the Act which makes it necessary that [a] copy should itself be a photograph within the dictionary or the statutory definition, and if there was, it would make the inclusion of the reference to a copy unnecessary. So we conclude that there is no restriction on the nature of a copy [..]" [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1996/825.html]<br />
<br />
According to section 7 of the Protection of Children Act, references to a photograph are "the negative as well as the positive version; and data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into a photograph." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&activetextdocid=1502066]<br />
<br />
So, an image stored electronically is a copy of a photograph and is illegal if it is indecent and shows a child.<br />
<br />
==Definition of a pseudo-photograph==<br />
<br />
A pseudo-photograph is an image which has the appearance of a photograph, but which is not a photograph. A pseudo-photograph of a child does not necessarily show a <i>real</i> child.<br />
<br />
==Defintion of a child==<br />
<br />
A child was originally defined as a person under the age of 16, however the [[Sexual Offences Act (2003)]] raised the defintion of "child" to a person under the age of 18.<br />
<br />
==Indecency==<br />
<br />
The decency of an image is an objective test; that is, it is decided by the jury. Indecency is considered to be a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_of_fact question of fact].<br />
<br />
===Interpretation===<br />
<br />
In order to judge whether an image is indecent, the jury must "apply[..] the recognised standards of propriety." (''R v Graham-Kerr'', 1988) [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/grahamKerr.html].<br />
<br />
In 2003, the Sentencing Advisory Panel provided guidance for Judges considering sentences for people convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act. The lowest level of indecency was described as "images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity", which would suggest that naturist images without posing are not indecent. Despite this, a number of people have been convicted of an offence for making and possessing naturist images. In 2003, Tom O'Carroll was convicted of "evading the prohibition on the importation of indecent material", for importing photographs of "young naked child[ren] engaging in normal outdoor activity such as playing on a beach". One should never assume that an image must be pornographic for it to be indecent.<br />
<br />
Put simply, a photograph or pseudo-photograph is judged to be indecent if the jury believes that it would offend the majority of the population of the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
===Context===<br />
<br />
In R v Graham-Kerr, the defendant had taken (naked) photographs of a male child during a naturists-only event at a swimming pool. The Police interviewed the defendant about his intentions in taking the photographs, and he admitted that he received "'sexual gratification by taking or looking at such photographs". The Judge stated that the jury were entitled to take into account the circumstances, motives, and sexual intentions of the take. <br />
<br />
At the appeal against conviction, the Judge ruled that "''the circumstances and the motivation of the taker may be relevant to the mens rea of the take as to whether his taking was intentional or accidental and so on, but it is not relevant to whether or not the photograph is in itself indecent''". The conviction was quashed. [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/grahamKerr.html]<br />
<br />
In ''R v Mould'' (2000), the Appeal Court ruled that "Mr Burton [representing Mr Mould] was rightly concerned that the jury, in deciding whether or not the photograph was indecent, would wrongly take into account [data showing access to paedophile discussion forums]." Although it was agreed that the jury should not use such information to make a judgment regarding the decency of the image for which Mr Mould was convicted, it was understood that "the prosecution [successfully] sought to rely on it in order to prove that the appellant had deliberately created the .bmp file." [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/mould2000.html] <br />
<br />
While a defendant's proven sexual attraction to children should not affect indecency, it may affect the perceived ''mens rea'' of an act.<br />
<br />
==Criminal offences==<br />
<br />
Under the (amended) Protection of Children Act, it is an offence for a person:<br />
<br />
<br />
:* to take, or permit to be taken, or to make any indecent photograph of a child . . .; or<br />
:* to distribute or show such indecent photographs; or<br />
:* to have in his possession such indecent photographs [outdated text removed]; or<br />
:* to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs, or intends to do so. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
Under the Sexual Offences Act (2003), it is an offence to cause, control, arrange or facilitate a child's involvement in pornography. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820967][http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820968][http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820969]<br />
<br />
It is an offence to "attempt to incite" any criminal offence in the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
===The "making" offence===<br />
<br />
Causing an indecent photograph of a child to exist on a computer screen is considered to be "making an indecent photograph of a child".<br />
<br />
"A person who either downloads images on to disc or who prints them off is making them. The Act is not only concerned with the original creation of images, but also their proliferation. Photographs or pseudo-photographs found on the Internet may have originated from outside the United Kingdom; to download or print within the jurisdiction is to create new material which hitherto may not have existed therein." (R v Bowden) [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/bowden1999.html]<br />
<br />
===Offences committed abroad===<br />
<br />
Any act done by a person (who was on 1st September 1997, or has since become, a British citizen or resident in the United Kingdom) in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom which—<br />
<br />
:: (a) constituted an offence under the law in force in that country or territory, and<br />
<br />
:: (b) would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies if it had been done in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland,<br />
<br />
constitutes that sexual offence under the law of that part of the United Kingdom. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820998]<br />
<br />
This means that one may be prosecuted under the Protection of Children Act (as amended by the Sexual Offences Act) if he commits a child sex offence in a foreign territory (under that territory's laws), which would also have constituted an offence if it were done in England, Wales, or Northern Ireland.<br />
<br />
The [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act]] will amend the relevant section of the Sexual Offences Act. The Act provides that:<br />
<br />
(1) If—<br />
<br />
::(a) a United Kingdom national does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom, and<br />
<br />
::(b) the act, if done in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies,<br />
<br />
the United Kingdom national is guilty in that part of the United Kingdom of that sexual offence.<br />
<br />
<br />
(2) If—<br />
<br />
::(a) a United Kingdom resident does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom,<br />
<br />
::(b) the act constitutes an offence under the law in force in that country, and<br />
<br />
::(c) the act, if done in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies,<br />
<br />
the United Kingdom resident is guilty in that part of the United Kingdom of that sexual offence. [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/041/08041.50-56.html#jNC35]<br />
<br />
This means that a United Kingdom national may be prosecuted under the Protection of Children Act (as amended by the Sexual Offences Act) if he engages in activity contrary to the Protection of Children Act while in a foreign territory. A United Kingdom resident who engages in an act contrary to the Protection of Children Act while outside of the United Kingdom may be prosecuted if the act also constituted an offence in the foreign jurisdiction.<br />
<br />
==Defences==<br />
<br />
There are a small number of defences against charges under the Protection of Children Act. Below is a list of defences set by the statutes, precedents and case law.<br />
<br />
===Marriage and other relationships===<br />
<br />
In cases where a defendant has taken or made a photographic image of a child over the age of 16, the defendant is not guilty if, at the time when he obtained the photograph, he and the child:<br />
<br />
:: (a) were married; or<br />
<br />
:: (b) lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship; and <br />
<br />
:: (c) the defendant reasonably believed that the child consented to the image being obtained. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820963]<br />
<br />
This exemption was introduced in 2003 under the Sexual Offences Act, which had changed the statutory definition of "child" (in the Protection of Children Act) from 16 to 18.<br />
<br />
===Mens Rea===<br />
<br />
The Criminal Justice Act provides that: <br />
<br />
"Where a person is charged with an offence of possession, it shall be a defence for him to prove –<br />
<br />
:: (a) that he had a legitimate reason for having the photograph or pseudo-photograph in his possession; or<br />
<br />
:: (b) that he had not himself seen the photograph or pseudo- photograph and did not know nor had any cause to suspect, it to be indecent; or<br />
<br />
:: (c) that the photograph or pseudo-photograph was sent to him without any prior request made by him or on his behalf and that he did not keep it for any unreasonable time." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=2116646&ActiveTextDocId=2116851]<br />
<br />
The same defences may be applied to the other offences under Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act.<br />
<br />
It is also a defence for the defendant to prove that he did not take, make, distribute, show or possess an image which the knowledge that the image was, or was likely to be:<br />
<br />
::* an indecent image; and<br />
::* an image of a child.<br />
<br />
This was upheld in R v Smith & Jayson, when the judge ruled that, "the mens rea necessary to constitute the offence [of making an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child] is that the act of making should be a deliberate and intentional act with knowledge that the image made is, or is likely to be, an indecent image of a child" ''(R v Smith & Jayson, 2003)''. [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/smithJayson2003.html]<br />
<br />
A defendant must be proven (beyond reasonable doubt) to be aware that a cache of images exists, in order to be convicted for the possession offence. It should be noted that, in such cases, the defendant will still be convicted of the making offence, unless another defence applies.<br />
<br />
===Collages===<br />
<br />
Lord Justice Simon Brown ruled that "an image made by an exhibit which obviously consists, as this one does, of parts of two different photographs sellotaped together cannot be said to appear to be "a photograph" [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/302.html]. This means that, if a collage does not appear to be parts of a single photograph, it does not fall within the scope of the Protection of Children Act. A photocopy or scan of a collage may fall under the Act and could therefore be illegal if it shows a child and is judged to be indecent.<br />
<br />
===Law enforcement===<br />
<br />
It is a defence for the defendant to prove that images were made "for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings"<br />
<br />
===Human Rights Act===<br />
<br />
The [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm Human Rights Act] offers two potential defences against possession and "making" charges under the ''Protection of Children Act'', however the following Articles have ''not'' been tested in court in relation to such charges.<br />
<br />
Section 3 of the Act dictates that:<br />
<br />
:"(1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.<br />
<br />
::::(2) This section—<br />
<br />
::::::(a) applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted;<br />
<br />
::::::(b) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation; and<br />
<br />
::::::(c) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible subordinate legislation if disregarding any possibility of revocation) primary legislation prevents removal of the incompatibility."<br />
<br />
The relevant convention articles are ''Article 13'' and ''Article 14''.<br />
<br />
'''Article 13:'''<br />
<br />
:"(4) The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to—<br />
<br />
::::(a) the extent to which—<br />
::::::(i) the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or<br />
::::::(ii) it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published"<br />
<br />
It is well known that nude images of children have been used, controversially, in artistic exhibitions, which implies that some people see an artistic element in nude images of children. Cases involving art galleries have never resulted in prosecution, but cases involving the downloading of questionable material from the internet do lead to prosecution. A defendant may argue that images which are on the public internet (world wide web) could be defined as having "become available to the public." Indeed, the judge of the case of ''Knuller v. DPP'' stated that "in public" [..] has a wide meaning." It appears to "cover exhibitions in all places to which the public have access either as of right or gratis or on payment."<br />
<br />
'''Article 14:'''<br />
<br />
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."<br />
<br />
==Sentencing==<br />
<br />
The sentencing guidelines for offences committed contrary to the Protection of Children Act were decided by the Sentencing Advisory Panel, to assist with sentencing during ''R v Oliver et al''<br />
<br />
The levels of indecency are as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
{| border="1" <br />
| Level<br />
| Definition<br />
|- <br />
| Level 1<br />
| Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity<br />
|- <br />
| Level 2<br />
| Sexual activity between children or solo masturbation by a child.<br />
|- <br />
| Level 3<br />
| Non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children.<br />
|- <br />
| Level 4<br />
| Penetrative sexual activity between children and adults.<br />
|- <br />
| Level 5<br />
| Sadism or bestiality<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
Judges use the following guidelines when sentencing someone who has been convicted under the <i>Protection of Children Act</i>:<br />
<br/><br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
| Guideline sentence<br />
| Circumstances<br />
|- <br />
| Fine or conditional discharge<br />
| A fine may be appropriate if: <br />
<ul><li>the offender was merely in possession of material solely for own use, including where material was downloaded from the internet but not further distributed, and consisted entirely of pseudo-photographs, the making of which had involved no abuse or exploitation of children, or there was no more than a small quantity of material at level 1. <br />
<li>A conditional discharge may be appropriate in such a case if the offender pleaded and had no previous convictions.</ul><br />
|- <br />
| Community sentence<br />
| A community sentence may be appropriate if the offender was in possession of a large amount of material at level 1 and/or a small number of images at level 2, provided the material was not distributed or shown to others.<br />
|- <br />
| Up to 6 months’ custody<br />
| Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><li>Offender was in possession of a large amount of material at level 2 or a small amount at level 3 or above, or<br />
<li>Offender had shown, distributed, or exchanged indecent material at level 1 or 2 on a limited scale, without financial gain.</ul><br />
|- <br />
| 6–12 months custody<br />
| Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><li>Showing or distributing a large number of images at level 2 or 3, or<br />
<li>Possessing a small number of images at levels 4 or 5.<br />
|- <br />
| 12 months-3 years’ custody<br />
| Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><li>Possessing a large quantity of material at levels 4 or 5, even if there was no showing or distribution of it<br />
<li>Showing or distributing a large number of images at level 3<br />
<li>Producing or trading in material at levels 1, 2 or 3<br />
</ul><br />
|- <br />
| Longer than 3 years custody<br />
| Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><li>Images at level 4 or 5 had been shown or distributed, or<br />
<li>Offender was actively involved in production of images at levels 4 or 5, especially where that involvement included a breach of trust, and whether or not there was an element of commercial gain, or<br />
<li>Offender commissioned or encouraged the production of such images<br />
</ul><br/><br />
(An offender whose conduct merited more than 3 years would merit a higher sentence if his conduct was within more than one of the categories)<br />
|- <br />
| Sentences approaching the 10 year maximum<br />
| Appropriate in very serious cases where the offender had a previous conviction either for dealing in child pornography or for abusing children sexually or with violence.<br />
|}[http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/guidelines/other/courtappeal/default.asp?T=Cases&catID=5&subject=PORNOGRAPHY&SubSubject=Making%20and%20distributing%20indecent%20photographs%20of%20a%20child]<br />
<br />
<br />
Images which are below the threshhold for Level 1 - but which are judged to be indecent by a jury - will be treated as Level 1 images during sentencing; therefore a naturist image with no erotic posing will be treated as a Level 1 indecent image of a child, if judged to be indecent.<br />
<br />
<br />
A person who is convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act is also likely to be banned from working with children in the United Kingdom, and ordered to sign the Sex Offenders Register.<br />
<br />
==Important Notes==<br />
<br />
*Any image may <i>technically</i> be indecent under UK law. <br />
*Even if an image has been declared as decent by one jury, it may be still be declared indecent by another jury. <br />
*Despite precedents stating that the context of an image does not affect indecency, a jury may be more likely to rule that an image is indecent if they believe that the defendant is attracted to children.<br />
*Previous interpretations of the indecency suggest that "indecency" has a lower threshhold than "pornography", so what is "indecent" (and therefore illegal) is not necessarily "pornographic".<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Child Pornography]]<br />
* [[Child Pornography (Law)]]<br />
* [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act]]<br />
* [[Legal Information]]<br />
* [[Sexual Offences Act (2003)]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Censorship]] [[Category:Law]] [[Category:United Kingdom Law]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Sexual_Offences_Act_(2003)&diff=426Sexual Offences Act (2003)2008-05-11T23:47:30Z<p>Brian: update</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Sexual Offences Act (2003)''' is an [[Act of Parliament]] in the [[United Kingdom]] which was enacted in 2003. It was introduced as "An Act to make new provision about sexual offences, their prevention and the protection of children from harm from other sexual acts, and for connected purposes." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&ActiveTextDocId=820905]<br />
<br />
The Act introduced many new sexual offences and, due to a recent amendment enacted as part of the [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act]], provides that UK nationals who act contrary to UK child sex offence laws abroad may be prosecuted in the United Kingdom. [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/051/08051.52-57.html#jNC35] It also defines penetrative sexual activity between two children under the age of 13 as rape. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&ActiveTextDocId=820916]<br />
<br />
The Act makes it an offence to encourage, arrange or facilitate certain child sex offences, including both contact [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&ActiveTextDocId=820926] and non-contact [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=parentActiveTextDocId=820904&ActiveTextDocId=820969] offences.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
*[[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act]]<br />
*[[Indecent images of children]]<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
<br />
[http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?activeTextDocId=820904 Sexual Offences Act (2003) at the Statute Law Database]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Law]] [[Category:United Kingdom Law]] [[Category:International Law]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Indecent_images_of_children&diff=405Indecent images of children2008-05-11T00:34:49Z<p>Brian: formatting</p>
<hr />
<div>An indecent image of a child is a photograph or pseudo-photograph (including one comprised in a film) which shows a child and is indecent. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
==Definition of a photograph==<br />
<br />
In <i>R v Fellows & Arnold</i> (1994), the appealant contended that an image stored electronically could not constitute an indecent photograph of a child under section 7 of the Protection of Children Act. <br />
<br />
It was ruled that an electronically stored image was a "copy of an indecent photograph of a child". The court stated that "there is no restriction on the nature of a copy, [and a copy of a photograph is data which] represents the original photograph, in another form". It was also stated that "there is nothing in the Act which makes it necessary that [a] copy should itself be a photograph within the dictionary or the statutory definition, and if there was, it would make the inclusion of the reference to a copy unnecessary. So we conclude that there is no restriction on the nature of a copy [..]" [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1996/825.html]<br />
<br />
According to section 7 of the Protection of Children Act, references to a photograph are "the negative as well as the positive version; and data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into a photograph." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&activetextdocid=1502066]<br />
<br />
So, an image stored electronically is a copy of a photograph and is illegal if it is indecent and shows a child.<br />
<br />
==Definition of a pseudo-photograph==<br />
<br />
A pseudo-photograph is an image which has the appearance of a photograph, but which is not a photograph. A pseudo-photograph of a child does not necessarily show a <i>real</i> child.<br />
<br />
==Defintion of a child==<br />
<br />
A child was originally defined as a person under the age of 16, however the [[Sexual Offences Act (2003)]] raised the defintion of "child" to a person under the age of 18.<br />
<br />
==Indecency==<br />
<br />
The decency of an image is an objective test; that is, it is decided by the jury. Indecency is considered to be a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_of_fact question of fact].<br />
<br />
===Interpretation===<br />
<br />
In order to judge whether an image is indecent, the jury must "apply[..] the recognised standards of propriety." (''R v Graham-Kerr'', 1988) [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/grahamKerr.html].<br />
<br />
In 2003, the Sentencing Advisory Panel provided guidance for Judges considering sentences for people convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act. The lowest level of indecency was described as "images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity", which would suggest that naturist images without posing are not indecent. Despite this, a number of people have been convicted of an offence for making and possessing naturist images. In 2003, Tom O'Carroll was convicted of "evading the prohibition on the importation of indecent material", for importing photographs of "young naked child[ren] engaging in normal outdoor activity such as playing on a beach". One should never assume that an image must be pornographic for it to be indecent.<br />
<br />
Put simply, a photograph or pseudo-photograph is judged to be indecent if the jury believes that it would offend the majority of the population of the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
===Context===<br />
<br />
In R v Graham-Kerr, the defendant had taken (naked) photographs of a male child during a naturists-only event at a swimming pool. The Police interviewed the defendant about his intentions in taking the photographs, and he admitted that he received "'sexual gratification by taking or looking at such photographs". The Judge stated that the jury were entitled to take into account the circumstances, motives, and sexual intentions of the take. <br />
<br />
At the appeal against conviction, the Judge ruled that "''the circumstances and the motivation of the taker may be relevant to the mens rea of the take as to whether his taking was intentional or accidental and so on, but it is not relevant to whether or not the photograph is in itself indecent''". The conviction was quashed. [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/grahamKerr.html]<br />
<br />
In ''R v Mould'' (2000), the Appeal Court ruled that "Mr Burton [representing Mr Mould] was rightly concerned that the jury, in deciding whether or not the photograph was indecent, would wrongly take into account [data showing access to paedophile discussion forums]." Although it was agreed that the jury should not use such information to make a judgment regarding the decency of the image for which Mr Mould was convicted, it was understood that "the prosecution [successfully] sought to rely on it in order to prove that the appellant had deliberately created the .bmp file." [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/mould2000.html] <br />
<br />
While a defendant's proven sexual attraction to children should not affect indecency, it may affect the perceived ''mens rea'' of an act.<br />
<br />
==Criminal offences==<br />
<br />
Under the (amended) Protection of Children Act, it is an offence for a person:<br />
<br />
<br />
:* to take, or permit to be taken, or to make any indecent photograph of a child . . .; or<br />
:* to distribute or show such indecent photographs; or<br />
:* to have in his possession such indecent photographs [outdated text removed]; or<br />
:* to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs, or intends to do so. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
Under the Sexual Offences Act (2003), it is an offence to cause, control, arrange or facilitate a child's involvement in pornography. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820967][http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820968][http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820969]<br />
<br />
It is an offence to "attempt to incite" any criminal offence in the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
===The "making" offence===<br />
<br />
Causing an indecent photograph of a child to exist on a computer screen is considered to be "making an indecent photograph of a child".<br />
<br />
"A person who either downloads images on to disc or who prints them off is making them. The Act is not only concerned with the original creation of images, but also their proliferation. Photographs or pseudo-photographs found on the Internet may have originated from outside the United Kingdom; to download or print within the jurisdiction is to create new material which hitherto may not have existed therein." (R v Bowden) [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/bowden1999.html]<br />
<br />
===Offences committed abroad===<br />
<br />
Any act done by a person (who was on 1st September 1997, or has since become, a British citizen or resident in the United Kingdom) in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom which—<br />
<br />
:: (a) constituted an offence under the law in force in that country or territory, and<br />
<br />
:: (b) would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies if it had been done in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland,<br />
<br />
constitutes that sexual offence under the law of that part of the United Kingdom. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820998]<br />
<br />
This means that one may be prosecuted under the Protection of Children Act (as amended by the Sexual Offences Act) if he commits a child sex offence in a foreign territory (under that territory's laws), which would also have constituted an offence if it were done in England, Wales, or Northern Ireland.<br />
<br />
The [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act]] will amend the relevant section of the Sexual Offences Act. The Act provides that:<br />
<br />
(1) If—<br />
<br />
::(a) a United Kingdom national does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom, and<br />
<br />
::(b) the act, if done in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies,<br />
<br />
the United Kingdom national is guilty in that part of the United Kingdom of that sexual offence.<br />
<br />
<br />
(2) If—<br />
<br />
::(a) a United Kingdom resident does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom,<br />
<br />
::(b) the act constitutes an offence under the law in force in that country, and<br />
<br />
::(c) the act, if done in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies,<br />
<br />
the United Kingdom resident is guilty in that part of the United Kingdom of that sexual offence. [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/041/08041.50-56.html#jNC35]<br />
<br />
This means that a United Kingdom national may be prosecuted under the Protection of Children Act (as amended by the Sexual Offences Act) if he engages in activity contrary to the Protection of Children Act while in a foreign territory. A United Kingdom resident who engages in an act contrary to the Protection of Children Act while outside of the United Kingdom may be prosecuted if the act also constituted an offence in the foreign jurisdiction.<br />
<br />
==Defences==<br />
<br />
There are a small number of defences against charges under the Protection of Children Act. Below is a list of defences set by the statutes, precedents and case law.<br />
<br />
===Marriage and other relationships===<br />
<br />
In cases where a defendant has taken or made a photographic image of a child over the age of 16, the defendant is not guilty if, at the time when he obtained the photograph, he and the child:<br />
<br />
:: (a) were married; or<br />
<br />
:: (b) lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship; and <br />
<br />
:: (c) the defendant reasonably believed that the child consented to the image being obtained. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820963]<br />
<br />
This exemption was introduced in 2003 under the Sexual Offences Act, which had changed the statutory definition of "child" (in the Protection of Children Act) from 16 to 18.<br />
<br />
===Mens Rea===<br />
<br />
The Criminal Justice Act provides that: <br />
<br />
"Where a person is charged with an offence of possession, it shall be a defence for him to prove –<br />
<br />
:: (a) that he had a legitimate reason for having the photograph or pseudo-photograph in his possession; or<br />
<br />
:: (b) that he had not himself seen the photograph or pseudo- photograph and did not know nor had any cause to suspect, it to be indecent; or<br />
<br />
:: (c) that the photograph or pseudo-photograph was sent to him without any prior request made by him or on his behalf and that he did not keep it for any unreasonable time." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=2116646&ActiveTextDocId=2116851]<br />
<br />
The same defences may be applied to the other offences under Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act.<br />
<br />
It is also a defence for the defendant to prove that he did not take, make, distribute, show or possess an image which the knowledge that the image was, or was likely to be:<br />
<br />
::* an indecent image; and<br />
::* an image of a child.<br />
<br />
This was upheld in R v Smith & Jayson, when the judge ruled that, "the mens rea necessary to constitute the offence [of making an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child] is that the act of making should be a deliberate and intentional act with knowledge that the image made is, or is likely to be, an indecent image of a child" ''(R v Smith & Jayson, 2003)''. [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/smithJayson2003.html]<br />
<br />
A defendant must be proven (beyond reasonable doubt) to be aware that a cache of images exists, in order to be convicted for the possession offence. It should be noted that, in such cases, the defendant will still be convicted of the making offence, unless another defence applies.<br />
<br />
===Collages===<br />
<br />
Lord Justice Simon Brown ruled that "an image made by an exhibit which obviously consists, as this one does, of parts of two different photographs sellotaped together cannot be said to appear to be "a photograph" [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/302.html]. This means that, if a collage does not appear to be parts of a single photograph, it does not fall within the scope of the Protection of Children Act. A photocopy or scan of a collage may fall under the Act and could therefore be illegal if it shows a child and is judged to be indecent.<br />
<br />
===Law enforcement===<br />
<br />
It is a defence for the defendant to prove that images were made "for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings"<br />
<br />
===Human Rights Act===<br />
<br />
The [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm Human Rights Act] offers two potential defences against possession and "making" charges under the ''Protection of Children Act'', however the following Articles have ''not'' been tested in court in relation to such charges.<br />
<br />
Section 3 of the Act dictates that:<br />
<br />
:"(1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.<br />
<br />
::::(2) This section—<br />
<br />
::::::(a) applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted;<br />
<br />
::::::(b) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation; and<br />
<br />
::::::(c) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible subordinate legislation if disregarding any possibility of revocation) primary legislation prevents removal of the incompatibility."<br />
<br />
The relevant convention articles are ''Article 13'' and ''Article 14''.<br />
<br />
'''Article 13:'''<br />
<br />
:"(4) The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to—<br />
<br />
::::(a) the extent to which—<br />
::::::(i) the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or<br />
::::::(ii) it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published"<br />
<br />
It is well known that nude images of children have been used, controversially, in artistic exhibitions, which implies that some people see an artistic element in nude images of children. Cases involving art galleries have never resulted in prosecution, but cases involving the downloading of questionable material from the internet do lead to prosecution. A defendant may argue that images which are on the public internet (world wide web) could be defined as having "become available to the public." Indeed, the judge of the case of ''Knuller v. DPP'' stated that "in public" [..] has a wide meaning." It appears to "cover exhibitions in all places to which the public have access either as of right or gratis or on payment."<br />
<br />
'''Article 14:'''<br />
<br />
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."<br />
<br />
==Sentencing==<br />
<br />
The sentencing guidelines for offences committed contrary to the Protection of Children Act were decided by the Sentencing Advisory Panel, to assist with sentencing during ''R v Oliver et al''<br />
<br />
The levels of indecency are as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
{| border="1" <br />
| Level<br />
| Definition<br />
|- <br />
| Level 1<br />
| Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity<br />
|- <br />
| Level 2<br />
| Sexual activity between children or solo masturbation by a child.<br />
|- <br />
| Level 3<br />
| Non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children.<br />
|- <br />
| Level 4<br />
| Penetrative sexual activity between children and adults.<br />
|- <br />
| Level 5<br />
| Sadism or bestiality<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
Judges use the following guidelines when sentencing someone who has been convicted under the <i>Protection of Children Act</i>:<br />
<br/><br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
| Guideline sentence<br />
| Circumstances<br />
|- <br />
| Fine or conditional discharge<br />
| A fine may be appropriate if: <br />
<ul><li>the offender was merely in possession of material solely for own use, including where material was downloaded from the internet but not further distributed, and consisted entirely of pseudo-photographs, the making of which had involved no abuse or exploitation of children, or there was no more than a small quantity of material at level 1. <br />
<li>A conditional discharge may be appropriate in such a case if the offender pleaded and had no previous convictions.</ul><br />
|- <br />
| Community sentence<br />
| A community sentence may be appropriate if the offender was in possession of a large amount of material at level 1 and/or a small number of images at level 2, provided the material was not distributed or shown to others.<br />
|- <br />
| Up to 6 months’ custody<br />
| Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><li>Offender was in possession of a large amount of material at level 2 or a small amount at level 3 or above, or<br />
<li>Offender had shown, distributed, or exchanged indecent material at level 1 or 2 on a limited scale, without financial gain.</ul><br />
|- <br />
| 6–12 months custody<br />
| Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><li>Showing or distributing a large number of images at level 2 or 3, or<br />
<li>Possessing a small number of images at levels 4 or 5.<br />
|- <br />
| 12 months-3 years’ custody<br />
| Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><li>Possessing a large quantity of material at levels 4 or 5, even if there was no showing or distribution of it<br />
<li>Showing or distributing a large number of images at level 3<br />
<li>Producing or trading in material at levels 1, 2 or 3<br />
</ul><br />
|- <br />
| Longer than 3 years custody<br />
| Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><li>Images at level 4 or 5 had been shown or distributed, or<br />
<li>Offender was actively involved in production of images at levels 4 or 5, especially where that involvement included a breach of trust, and whether or not there was an element of commercial gain, or<br />
<li>Offender commissioned or encouraged the production of such images<br />
</ul><br/><br />
(An offender whose conduct merited more than 3 years would merit a higher sentence if his conduct was within more than one of the categories)<br />
|- <br />
| Sentences approaching the 10 year maximum<br />
| Appropriate in very serious cases where the offender had a previous conviction either for dealing in child pornography or for abusing children sexually or with violence.<br />
|}[http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/guidelines/other/courtappeal/default.asp?T=Cases&catID=5&subject=PORNOGRAPHY&SubSubject=Making%20and%20distributing%20indecent%20photographs%20of%20a%20child]<br />
<br />
<br />
Images which are below the threshhold for Level 1 - but which are judged to be indecent by a jury - will be treated as Level 1 images during sentencing; therefore a naturist image with no erotic posing will be treated as a Level 1 indecent image of a child, if judged to be indecent.<br />
<br />
<br />
A person who is convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act is also likely to be banned from working with children in the United Kingdom, and ordered to sign the Sex Offenders Register.<br />
<br />
==Important Notes==<br />
<br />
*Any image may <i>technically</i> be indecent under UK law. <br />
*Even if an image has been declared as decent by one jury, it may be still be declared indecent by another jury. <br />
*Despite precedents stating that the context of an image does not affect indecency, a jury may be more likely to rule that an image is indecent if they believe that the defendant is attracted to children.<br />
*Previous interpretations of the indecency suggest that "indecency" has a lower threshhold than "pornography", so what is "indecent" (and therefore illegal) is not necessarily "pornographic".<br />
<br />
[[Category:Censorship]] [[Category:Law]] [[Category:United Kingdom Law]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Indecent_images_of_children&diff=404Indecent images of children2008-05-11T00:31:57Z<p>Brian: Update to reflect the Criminal Injustice and Racism Act</p>
<hr />
<div>An indecent image of a child is a photograph or pseudo-photograph (including one comprised in a film) which shows a child and is indecent. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
==Definition of a photograph==<br />
<br />
In <i>R v Fellows & Arnold</i> (1994), the appealant contended that an image stored electronically could not constitute an indecent photograph of a child under section 7 of the Protection of Children Act. <br />
<br />
It was ruled that an electronically stored image was a "copy of an indecent photograph of a child". The court stated that "there is no restriction on the nature of a copy, [and a copy of a photograph is data which] represents the original photograph, in another form". It was also stated that "there is nothing in the Act which makes it necessary that [a] copy should itself be a photograph within the dictionary or the statutory definition, and if there was, it would make the inclusion of the reference to a copy unnecessary. So we conclude that there is no restriction on the nature of a copy [..]" [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1996/825.html]<br />
<br />
According to section 7 of the Protection of Children Act, references to a photograph are "the negative as well as the positive version; and data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into a photograph." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&activetextdocid=1502066]<br />
<br />
So, an image stored electronically is a copy of a photograph and is illegal if it is indecent and shows a child.<br />
<br />
==Definition of a pseudo-photograph==<br />
<br />
A pseudo-photograph is an image which has the appearance of a photograph, but which is not a photograph. A pseudo-photograph of a child does not necessarily show a <i>real</i> child.<br />
<br />
==Defintion of a child==<br />
<br />
A child was originally defined as a person under the age of 16, however the [[Sexual Offences Act (2003)]] raised the defintion of "child" to a person under the age of 18.<br />
<br />
==Indecency==<br />
<br />
The decency of an image is an objective test; that is, it is decided by the jury. Indecency is considered to be a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_of_fact question of fact].<br />
<br />
===Interpretation===<br />
<br />
In order to judge whether an image is indecent, the jury must "apply[..] the recognised standards of propriety." (''R v Graham-Kerr'', 1988) [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/grahamKerr.html].<br />
<br />
In 2003, the Sentencing Advisory Panel provided guidance for Judges considering sentences for people convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act. The lowest level of indecency was described as "images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity", which would suggest that naturist images without posing are not indecent. Despite this, a number of people have been convicted of an offence for making and possessing naturist images. In 2003, Tom O'Carroll was convicted of "evading the prohibition on the importation of indecent material", for importing photographs of "young naked child[ren] engaging in normal outdoor activity such as playing on a beach". One should never assume that an image must be pornographic for it to be indecent.<br />
<br />
Put simply, a photograph or pseudo-photograph is judged to be indecent if the jury believes that it would offend the majority of the population of the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
===Context===<br />
<br />
In R v Graham-Kerr, the defendant had taken (naked) photographs of a male child during a naturists-only event at a swimming pool. The Police interviewed the defendant about his intentions in taking the photographs, and he admitted that he received "'sexual gratification by taking or looking at such photographs". The Judge stated that the jury were entitled to take into account the circumstances, motives, and sexual intentions of the take. <br />
<br />
At the appeal against conviction, the Judge ruled that "''the circumstances and the motivation of the taker may be relevant to the mens rea of the take as to whether his taking was intentional or accidental and so on, but it is not relevant to whether or not the photograph is in itself indecent''". The conviction was quashed. [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/grahamKerr.html]<br />
<br />
In ''R v Mould'' (2000), the Appeal Court ruled that "Mr Burton [representing Mr Mould] was rightly concerned that the jury, in deciding whether or not the photograph was indecent, would wrongly take into account [data showing access to paedophile discussion forums]." Although it was agreed that the jury should not use such information to make a judgment regarding the decency of the image for which Mr Mould was convicted, it was understood that "the prosecution [successfully] sought to rely on it in order to prove that the appellant had deliberately created the .bmp file." [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/mould2000.html] <br />
<br />
While a defendant's proven sexual attraction to children should not affect indecency, it may affect the perceived ''mens rea'' of an act.<br />
<br />
==Criminal offences==<br />
<br />
Under the (amended) Protection of Children Act, it is an offence for a person:<br />
<br />
<br />
:* to take, or permit to be taken, or to make any indecent photograph of a child . . .; or<br />
:* to distribute or show such indecent photographs; or<br />
:* to have in his possession such indecent photographs [outdated text removed]; or<br />
:* to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs, or intends to do so. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
Under the Sexual Offences Act (2003), it is an offence to cause, control, arrange or facilitate a child's involvement in pornography. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820967][http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820968][http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820969]<br />
<br />
It is an offence to "attempt to incite" any criminal offence in the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
===The "making" offence===<br />
<br />
Causing an indecent photograph of a child to exist on a computer screen is considered to be "making an indecent photograph of a child".<br />
<br />
"A person who either downloads images on to disc or who prints them off is making them. The Act is not only concerned with the original creation of images, but also their proliferation. Photographs or pseudo-photographs found on the Internet may have originated from outside the United Kingdom; to download or print within the jurisdiction is to create new material which hitherto may not have existed therein." (R v Bowden) [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/bowden1999.html]<br />
<br />
===Offences committed abroad===<br />
<br />
Any act done by a person (who was on 1st September 1997, or has since become, a British citizen or resident in the United Kingdom) in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom which—<br />
<br />
:: (a) constituted an offence under the law in force in that country or territory, and<br />
<br />
:: (b) would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies if it had been done in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland,<br />
<br />
constitutes that sexual offence under the law of that part of the United Kingdom. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820998]<br />
<br />
This means that one may be prosecuted under the Protection of Children Act (as amended by the Sexual Offences Act) if he commits a child sex offence in a foreign territory (under that territory's laws), which would also have constituted an offence if it were done in England, Wales, or Northern Ireland.<br />
<br />
The [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act]] will amend the relevant section of the Sexual Offences Act. The Act provides that:<br />
<br />
(1) If—<br />
<br />
::(a) a United Kingdom national does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom, and<br />
<br />
::(b) the act, if done in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies,<br />
<br />
the United Kingdom national is guilty in that part of the United Kingdom of that sexual offence.<br />
<br />
<br />
2 If—<br />
<br />
:::(a) a United Kingdom resident does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom,<br />
<br />
:::(b) the act constitutes an offence under the law in force in that country, and<br />
<br />
:::(c) the act, if done in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies,<br />
<br />
the United Kingdom resident is guilty in that part of the United Kingdom of that sexual offence. [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/041/08041.50-56.html#jNC35]<br />
<br />
This means that a United Kingdom national may be prosecuted under the Protection of Children Act (as amended by the Sexual Offences Act) if he engages in activity contrary to the Protection of Children Act while in a foreign territory. A United Kingdom resident who engages in an act contrary to the Protection of Children Act while outside of the United Kingdom may be prosecuted if the act also constituted an offence in the foreign jurisdiction.<br />
<br />
==Defences==<br />
<br />
There are a small number of defences against charges under the Protection of Children Act. Below is a list of defences set by the statutes, precedents and case law.<br />
<br />
===Marriage and other relationships===<br />
<br />
In cases where a defendant has taken or made a photographic image of a child over the age of 16, the defendant is not guilty if, at the time when he obtained the photograph, he and the child:<br />
<br />
:: (a) were married; or<br />
<br />
:: (b) lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship; and <br />
<br />
:: (c) the defendant reasonably believed that the child consented to the image being obtained. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820963]<br />
<br />
This exemption was introduced in 2003 under the Sexual Offences Act, which had changed the statutory definition of "child" (in the Protection of Children Act) from 16 to 18.<br />
<br />
===Mens Rea===<br />
<br />
The Criminal Justice Act provides that: <br />
<br />
"Where a person is charged with an offence of possession, it shall be a defence for him to prove –<br />
<br />
:: (a) that he had a legitimate reason for having the photograph or pseudo-photograph in his possession; or<br />
<br />
:: (b) that he had not himself seen the photograph or pseudo- photograph and did not know nor had any cause to suspect, it to be indecent; or<br />
<br />
:: (c) that the photograph or pseudo-photograph was sent to him without any prior request made by him or on his behalf and that he did not keep it for any unreasonable time." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=2116646&ActiveTextDocId=2116851]<br />
<br />
The same defences may be applied to the other offences under Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act.<br />
<br />
It is also a defence for the defendant to prove that he did not take, make, distribute, show or possess an image which the knowledge that the image was, or was likely to be:<br />
<br />
::* an indecent image; and<br />
::* an image of a child.<br />
<br />
This was upheld in R v Smith & Jayson, when the judge ruled that, "the mens rea necessary to constitute the offence [of making an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child] is that the act of making should be a deliberate and intentional act with knowledge that the image made is, or is likely to be, an indecent image of a child" ''(R v Smith & Jayson, 2003)''. [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/smithJayson2003.html]<br />
<br />
A defendant must be proven (beyond reasonable doubt) to be aware that a cache of images exists, in order to be convicted for the possession offence. It should be noted that, in such cases, the defendant will still be convicted of the making offence, unless another defence applies.<br />
<br />
===Collages===<br />
<br />
Lord Justice Simon Brown ruled that "an image made by an exhibit which obviously consists, as this one does, of parts of two different photographs sellotaped together cannot be said to appear to be "a photograph" [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/302.html]. This means that, if a collage does not appear to be parts of a single photograph, it does not fall within the scope of the Protection of Children Act. A photocopy or scan of a collage may fall under the Act and could therefore be illegal if it shows a child and is judged to be indecent.<br />
<br />
===Law enforcement===<br />
<br />
It is a defence for the defendant to prove that images were made "for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings"<br />
<br />
===Human Rights Act===<br />
<br />
The [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm Human Rights Act] offers two potential defences against possession and "making" charges under the ''Protection of Children Act'', however the following Articles have ''not'' been tested in court in relation to such charges.<br />
<br />
Section 3 of the Act dictates that:<br />
<br />
:"(1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.<br />
<br />
::::(2) This section—<br />
<br />
::::::(a) applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted;<br />
<br />
::::::(b) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation; and<br />
<br />
::::::(c) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible subordinate legislation if disregarding any possibility of revocation) primary legislation prevents removal of the incompatibility."<br />
<br />
The relevant convention articles are ''Article 13'' and ''Article 14''.<br />
<br />
'''Article 13:'''<br />
<br />
:"(4) The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to—<br />
<br />
::::(a) the extent to which—<br />
::::::(i) the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or<br />
::::::(ii) it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published"<br />
<br />
It is well known that nude images of children have been used, controversially, in artistic exhibitions, which implies that some people see an artistic element in nude images of children. Cases involving art galleries have never resulted in prosecution, but cases involving the downloading of questionable material from the internet do lead to prosecution. A defendant may argue that images which are on the public internet (world wide web) could be defined as having "become available to the public." Indeed, the judge of the case of ''Knuller v. DPP'' stated that "in public" [..] has a wide meaning." It appears to "cover exhibitions in all places to which the public have access either as of right or gratis or on payment."<br />
<br />
'''Article 14:'''<br />
<br />
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."<br />
<br />
==Sentencing==<br />
<br />
The sentencing guidelines for offences committed contrary to the Protection of Children Act were decided by the Sentencing Advisory Panel, to assist with sentencing during ''R v Oliver et al''<br />
<br />
The levels of indecency are as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
{| border="1" <br />
| Level<br />
| Definition<br />
|- <br />
| Level 1<br />
| Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity<br />
|- <br />
| Level 2<br />
| Sexual activity between children or solo masturbation by a child.<br />
|- <br />
| Level 3<br />
| Non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children.<br />
|- <br />
| Level 4<br />
| Penetrative sexual activity between children and adults.<br />
|- <br />
| Level 5<br />
| Sadism or bestiality<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
Judges use the following guidelines when sentencing someone who has been convicted under the <i>Protection of Children Act</i>:<br />
<br/><br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
| Guideline sentence<br />
| Circumstances<br />
|- <br />
| Fine or conditional discharge<br />
| A fine may be appropriate if: <br />
<ul><li>the offender was merely in possession of material solely for own use, including where material was downloaded from the internet but not further distributed, and consisted entirely of pseudo-photographs, the making of which had involved no abuse or exploitation of children, or there was no more than a small quantity of material at level 1. <br />
<li>A conditional discharge may be appropriate in such a case if the offender pleaded and had no previous convictions.</ul><br />
|- <br />
| Community sentence<br />
| A community sentence may be appropriate if the offender was in possession of a large amount of material at level 1 and/or a small number of images at level 2, provided the material was not distributed or shown to others.<br />
|- <br />
| Up to 6 months’ custody<br />
| Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><li>Offender was in possession of a large amount of material at level 2 or a small amount at level 3 or above, or<br />
<li>Offender had shown, distributed, or exchanged indecent material at level 1 or 2 on a limited scale, without financial gain.</ul><br />
|- <br />
| 6–12 months custody<br />
| Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><li>Showing or distributing a large number of images at level 2 or 3, or<br />
<li>Possessing a small number of images at levels 4 or 5.<br />
|- <br />
| 12 months-3 years’ custody<br />
| Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><li>Possessing a large quantity of material at levels 4 or 5, even if there was no showing or distribution of it<br />
<li>Showing or distributing a large number of images at level 3<br />
<li>Producing or trading in material at levels 1, 2 or 3<br />
</ul><br />
|- <br />
| Longer than 3 years custody<br />
| Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><li>Images at level 4 or 5 had been shown or distributed, or<br />
<li>Offender was actively involved in production of images at levels 4 or 5, especially where that involvement included a breach of trust, and whether or not there was an element of commercial gain, or<br />
<li>Offender commissioned or encouraged the production of such images<br />
</ul><br/><br />
(An offender whose conduct merited more than 3 years would merit a higher sentence if his conduct was within more than one of the categories)<br />
|- <br />
| Sentences approaching the 10 year maximum<br />
| Appropriate in very serious cases where the offender had a previous conviction either for dealing in child pornography or for abusing children sexually or with violence.<br />
|}[http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/guidelines/other/courtappeal/default.asp?T=Cases&catID=5&subject=PORNOGRAPHY&SubSubject=Making%20and%20distributing%20indecent%20photographs%20of%20a%20child]<br />
<br />
<br />
Images which are below the threshhold for Level 1 - but which are judged to be indecent by a jury - will be treated as Level 1 images during sentencing; therefore a naturist image with no erotic posing will be treated as a Level 1 indecent image of a child, if judged to be indecent.<br />
<br />
<br />
A person who is convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act is also likely to be banned from working with children in the United Kingdom, and ordered to sign the Sex Offenders Register.<br />
<br />
==Important Notes==<br />
<br />
*Any image may <i>technically</i> be indecent under UK law. <br />
*Even if an image has been declared as decent by one jury, it may be still be declared indecent by another jury. <br />
*Despite precedents stating that the context of an image does not affect indecency, a jury may be more likely to rule that an image is indecent if they believe that the defendant is attracted to children.<br />
*Previous interpretations of the indecency suggest that "indecency" has a lower threshhold than "pornography", so what is "indecent" (and therefore illegal) is not necessarily "pornographic".<br />
<br />
[[Category:Censorship]] [[Category:Law]] [[Category:United Kingdom Law]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Criminal_Justice_and_Immigration_Bill&diff=403Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill2008-05-10T23:58:12Z<p>Brian: Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill moved to Criminal Justice and Immigration Act: Bill has been enacted</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Criminal_Justice_and_Immigration_Act&diff=402Criminal Justice and Immigration Act2008-05-10T23:58:12Z<p>Brian: Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill moved to Criminal Justice and Immigration Act: Bill has been enacted</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Criminal Justice and Immigration Act''' is an [[Act of Parliament]] in the [[United Kingdom]]. It was given Royal Assent on May 8, 2008 [http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2007-08/criminaljusticeandimmigration.html]<br />
<br />
==Indecent images of children==<br />
<br />
Section 68 amends Section 7 of the [[Protection of Children Act (1978)]]. A reference to a pseudo-photograph will now include -<br />
<br />
:(a) a tracing or other image, whether made by electronic or other means (of whatever nature)—<br />
<br />
:::(i) which is not itself a photograph or pseudo-photograph, but<br />
<br />
:::(ii) which is derived from the whole or part of a photograph or pseudo-photograph (or a combination of either or both); and<br />
<br />
:(b) data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into an image within paragraph (a) [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/041/08041.50-56.html#j405]<br />
<br />
Under Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act, it is an offence to take, make, possess, distribute or show an [[indecent images of children|indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph]], or a reference to such an image. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&activetextdocid=1502060]<br />
<br />
Section 68 of the Act also allows the [[Secret Intelligence Service]] to engage in acts which are prohibited by the Protection of Children Act.<br />
<br />
==Offences committed abroad==<br />
<br />
Section 71 of the Act [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/041/08041.50-56.html#jNC35] amends Section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act, allowing the [[Crown Prosecution Service|CPS]] to prosecute British nationals for acts done legally abroad, if the acts are contrary to laws listed in Schedule 2 [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&ActiveTextDocId=821091] of the [[Sexual Offences Act (2003)|Sexual Offences Act]]. This removes the requirement of [[dual criminality]].<br />
<br />
==Sex offenders==<br />
<br />
Section 139 of the Act allows the Police to disclose information about sex offenders to members of the public [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/041/08041.100-106.html#jNC38] and Section 141 of the Act forces sex offenders to disclose any information which is requested by the Secretary of State (or one of his/her delegates) [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/041/08041.100-106.html#jNC40].<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
<br />
*[http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2007-08/criminaljusticeandimmigration.html Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill at Parliament.uk]<br />
*[http://anu.nfshost.com/2008/the-contemporary-moral-crusade Article about the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, at anu.nfshost.com]<br />
<br />
[[Category: Law]] [[Category: United Kingdom Law]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Criminal_Justice_and_Immigration_Act&diff=401Criminal Justice and Immigration Act2008-05-10T23:55:48Z<p>Brian: Update. Unfortunately, the Act is not yet available at the Statute Law Database (I can only use the text of the Bill), so the article may be inaccurate</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Criminal Justice and Immigration Act''' is an [[Act of Parliament]] in the [[United Kingdom]]. It was given Royal Assent on May 8, 2008 [http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2007-08/criminaljusticeandimmigration.html]<br />
<br />
==Indecent images of children==<br />
<br />
Section 68 amends Section 7 of the [[Protection of Children Act (1978)]]. A reference to a pseudo-photograph will now include -<br />
<br />
:(a) a tracing or other image, whether made by electronic or other means (of whatever nature)—<br />
<br />
:::(i) which is not itself a photograph or pseudo-photograph, but<br />
<br />
:::(ii) which is derived from the whole or part of a photograph or pseudo-photograph (or a combination of either or both); and<br />
<br />
:(b) data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into an image within paragraph (a) [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/041/08041.50-56.html#j405]<br />
<br />
Under Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act, it is an offence to take, make, possess, distribute or show an [[indecent images of children|indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph]], or a reference to such an image. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&activetextdocid=1502060]<br />
<br />
Section 68 of the Act also allows the [[Secret Intelligence Service]] to engage in acts which are prohibited by the Protection of Children Act.<br />
<br />
==Offences committed abroad==<br />
<br />
Section 71 of the Act [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/041/08041.50-56.html#jNC35] amends Section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act, allowing the [[Crown Prosecution Service|CPS]] to prosecute British nationals for acts done legally abroad, if the acts are contrary to laws listed in Schedule 2 [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&ActiveTextDocId=821091] of the [[Sexual Offences Act (2003)|Sexual Offences Act]]. This removes the requirement of [[dual criminality]].<br />
<br />
==Sex offenders==<br />
<br />
Section 139 of the Act allows the Police to disclose information about sex offenders to members of the public [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/041/08041.100-106.html#jNC38] and Section 141 of the Act forces sex offenders to disclose any information which is requested by the Secretary of State (or one of his/her delegates) [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/041/08041.100-106.html#jNC40].<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
<br />
*[http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2007-08/criminaljusticeandimmigration.html Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill at Parliament.uk]<br />
*[http://anu.nfshost.com/2008/the-contemporary-moral-crusade Article about the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, at anu.nfshost.com]<br />
<br />
[[Category: Law]] [[Category: United Kingdom Law]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Research:_Child_Pornography&diff=398Talk:Research: Child Pornography2008-05-09T22:31:27Z<p>Brian: </p>
<hr />
<div>The table data: http://anu.nfshost.com/2008/the-content-of-indecent-images may also be of interest. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] 03:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The data contained within the table is discussed within the section titled ''The Nature of Child Pornography''. [[User:Brian|Brian]] 22:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Research:_Child_Pornography&diff=384Research: Child Pornography2008-05-04T18:42:15Z<p>Brian: </p>
<hr />
<div>:''For legal implications, see [[Child Pornography (Law)]]''<br />
"Child pornography" has no agreed definition. Legally, it refers to media featuring minors in sexual situations.<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
==The Effects of Child Pornography==<br />
The criminalization of child pornography is, in part, justified by the assumption that it will cause paedophiles to abuse children. No conclusive evidence substantiates this assumption. On the contrary, child pornography appears to have a cathartic effect:<br />
<br />
*'''[[Thomas O'Carroll|O'Carroll, Tom]] (2000). "[http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/tomoc/sexpriv_backgr_text.htm Sexual Privacy for Paedophiles and Children: A Complementary Background Paper.]"'''<br />
*:"Such an effect has been proposed in relation to Denmark during the few years when child pornography was openly and legally available: in that period sex offences against children were significantly lower than either before or after. (5) A similar phenomenon occurred during a period of liberalisation in West Germany, where from 1972 to 1980 the total number of sex crimes known to the police in the Federal Republic of Germany decreased by 11%. (6) Sharpe himself, whose possession of pornography was in contention, made the astute point in an interview that if child pornography led to sexual assaults, then there would have been a huge increase in assaults as a result of the allegedly much greater availability of child porn on the Internet. (7)"<br />
<br />
*'''Dr. Stuart Kirby (2005)'''. "[http://www.lifestyleextra.com/ShowStory.asp?story=HF1520736Z&news_headline=no_link_between_child_porn_and_sexual_abuse Unidentified Study: No link between child porn and sexual abuse.]"'''<br />
*:"When you look at all the research that has been done nationally, the consensus is that there has not proven to be a link between the viewing of pornography and the committing of hands-on offences."<br />
<br />
*'''Dennis Howitt (1995)'''. "[http://www.ipce.info/host/howitt/6a.htm Paedophiles and Sexual Offences against Children.]"'''<br />
*:"One cannot simply take evidence that offenders use and buy pornography as sufficient to implicate pornography causally in their offending. The most reasonable assessment based on the available research literature is that the relationship between pornography, fantasy and offending is unclear."<br />
<br />
*'''Diamond, Milton, and Ayako Uchiyama (1999). "[http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html Pornography, rape, and sex crimes in Japan]", ''International Journal of Law and Psychiatry'', 22: 1-22.'''<br />
*:"However, there are no specific child pornography laws in Japan and SEM depicting minors are readily available and widely consumed. [...] The most dramatic decrease in sex crimes was seen when attention was focused on the number and age of rapists and victims among younger groups (Table 2). We hypothesized that the increase in pornography [in general], without age restriction and in comics, if it had any detrimental effect, would most negatively influence younger individuals. Just the opposite occurred. The number of juvenile offenders dramatically dropped every period reviewed from 1,803 perpetrators in 1972 to a low of 264 in 1995; a drop of some 85% (Table 1). The number of victims also decreased particularly among the females younger than 13 (Table 2). In 1972, 8.3% of the victims were younger than 13. In 1995 the percentage of victims younger than 13 years of age dropped to 4.0%."<br />
<br />
*'''Kendall, Todd (2006). "[http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdfPornography, Rape, and the Internet]."'''<br />
*:This study found that "an increase in home internet access of 10 percentage points is associated with an 7.3% decline in [forcible] rape" of females of all ages as a group. [http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/ Slate Magazine] reported on this.<br />
<br />
==The Nature of Child Pornography==<br />
<br />
*'''Jan Schuijer and Benjamin Rossen (1992) "[http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_2_1.htm The Trade in Child Pornography.]"'''<br />
*:"We have called the claims about child pornography "myths." The existence of child pornography is certainly not. The myths are the exaggerated estimates of the number of children, the volume and value of the trade, the profits that are alleged to have been made, and the horrifying damage said to have been done to the children."<br />
<br />
:*'''[[Thomas O'Carroll|O'Carroll, Tom]] (2000). "[http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/tomoc/sexpriv_backgr_text.htm Sexual Privacy for Paedophiles and Children: A Complementary Background Paper.]"'''<br />
:::"A survey of images in commercial child porn magazines that were available in the 1970s and early 80s by Schuijer and Rossen shows that only 14% depicted children engaged in sexual conduct with adults. Most of the material, 61%, showed children either nude at play or posing erotically. (8)"<br />
<br />
*'''www.almapintada.com: Child Pornography Statistics 1984-2000'''<br />
*:"Less than an average of ten new series per year have been circulated on the internet since 1984. Only 14 of these series include children engaged in sexual intercourse, 32 in non-penetrative genital contact and 39 in fellatio. Most of these series include genital display only."<br />
<br />
*'''Kenneth Lanning (1992). "[http://www.religioustolerance.org/fbi_02.htm Investigator's Guide to Allegations of "Ritual" Child Abuse, Chapter 2.1: "Stranger Danger."] Quantico, VA: Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime.<br />
*:"Child victims who, for example, simply behave like human beings and respond to the attention and affection of offenders by voluntarily and repeatedly returning to the offender's home are troubling. It confuses us to see the victims in child pornography giggling or laughing."<br />
<br />
==A Billion-Dollar Industry?==<br />
<br />
*'''Brian Rothery: "[http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=319 Every image of a child being abused]"'''<br />
*:"By now, many journalists and activists concerned with how the police deal with the child pornography laws are aware that the American police and some related agencies are the main, and likely the sole, dealers in and publishers of images of child pornography, using them for entrapment purposes."<br />
<br />
==Impact on Child Models==<br />
<br />
Very little research has been done into the direct effect of modeling on children.<br />
<br />
*'''Jan Schuijer and Benjamin Rossen (1992). "[http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_2_1_5.htm Interviews with Three Boys."]<br />
*:"Despite the attempt to obtain a balanced description of the events, a remarkably black and white picture emerged. The boys described their friendship and feelings for Ferdinand in glowing terms. On the other hand the attitude towards the police is unequivocally negative."<br />
<br />
*'''Ian O'Donnell and Claire Milner (2007). "Child Pornography: Crime, computers and society". Willan Publishing, p229.'''<br />
<br />
:"While we might feel uneasy about an individual who took sexual pleasure from photographs of children playing on beaches, it is clearly the case that such photographs are not based on an underlying act of abuse". <br />
<br />
<br />
==Impact on "non-appreciative" Adults==<br />
<br />
It is often claimed anecdotally that officers investigating high volumes of child porn suffer from "burn out" or may have to enter counseling.<br />
<br />
*'''Inquisition 21 (2008). "[http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=331 From inside the police force."]<br />
*:"We have a report from a police insider about how many of his colleagues actually reacted to both adult and child pornography [...] He received his first, much of it shocking to him, initiation into the world of pornography from his older police colleagues who ‘sickened him with their canteen culture’. They pushed the first ever hard core magazines he had seen right in front of his face, as he put it, “Gloating over them.” [...] Only as the number of women in the force increased, especially in senior ranks, did the macho culture of open pornographic display decrease and become more covert. [...] These men were now being paid to study child pornography and soon he could hear them tell the media about fatigue and burn-out concerning images they had formerly gloated over."</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Brian&diff=383User talk:Brian2008-05-03T22:36:59Z<p>Brian: </p>
<hr />
<div>==[[Legal Information]]==<br />
<br />
I set up a portal for you to work from, and created the new article on Child Porn. I like the category idea, and think it could add another level of organisation to the wiki. I am however, keeping the wiki structure linear, mirroring the site as a whole. therefore, you will see that everything is linked from the main page. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] 13:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks [[User:Brian|Brian]] 17:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==[[Debate Guide]]==<br />
<br />
http://newgon.com/w/index.php?title=Debate_Guide&diff=prev&oldid=232<br />
<br />
I've opened a new section that only concerns pedophile arguments. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] 14:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Thanks. I'll work on that when I've completed the legal articles and the categorisation of current articles. [[User:Brian|Brian]] 23:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Wikipedia ==<br />
<br />
I don't think that PS and JAR are WeissPuppets. They can spell and have a basic reading of CSA for a starter. They may be Eide and Becker respectively, though. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] 08:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACole_Dealton&diff=209758395&oldid=209726608 This edit] looks like a Weiss edit ("Thanks, [psuedonym]"), however I agree that more evidence is required. [[User:Brian|Brian]] 22:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Indecent_images_of_children&diff=363Indecent images of children2008-04-30T23:40:28Z<p>Brian: </p>
<hr />
<div>An indecent image of a child is a photograph or pseudo-photograph (including one comprised in a film) which shows a child and is indecent. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
==Definition of a photograph==<br />
<br />
In <i>R v Fellows & Arnold</i> (1994), the appealant contended that an image stored electronically could not constitute an indecent photograph of a child under section 7 of the Protection of Children Act. <br />
<br />
It was ruled that an electronically stored image was a "copy of an indecent photograph of a child". The court stated that "there is no restriction on the nature of a copy, [and a copy of a photograph is data which] represents the original photograph, in another form". It was also stated that "there is nothing in the Act which makes it necessary that [a] copy should itself be a photograph within the dictionary or the statutory definition, and if there was, it would make the inclusion of the reference to a copy unnecessary. So we conclude that there is no restriction on the nature of a copy [..]" [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1996/825.html]<br />
<br />
According to section 7 of the Protection of Children Act, references to a photograph are "the negative as well as the positive version; and data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into a photograph." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&activetextdocid=1502066]<br />
<br />
So, an image stored electronically is a copy of a photograph and is illegal if it is indecent and shows a child.<br />
<br />
==Definition of a pseudo-photograph==<br />
<br />
A pseudo-photograph is an image which has the appearance of a photograph, but which is not a photograph. A pseudo-photograph of a child does not necessarily show a <i>real</i> child.<br />
<br />
==Defintion of a child==<br />
<br />
A child was originally defined as a person under the age of 16, however the [[Sexual Offences Act (2003)]] raised the defintion of "child" to a person under the age of 18.<br />
<br />
==Indecency==<br />
<br />
The decency of an image is an objective test; that is, it is decided by the jury. Indecency is considered to be a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_of_fact question of fact].<br />
<br />
===Interpretation===<br />
<br />
In order to judge whether an image is indecent, the jury must "apply[..] the recognised standards of propriety." (''R v Graham-Kerr'', 1988) [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/grahamKerr.html].<br />
<br />
In 2003, the Sentencing Advisory Panel provided guidance for Judges considering sentences for people convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act. The lowest level of indecency was described as "images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity", which would suggest that naturist images without posing are not indecent. Despite this, a number of people have been convicted of an offence for making and possessing naturist images. In 2003, Tom O'Carroll was convicted of "evading the prohibition on the importation of indecent material", for importing photographs of "young naked child[ren] engaging in normal outdoor activity such as playing on a beach". One should never assume that an image must be pornographic for it to be indecent.<br />
<br />
Put simply, a photograph or pseudo-photograph is judged to be indecent if the jury believes that it would offend the majority of the population of the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
===Context===<br />
<br />
In R v Graham-Kerr, the defendant had taken (naked) photographs of a male child during a naturists-only event at a swimming pool. The Police interviewed the defendant about his intentions in taking the photographs, and he admitted that he received "'sexual gratification by taking or looking at such photographs". The Judge stated that the jury were entitled to take into account the circumstances, motives, and sexual intentions of the take. <br />
<br />
At the appeal against conviction, the Judge ruled that "''the circumstances and the motivation of the taker may be relevant to the mens rea of the take as to whether his taking was intentional or accidental and so on, but it is not relevant to whether or not the photograph is in itself indecent''". The conviction was quashed. [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/grahamKerr.html]<br />
<br />
In ''R v Mould'' (2000), the Appeal Court ruled that "Mr Burton [representing Mr Mould] was rightly concerned that the jury, in deciding whether or not the photograph was indecent, would wrongly take into account [data showing access to paedophile discussion forums]." Although it was agreed that the jury should not use such information to make a judgment regarding the decency of the image for which Mr Mould was convicted, it was understood that "the prosecution [successfully] sought to rely on it in order to prove that the appellant had deliberately created the .bmp file." [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/mould2000.html] <br />
<br />
While a defendant's proven sexual attraction to children should not affect indecency, it may affect the perceived ''mens rea'' of an act.<br />
<br />
==Criminal offences==<br />
<br />
Under the (amended) Protection of Children Act, it is an offence for a person:<br />
<br />
<br />
:* to take, or permit to be taken, or to make any indecent photograph of a child . . .; or<br />
:* to distribute or show such indecent photographs; or<br />
:* to have in his possession such indecent photographs [outdated text removed]; or<br />
:* to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs, or intends to do so. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
Under the Sexual Offences Act (2003), it is an offence to cause, control, arrange or facilitate a child's involvement in pornography. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820967][http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820968][http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820969]<br />
<br />
It is an offence to "attempt to incite" any criminal offence in the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
===The "making" offence===<br />
<br />
Causing an indecent photograph of a child to exist on a computer screen is considered to be "making an indecent photograph of a child".<br />
<br />
"A person who either downloads images on to disc or who prints them off is making them. The Act is not only concerned with the original creation of images, but also their proliferation. Photographs or pseudo-photographs found on the Internet may have originated from outside the United Kingdom; to download or print within the jurisdiction is to create new material which hitherto may not have existed therein." (R v Bowden) [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/bowden1999.html]<br />
<br />
===Offences committed abroad===<br />
<br />
Any act done by a person (who was on 1st September 1997, or has since become, a British citizen or resident in the United Kingdom) in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom which—<br />
<br />
:: (a) constituted an offence under the law in force in that country or territory, and<br />
<br />
:: (b) would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies if it had been done in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland,<br />
<br />
constitutes that sexual offence under the law of that part of the United Kingdom. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820998]<br />
<br />
This means that one may be prosecuted under the Protection of Children Act (as amended by the Sexual Offences Act) if he commits a child sex offence in a foreign territory (under that territory's laws), which would also have constituted an offence if it were done in England, Wales, or Northern Ireland.<br />
<br />
This Section of the Sexual Offences Act is likely to be amended by the [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill]].<br />
<br />
==Defences==<br />
<br />
There are a small number of defences against charges under the Protection of Children Act. Below is a list of defences set by the statutes, precedents and case law.<br />
<br />
===Marriage and other relationships===<br />
<br />
In cases where a defendant has taken or made a photographic image of a child over the age of 16, the defendant is not guilty if, at the time when he obtained the photograph, he and the child:<br />
<br />
:: (a) were married; or<br />
<br />
:: (b) lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship; and <br />
<br />
:: (c) the defendant reasonably believed that the child consented to the image being obtained. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820963]<br />
<br />
This exemption was introduced in 2003 under the Sexual Offences Act, which had changed the statutory definition of "child" (in the Protection of Children Act) from 16 to 18.<br />
<br />
===Mens Rea===<br />
<br />
The Criminal Justice Act provides that: <br />
<br />
"Where a person is charged with an offence of possession, it shall be a defence for him to prove –<br />
<br />
:: (a) that he had a legitimate reason for having the photograph or pseudo-photograph in his possession; or<br />
<br />
:: (b) that he had not himself seen the photograph or pseudo- photograph and did not know nor had any cause to suspect, it to be indecent; or<br />
<br />
:: (c) that the photograph or pseudo-photograph was sent to him without any prior request made by him or on his behalf and that he did not keep it for any unreasonable time." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=2116646&ActiveTextDocId=2116851]<br />
<br />
The same defences may be applied to the other offences under Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act.<br />
<br />
It is also a defence for the defendant to prove that he did not take, make, distribute, show or possess an image which the knowledge that the image was, or was likely to be:<br />
<br />
::* an indecent image; and<br />
::* an image of a child.<br />
<br />
This was upheld in R v Smith & Jayson, when the judge ruled that, "the mens rea necessary to constitute the offence [of making an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child] is that the act of making should be a deliberate and intentional act with knowledge that the image made is, or is likely to be, an indecent image of a child" ''(R v Smith & Jayson, 2003)''. [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/smithJayson2003.html]<br />
<br />
A defendant must be proven (beyond reasonable doubt) to be aware that a cache of images exists, in order to be convicted for the possession offence. It should be noted that, in such cases, the defendant will still be convicted of the making offence, unless another defence applies.<br />
<br />
===Collages===<br />
<br />
Lord Justice Simon Brown ruled that "an image made by an exhibit which obviously consists, as this one does, of parts of two different photographs sellotaped together cannot be said to appear to be "a photograph" [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/302.html]. This means that, if a collage does not appear to be parts of a single photograph, it does not fall within the scope of the Protection of Children Act. A photocopy or scan of a collage may fall under the Act and could therefore be illegal if it shows a child and is judged to be indecent.<br />
<br />
===Law enforcement===<br />
<br />
It is a defence for the defendant to prove that images were made "for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings"<br />
<br />
===Human Rights Act===<br />
<br />
The [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm Human Rights Act] offers two potential defences against possession and "making" charges under the ''Protection of Children Act'', however the following Articles have ''not'' been tested in court in relation to such charges.<br />
<br />
Section 3 of the Act dictates that:<br />
<br />
:"(1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.<br />
<br />
::::(2) This section—<br />
<br />
::::::(a) applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted;<br />
<br />
::::::(b) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation; and<br />
<br />
::::::(c) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible subordinate legislation if disregarding any possibility of revocation) primary legislation prevents removal of the incompatibility."<br />
<br />
The relevant convention articles are ''Article 13'' and ''Article 14''.<br />
<br />
'''Article 13:'''<br />
<br />
:"(4) The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to—<br />
<br />
::::(a) the extent to which—<br />
::::::(i) the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or<br />
::::::(ii) it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published"<br />
<br />
It is well known that nude images of children have been used, controversially, in artistic exhibitions, which implies that some people see an artistic element in nude images of children. Cases involving art galleries have never resulted in prosecution, but cases involving the downloading of questionable material from the internet do lead to prosecution. A defendant may argue that images which are on the public internet (world wide web) could be defined as having "become available to the public." Indeed, the judge of the case of ''Knuller v. DPP'' stated that "in public" [..] has a wide meaning." It appears to "cover exhibitions in all places to which the public have access either as of right or gratis or on payment."<br />
<br />
'''Article 14:'''<br />
<br />
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."<br />
<br />
==Sentencing==<br />
<br />
The sentencing guidelines for offences committed contrary to the Protection of Children Act were decided by the Sentencing Advisory Panel, to assist with sentencing during ''R v Oliver et al''<br />
<br />
The levels of indecency are as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
{| border="1" <br />
| Level<br />
| Definition<br />
|- <br />
| Level 1<br />
| Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity<br />
|- <br />
| Level 2<br />
| Sexual activity between children or solo masturbation by a child.<br />
|- <br />
| Level 3<br />
| Non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children.<br />
|- <br />
| Level 4<br />
| Penetrative sexual activity between children and adults.<br />
|- <br />
| Level 5<br />
| Sadism or bestiality<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
Judges use the following guidelines when sentencing someone who has been convicted under the <i>Protection of Children Act</i>:<br />
<br/><br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
| Guideline sentence<br />
| Circumstances<br />
|- <br />
| Fine or conditional discharge<br />
| A fine may be appropriate if: <br />
<ul><li>the offender was merely in possession of material solely for own use, including where material was downloaded from the internet but not further distributed, and consisted entirely of pseudo-photographs, the making of which had involved no abuse or exploitation of children, or there was no more than a small quantity of material at level 1. <br />
<li>A conditional discharge may be appropriate in such a case if the offender pleaded and had no previous convictions.</ul><br />
|- <br />
| Community sentence<br />
| A community sentence may be appropriate if the offender was in possession of a large amount of material at level 1 and/or a small number of images at level 2, provided the material was not distributed or shown to others.<br />
|- <br />
| Up to 6 months’ custody<br />
| Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><li>Offender was in possession of a large amount of material at level 2 or a small amount at level 3 or above, or<br />
<li>Offender had shown, distributed, or exchanged indecent material at level 1 or 2 on a limited scale, without financial gain.</ul><br />
|- <br />
| 6–12 months custody<br />
| Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><li>Showing or distributing a large number of images at level 2 or 3, or<br />
<li>Possessing a small number of images at levels 4 or 5.<br />
|- <br />
| 12 months-3 years’ custody<br />
| Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><li>Possessing a large quantity of material at levels 4 or 5, even if there was no showing or distribution of it<br />
<li>Showing or distributing a large number of images at level 3<br />
<li>Producing or trading in material at levels 1, 2 or 3<br />
</ul><br />
|- <br />
| Longer than 3 years custody<br />
| Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><li>Images at level 4 or 5 had been shown or distributed, or<br />
<li>Offender was actively involved in production of images at levels 4 or 5, especially where that involvement included a breach of trust, and whether or not there was an element of commercial gain, or<br />
<li>Offender commissioned or encouraged the production of such images<br />
</ul><br/><br />
(An offender whose conduct merited more than 3 years would merit a higher sentence if his conduct was within more than one of the categories)<br />
|- <br />
| Sentences approaching the 10 year maximum<br />
| Appropriate in very serious cases where the offender had a previous conviction either for dealing in child pornography or for abusing children sexually or with violence.<br />
|}[http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/guidelines/other/courtappeal/default.asp?T=Cases&catID=5&subject=PORNOGRAPHY&SubSubject=Making%20and%20distributing%20indecent%20photographs%20of%20a%20child]<br />
<br />
<br />
Images which are below the threshhold for Level 1 - but which are judged to be indecent by a jury - will be treated as Level 1 images during sentencing; therefore a naturist image with no erotic posing will be treated as a Level 1 indecent image of a child, if judged to be indecent.<br />
<br />
<br />
A person who is convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act is also likely to be banned from working with children in the United Kingdom, and ordered to sign the Sex Offenders Register.<br />
<br />
==Important Notes==<br />
<br />
*Any image may <i>technically</i> be indecent under UK law. <br />
*Even if an image has been declared as decent by one jury, it may be still be declared indecent by another jury. <br />
*Despite precedents stating that the context of an image does not affect indecency, a jury may be more likely to rule that an image is indecent if they believe that the defendant is attracted to children.<br />
*Previous interpretations of the indecency suggest that "indecency" has a lower threshhold than "pornography", so what is "indecent" (and therefore illegal) is not necessarily "pornographic".<br />
<br />
[[Category:Censorship]] [[Category:Law]] [[Category:United Kingdom Law]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Indecent_images_of_children&diff=362Indecent images of children2008-04-30T23:36:23Z<p>Brian: Human Rights Act</p>
<hr />
<div>An indecent image of a child is a photograph or pseudo-photograph (including one comprised in a film) which shows a child and is indecent. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
==Definition of a photograph==<br />
<br />
In <i>R v Fellows & Arnold</i> (1994), the appealant contended that an image stored electronically could not constitute an indecent photograph of a child under section 7 of the Protection of Children Act. <br />
<br />
It was ruled that an electronically stored image was a "copy of an indecent photograph of a child". The court stated that "there is no restriction on the nature of a copy, [and a copy of a photograph is data which] represents the original photograph, in another form". It was also stated that "there is nothing in the Act which makes it necessary that [a] copy should itself be a photograph within the dictionary or the statutory definition, and if there was, it would make the inclusion of the reference to a copy unnecessary. So we conclude that there is no restriction on the nature of a copy [..]" [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1996/825.html]<br />
<br />
According to section 7 of the Protection of Children Act, references to a photograph are "the negative as well as the positive version; and data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into a photograph." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&activetextdocid=1502066]<br />
<br />
So, an image stored electronically is a copy of a photograph and is illegal if it is indecent and shows a child.<br />
<br />
==Definition of a pseudo-photograph==<br />
<br />
A pseudo-photograph is an image which has the appearance of a photograph, but which is not a photograph. A pseudo-photograph of a child does not necessarily show a <i>real</i> child.<br />
<br />
==Defintion of a child==<br />
<br />
A child was originally defined as a person under the age of 16, however the [[Sexual Offences Act (2003)]] raised the defintion of "child" to a person under the age of 18.<br />
<br />
==Indecency==<br />
<br />
The decency of an image is an objective test; that is, it is decided by the jury. Indecency is considered to be a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_of_fact question of fact].<br />
<br />
===Interpretation===<br />
<br />
In order to judge whether an image is indecent, the jury must "apply[..] the recognised standards of propriety." (''R v Graham-Kerr'', 1988) [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/grahamKerr.html].<br />
<br />
In 2003, the Sentencing Advisory Panel provided guidance for Judges considering sentences for people convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act. The lowest level of indecency was described as "images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity", which would suggest that naturist images without posing are not indecent. Despite this, a number of people have been convicted of an offence for making and possessing naturist images. In 2003, Tom O'Carroll was convicted of "evading the prohibition on the importation of indecent material", for importing photographs of "young naked child[ren] engaging in normal outdoor activity such as playing on a beach". One should never assume that an image must be pornographic for it to be indecent.<br />
<br />
Put simply, a photograph or pseudo-photograph is judged to be indecent if the jury believes that it would offend the majority of the population of the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
===Context===<br />
<br />
In R v Graham-Kerr, the defendant had taken (naked) photographs of a male child during a naturists-only event at a swimming pool. The Police interviewed the defendant about his intentions in taking the photographs, and he admitted that he received "'sexual gratification by taking or looking at such photographs". The Judge stated that the jury were entitled to take into account the circumstances, motives, and sexual intentions of the take. <br />
<br />
At the appeal against conviction, the Judge ruled that "''the circumstances and the motivation of the taker may be relevant to the mens rea of the take as to whether his taking was intentional or accidental and so on, but it is not relevant to whether or not the photograph is in itself indecent''". The conviction was quashed. [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/grahamKerr.html]<br />
<br />
In ''R v Mould'' (2000), the Appeal Court ruled that "Mr Burton [representing Mr Mould] was rightly concerned that the jury, in deciding whether or not the photograph was indecent, would wrongly take into account [data showing access to paedophile discussion forums]." Although it was agreed that the jury should not use such information to make a judgment regarding the decency of the image for which Mr Mould was convicted, it was understood that "the prosecution [successfully] sought to rely on it in order to prove that the appellant had deliberately created the .bmp file." [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/mould2000.html] <br />
<br />
While a defendant's proven sexual attraction to children should not affect indecency, it may affect the perceived ''mens rea'' of an act.<br />
<br />
==Criminal offences==<br />
<br />
Under the (amended) Protection of Children Act, it is an offence for a person:<br />
<br />
<br />
:* to take, or permit to be taken, or to make any indecent photograph of a child . . .; or<br />
:* to distribute or show such indecent photographs; or<br />
:* to have in his possession such indecent photographs [outdated text removed]; or<br />
:* to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs, or intends to do so. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
Under the Sexual Offences Act (2003), it is an offence to cause, control, arrange or facilitate a child's involvement in pornography. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820967][http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820968][http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820969]<br />
<br />
It is an offence to "attempt to incite" any criminal offence in the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
===The "making" offence===<br />
<br />
Causing an indecent photograph of a child to exist on a computer screen is considered to be "making an indecent photograph of a child".<br />
<br />
"A person who either downloads images on to disc or who prints them off is making them. The Act is not only concerned with the original creation of images, but also their proliferation. Photographs or pseudo-photographs found on the Internet may have originated from outside the United Kingdom; to download or print within the jurisdiction is to create new material which hitherto may not have existed therein." (R v Bowden) [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/bowden1999.html]<br />
<br />
===Offences committed abroad===<br />
<br />
Any act done by a person (who was on 1st September 1997, or has since become, a British citizen or resident in the United Kingdom) in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom which—<br />
<br />
:: (a) constituted an offence under the law in force in that country or territory, and<br />
<br />
:: (b) would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies if it had been done in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland,<br />
<br />
constitutes that sexual offence under the law of that part of the United Kingdom. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820998]<br />
<br />
This means that one may be prosecuted under the Protection of Children Act (as amended by the Sexual Offences Act) if he commits a child sex offence in a foreign territory (under that territory's laws), which would also have constituted an offence if it were done in England, Wales, or Northern Ireland.<br />
<br />
This Section of the Sexual Offences Act is likely to be amended by the [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill]].<br />
<br />
==Defences==<br />
<br />
There are a small number of defences against charges under the Protection of Children Act. Below is a list of defences set by the statutes, precedents and case law.<br />
<br />
===Marriage and other relationships===<br />
<br />
In cases where a defendant has taken or made a photographic image of a child over the age of 16, the defendant is not guilty if, at the time when he obtained the photograph, he and the child:<br />
<br />
:: (a) were married; or<br />
<br />
:: (b) lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship; and <br />
<br />
:: (c) the defendant reasonably believed that the child consented to the image being obtained. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820963]<br />
<br />
This exemption was introduced in 2003 under the Sexual Offences Act, which had changed the statutory definition of "child" (in the Protection of Children Act) from 16 to 18.<br />
<br />
===Mens Rea===<br />
<br />
The Criminal Justice Act provides that: <br />
<br />
"Where a person is charged with an offence of possession, it shall be a defence for him to prove –<br />
<br />
:: (a) that he had a legitimate reason for having the photograph or pseudo-photograph in his possession; or<br />
<br />
:: (b) that he had not himself seen the photograph or pseudo- photograph and did not know nor had any cause to suspect, it to be indecent; or<br />
<br />
:: (c) that the photograph or pseudo-photograph was sent to him without any prior request made by him or on his behalf and that he did not keep it for any unreasonable time." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=2116646&ActiveTextDocId=2116851]<br />
<br />
The same defences may be applied to the other offences under Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act.<br />
<br />
It is also a defence for the defendant to prove that he did not take, make, distribute, show or possess an image which the knowledge that the image was, or was likely to be:<br />
<br />
::* an indecent image; and<br />
::* an image of a child.<br />
<br />
This was upheld in R v Smith & Jayson, when the judge ruled that, "the mens rea necessary to constitute the offence [of making an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child] is that the act of making should be a deliberate and intentional act with knowledge that the image made is, or is likely to be, an indecent image of a child" ''(R v Smith & Jayson, 2003)''. [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/smithJayson2003.html]<br />
<br />
A defendant must be proven (beyond reasonable doubt) to be aware that a cache of images exists, in order to be convicted for the possession offence. It should be noted that, in such cases, the defendant will still be convicted of the making offence, unless another defence applies.<br />
<br />
===Collages===<br />
<br />
Lord Justice Simon Brown ruled that "an image made by an exhibit which obviously consists, as this one does, of parts of two different photographs sellotaped together cannot be said to appear to be "a photograph" [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/302.html]. This means that, if a collage does not appear to be parts of a single photograph, it does not fall within the scope of the Protection of Children Act. A photocopy or scan of a collage may fall under the Act and could therefore be illegal if it shows a child and is judged to be indecent.<br />
<br />
===Law enforcement===<br />
<br />
It is a defence for the defendant to prove that images were made "for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings"<br />
<br />
===Human Rights Act===<br />
<br />
The [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm Human Rights Act] offers two potential defences against possession and "making" charges under the ''Protection of Children Act'', however the following Articles have ''not'' been tested in court in relation to such charges.<br />
<br />
Section 3 of the Act dictates that:<br />
<br />
:"(1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.<br />
<br />
::::(2) This section—<br />
<br />
::::::(a) applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted;<br />
<br />
::::::(b) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation; and<br />
<br />
::::::(c) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible subordinate legislation if disregarding any possibility of revocation) primary legislation prevents removal of the incompatibility."<br />
<br />
The relevant convention articles are ''Article 13'' and ''Article 14''.<br />
<br />
'''Article 13:'''<br />
<br />
:"(4) The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to—<br />
<br />
::::(a) the extent to which—<br />
::::::(i) the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or<br />
::::::(ii) it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published"<br />
<br />
It is well known that nude images of children have been used, controversially, in artistic exhibitions, which implies that some people see an artistic element in nude images of children. Cases involving art galleries have never resulted in prosecution, but cases involving the downloading of questionable material from the internet do lead to prosecution. A defendant may argue that images which are on the public internet (world wide web), regardless of what they depict, could be defined as having "become available to the public." Indeed, the judge of the case of ''Knuller v. DPP'' stated that "in public" [..] has a wide meaning." It appears to "cover exhibitions in all places to which the public have access either as of right or gratis or on payment."<br />
<br />
'''Article 14:'''<br />
<br />
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."<br />
<br />
==Sentencing==<br />
<br />
The sentencing guidelines for offences committed contrary to the Protection of Children Act were decided by the Sentencing Advisory Panel, to assist with sentencing during ''R v Oliver et al''<br />
<br />
The levels of indecency are as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
{| border="1" <br />
| Level<br />
| Definition<br />
|- <br />
| Level 1<br />
| Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity<br />
|- <br />
| Level 2<br />
| Sexual activity between children or solo masturbation by a child.<br />
|- <br />
| Level 3<br />
| Non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children.<br />
|- <br />
| Level 4<br />
| Penetrative sexual activity between children and adults.<br />
|- <br />
| Level 5<br />
| Sadism or bestiality<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
Judges use the following guidelines when sentencing someone who has been convicted under the <i>Protection of Children Act</i>:<br />
<br/><br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
| Guideline sentence<br />
| Circumstances<br />
|- <br />
| Fine or conditional discharge<br />
| A fine may be appropriate if: <br />
<ul><li>the offender was merely in possession of material solely for own use, including where material was downloaded from the internet but not further distributed, and consisted entirely of pseudo-photographs, the making of which had involved no abuse or exploitation of children, or there was no more than a small quantity of material at level 1. <br />
<li>A conditional discharge may be appropriate in such a case if the offender pleaded and had no previous convictions.</ul><br />
|- <br />
| Community sentence<br />
| A community sentence may be appropriate if the offender was in possession of a large amount of material at level 1 and/or a small number of images at level 2, provided the material was not distributed or shown to others.<br />
|- <br />
| Up to 6 months’ custody<br />
| Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><li>Offender was in possession of a large amount of material at level 2 or a small amount at level 3 or above, or<br />
<li>Offender had shown, distributed, or exchanged indecent material at level 1 or 2 on a limited scale, without financial gain.</ul><br />
|- <br />
| 6–12 months custody<br />
| Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><li>Showing or distributing a large number of images at level 2 or 3, or<br />
<li>Possessing a small number of images at levels 4 or 5.<br />
|- <br />
| 12 months-3 years’ custody<br />
| Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><li>Possessing a large quantity of material at levels 4 or 5, even if there was no showing or distribution of it<br />
<li>Showing or distributing a large number of images at level 3<br />
<li>Producing or trading in material at levels 1, 2 or 3<br />
</ul><br />
|- <br />
| Longer than 3 years custody<br />
| Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><li>Images at level 4 or 5 had been shown or distributed, or<br />
<li>Offender was actively involved in production of images at levels 4 or 5, especially where that involvement included a breach of trust, and whether or not there was an element of commercial gain, or<br />
<li>Offender commissioned or encouraged the production of such images<br />
</ul><br/><br />
(An offender whose conduct merited more than 3 years would merit a higher sentence if his conduct was within more than one of the categories)<br />
|- <br />
| Sentences approaching the 10 year maximum<br />
| Appropriate in very serious cases where the offender had a previous conviction either for dealing in child pornography or for abusing children sexually or with violence.<br />
|}[http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/guidelines/other/courtappeal/default.asp?T=Cases&catID=5&subject=PORNOGRAPHY&SubSubject=Making%20and%20distributing%20indecent%20photographs%20of%20a%20child]<br />
<br />
<br />
Images which are below the threshhold for Level 1 - but which are judged to be indecent by a jury - will be treated as Level 1 images during sentencing; therefore a naturist image with no erotic posing will be treated as a Level 1 indecent image of a child, if judged to be indecent.<br />
<br />
<br />
A person who is convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act is also likely to be banned from working with children in the United Kingdom, and ordered to sign the Sex Offenders Register.<br />
<br />
==Important Notes==<br />
<br />
*Any image may <i>technically</i> be indecent under UK law. <br />
*Even if an image has been declared as decent by one jury, it may be still be declared indecent by another jury. <br />
*Despite precedents stating that the context of an image does not affect indecency, a jury may be more likely to rule that an image is indecent if they believe that the defendant is attracted to children.<br />
*Previous interpretations of the indecency suggest that "indecency" has a lower threshhold than "pornography", so what is "indecent" (and therefore illegal) is not necessarily "pornographic".<br />
<br />
[[Category:Censorship]] [[Category:Law]] [[Category:United Kingdom Law]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Child_Pornography_Laws&diff=348Child Pornography Laws2008-04-29T19:57:56Z<p>Brian: This information is from Interpol. I don't know whether we should link directly to their PDF files, as such files are insecure</p>
<hr />
<div>:''For research, see [[Child Pornography]]''<br />
<br />
'''Child pornography''' refers to pornographic or "indecent" depictions of children.<br />
<br />
==Definition==<br />
<br />
The exact definition of "child pornography" is the subject of much debate, particularly in courts. The legal definition varies across jurisdictions, however most countries prohibit photographs depicting minors engaged in sexual activity. Many jurisdictions, notably [[Canada]], also prohibit non-photographic pornographic media featuring children, including computer-generated images, texts, and even audio recordings. In many countries, including the [[United Kingdom]] and [[Australia]], nudist depictions of children are generally prohibited.<br />
<br />
==Australia==<br />
<br />
===Australian Capital Territory (ACT)===<br />
<br />
In the Australian Capital Territory, Australia, it is an offence to produce, publish, offer, sell, or possess child pornography. Child pornography is defined as "anything that represents":<br />
<br />
::(a) the sexual parts of a child; or<br />
::(b) a child engaged in an activity of a sexual nature; or<br />
::(c) someone else engaged in an activity of a sexual nature in the presence of a child;<br />
substantially for the sexual arousal or sexual gratification of someone other<br />
than the child.<br />
<br />
A representation includes a "film, photograph, drawing, audiotape, videotape, computer game, the internet or anything else."<br />
<br />
It is also illegal to - using electronic means - "suggest to a young person that the young person commit or take part in, or watch someone else committing or taking part in, an act of a sexual nature." An "act of a sexual nature" is defined as "sexual intercourse or an act of indecency."<br />
===Queensland===<br />
<br />
In Queensland, Australia, it is illegal to produce, sell, distribute, advertise or possess a "child abuse" photograph, publication or film. It is also illegal to produce, publish, make, or print a "prohibited publication".<br />
<br />
A person must also not have possession of - or make - an "objectionable film" for the purpose of sale.<br />
<br />
===Tasmania===<br />
<br />
''Unknown''.<br />
<br />
===Victoria===<br />
<br />
In Victoria, Australia, it is illegal to possess an item which "depict[s] a person who is or appears to be under [16] years of age engaged in sexual activity or in an indecent context or manner". Defences against such charges include:<br />
<br />
::1) item was classified; or<br />
::2) item was for medical/legal/scientific/educational purposes; or<br />
::3) item had artistic merit - this defence is unavailable if the child was actually under sixteen (16) years; or<br />
::4) defendant believed on reasonable grounds that the child was sixteen (16) years or over, or was the defendant's spouse; or<br />
::5) defendant was not more than 2 years older than the child was or appeared to be at the time of offence; or<br />
::6) child depicted was the defendant.<br />
<br />
It is also illegal to produce, sell, exhibit, deliver, or possess "indecent or offensive material in which a child (whether engaged in sexual activity or not) is depicted or described in a way that is likely to cause serious and general offence amongst reasonable adult members of the community". The definition of "material" includes:<br />
<br />
::a. any written or printed material; or<br />
::b. any picture, painting or drawing; or<br />
::c. any carving sculpture, statue of figure; or<br />
::d. any photograph, film, video tape or other object from which an image may be reproduced; or<br />
::e. any computer data or the computer record or system containing the data; or<br />
::f. any other material or object on which an image or representation is recorded or from which an image or representation may be reproduced.<br />
<br />
Procuring or inviting a minor to be involved in the production of child pornography is also an offence.<br />
<br />
===Western Australia===<br />
<br />
(1) A person who —<br />
<br />
::(a) with intent to sell or supply the child pornography or the copy to another, possesses or copies child pornography; or<br />
<br />
::(b) sells or supplies, or offers to sell or supply, to another, child pornography, <br />
<br />
is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 7 years.<br />
<br />
(2) A person who publishes —<br />
<br />
::(a) anything likely to be understood as conveying that the person publishes or supplies child pornography; or<br />
<br />
::(b) an advertisement for child pornography, <br />
<br />
is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 5 years.<br />
<br />
(3) A person who displays, exhibits or demonstrates child pornography is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 5 years.<br />
<br />
(4) A person who possesses or copies child pornography is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 5 years.<br />
<br />
"Child pornography" is defined as "an article that describes or depicts, in a manner that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or who looks like, a child under 16 years of age (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not)".<br />
<br />
==Canada==<br />
<br />
In Canada, it is illegal to make, print, publish, distribute, sell, import, or possess any material which - for a sexual purpose - depicts a child under the age of 18. Material which has an "artistic, educational, scientific or medical purpose" is not prohibited; [[Robin Sharpe]] successfully used this defence in relation to "pornographic" texts depicting children.<br />
<br />
The definition of "material" is not limited to specific media, meaning that audio recordings, texts and cartoons are illegal if they depict a child for a sexual purpose.<br />
<br />
==United Kingdom==<br />
<br />
''See [[Indecent images of children]]''.<br />
<br />
In the United Kingdom, it is illegal to take, make, distribute, show, or possess indecent images of children. An indecent image of a child is a photograph or pseudo-photograph (including one comprised in a film) which shows a child and is indecent. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
==Resources==<br />
<br />
*[http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/ Indecent Acts]<br />
<br />
[[Category: Law]] [[Category: International Law]] [[Category: United Kingdom Law]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Child_Pornography_Laws&diff=345Child Pornography Laws2008-04-29T10:25:24Z<p>Brian: I'll add other jurisdictions later</p>
<hr />
<div>:''For research, see [[Child Pornography]]''<br />
<br />
'''Child pornography''' refers to pornographic or "indecent" depictions of children.<br />
<br />
==Definition==<br />
<br />
The exact definition of "child pornography" is the subject of much debate, particularly in courts. The legal definition varies across jurisdictions, however most countries prohibit photographs depicting minors engaged in sexual activity. Many jurisdictions, notably [[Canada]], also prohibit non-photographic pornographic media featuring children, including computer-generated images, texts, and even audio recordings. In many countries, including the [[United Kingdom]] and [[Australia]], nudist depictions of children are generally prohibited.<br />
<br />
==Jusrisdictions==<br />
<br />
===United Kingdom===<br />
<br />
''See [[Indecent images of children]]''.<br />
<br />
In the United Kingdom it is illegal to take, make, distribute, show, or possess indecent images of children. An indecent image of a child is a photograph or pseudo-photograph (including one comprised in a film) which shows a child and is indecent. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
==Resources==<br />
<br />
*[http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/ Indecent Acts]<br />
<br />
[[Category: Law]] [[Category: International Law]] [[Category: United Kingdom Law]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Indecent_images_of_children&diff=333Indecent images of children2008-04-28T01:10:09Z<p>Brian: cat</p>
<hr />
<div>An indecent image of a child is a photograph or pseudo-photograph (including one comprised in a film) which shows a child and is indecent. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
==Definition of a photograph==<br />
<br />
In <i>R v Fellows & Arnold</i> (1994), the appealant contended that an image stored electronically could not constitute an indecent photograph of a child under section 7 of the Protection of Children Act. <br />
<br />
It was ruled that an electronically stored image was a "copy of an indecent photograph of a child". The court stated that "there is no restriction on the nature of a copy, [and a copy of a photograph is data which] represents the original photograph, in another form". It was also stated that "there is nothing in the Act which makes it necessary that [a] copy should itself be a photograph within the dictionary or the statutory definition, and if there was, it would make the inclusion of the reference to a copy unnecessary. So we conclude that there is no restriction on the nature of a copy [..]" [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1996/825.html]<br />
<br />
According to section 7 of the Protection of Children Act, references to a photograph are "the negative as well as the positive version; and data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into a photograph." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&activetextdocid=1502066]<br />
<br />
So, an image stored electronically is a copy of a photograph and is illegal if it is indecent and shows a child.<br />
<br />
==Definition of a pseudo-photograph==<br />
<br />
A pseudo-photograph is an image which has the appearance of a photograph, but which is not a photograph. A pseudo-photograph of a child does not necessarily show a <i>real</i> child.<br />
<br />
==Defintion of a child==<br />
<br />
A child was originally defined as a person under the age of 16, however the [[Sexual Offences Act (2003)]] raised the defintion of "child" to a person under the age of 18.<br />
<br />
==Indecency==<br />
<br />
The decency of an image is an objective test; that is, it is decided by the jury. Indecency is considered to be a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_of_fact question of fact].<br />
<br />
===Interpretation===<br />
<br />
In order to judge whether an image is indecent, the jury must "apply[..] the recognised standards of propriety." (''R v Graham-Kerr'', 1988) [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/grahamKerr.html].<br />
<br />
In 2003, the Sentencing Advisory Panel provided guidance for Judges considering sentences for people convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act. The lowest level of indecency was described as "images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity", which would suggest that naturist images without posing are not indecent. Despite this, a number of people have been convicted of an offence for making and possessing naturist images. In 2003, Tom O'Carroll was convicted of "evading the prohibition on the importation of indecent material", for importing photographs of "young naked child[ren] engaging in normal outdoor activity such as playing on a beach". One should never assume that an image must be pornographic for it to be indecent.<br />
<br />
Put simply, a photograph or pseudo-photograph is judged to be indecent if the jury believes that it would offend the majority of the population of the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
===Context===<br />
<br />
In R v Graham-Kerr, the defendant had taken (naked) photographs of a male child during a naturists-only event at a swimming pool. The Police interviewed the defendant about his intentions in taking the photographs, and he admitted that he received "'sexual gratification by taking or looking at such photographs". The Judge stated that the jury were entitled to take into account the circumstances, motives, and sexual intentions of the take. <br />
<br />
At the appeal against conviction, the Judge ruled that "''the circumstances and the motivation of the taker may be relevant to the mens rea of the take as to whether his taking was intentional or accidental and so on, but it is not relevant to whether or not the photograph is in itself indecent''". The conviction was quashed. [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/grahamKerr.html]<br />
<br />
In ''R v Mould'' (2000), the Appeal Court ruled that "Mr Burton [representing Mr Mould] was rightly concerned that the jury, in deciding whether or not the photograph was indecent, would wrongly take into account [data showing access to paedophile discussion forums]." Although it was agreed that the jury should not use such information to make a judgment regarding the decency of the image for which Mr Mould was convicted, it was understood that "the prosecution [successfully] sought to rely on it in order to prove that the appellant had deliberately created the .bmp file." [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/mould2000.html] <br />
<br />
While a defendant's proven sexual attraction to children should not affect indecency, it may affect the perceived ''mens rea'' of an act.<br />
<br />
==Criminal offences==<br />
<br />
Under the (amended) Protection of Children Act, it is an offence for a person:<br />
<br />
<br />
:* to take, or permit to be taken, or to make any indecent photograph of a child . . .; or<br />
:* to distribute or show such indecent photographs; or<br />
:* to have in his possession such indecent photographs [outdated text removed]; or<br />
:* to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs, or intends to do so. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
Under the Sexual Offences Act (2003), it is an offence to cause, control, arrange or facilitate a child's involvement in pornography. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820967][http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820968][http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820969]<br />
<br />
It is an offence to "attempt to incite" any criminal offence in the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
===The "making" offence===<br />
<br />
Causing an indecent photograph of a child to exist on a computer screen is considered to be "making an indecent photograph of a child".<br />
<br />
"A person who either downloads images on to disc or who prints them off is making them. The Act is not only concerned with the original creation of images, but also their proliferation. Photographs or pseudo-photographs found on the Internet may have originated from outside the United Kingdom; to download or print within the jurisdiction is to create new material which hitherto may not have existed therein." (R v Bowden) [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/bowden1999.html]<br />
<br />
===Offences committed abroad===<br />
<br />
Any act done by a person (who was on 1st September 1997, or has since become, a British citizen or resident in the United Kingdom) in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom which—<br />
<br />
:: (a) constituted an offence under the law in force in that country or territory, and<br />
<br />
:: (b) would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies if it had been done in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland,<br />
<br />
constitutes that sexual offence under the law of that part of the United Kingdom. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820998]<br />
<br />
This means that one may be prosecuted under the Protection of Children Act (as amended by the Sexual Offences Act) if he commits a child sex offence in a foreign territory (under that territory's laws), which would also have constituted an offence if it were done in England, Wales, or Northern Ireland.<br />
<br />
This Section of the Sexual Offences Act is likely to be amended by the [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill]].<br />
<br />
==Defences==<br />
<br />
There are a small number of defences against charges under the Protection of Children Act. Below is a list of defences set by the statutes, precedents and case law.<br />
<br />
===Marriage and other relationships===<br />
<br />
In cases where a defendant has taken or made a photographic image of a child over the age of 16, the defendant is not guilty if, at the time when he obtained the photograph, he and the child:<br />
<br />
:: (a) were married; or<br />
<br />
:: (b) lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship; and <br />
<br />
:: (c) the defendant reasonably believed that the child consented to the image being obtained. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820963]<br />
<br />
This exemption was introduced in 2003 under the Sexual Offences Act, which had changed the statutory definition of "child" (in the Protection of Children Act) from 16 to 18.<br />
<br />
===Mens Rea===<br />
<br />
The Criminal Justice Act provides that: <br />
<br />
"Where a person is charged with an offence of possession, it shall be a defence for him to prove –<br />
<br />
:: (a) that he had a legitimate reason for having the photograph or pseudo-photograph in his possession; or<br />
<br />
:: (b) that he had not himself seen the photograph or pseudo- photograph and did not know nor had any cause to suspect, it to be indecent; or<br />
<br />
:: (c) that the photograph or pseudo-photograph was sent to him without any prior request made by him or on his behalf and that he did not keep it for any unreasonable time." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=2116646&ActiveTextDocId=2116851]<br />
<br />
The same defences may be applied to the other offences under Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act.<br />
<br />
It is also a defence for the defendant to prove that he did not take, make, distribute, show or possess an image which the knowledge that the image was, or was likely to be:<br />
<br />
::* an indecent image; and<br />
::* an image of a child.<br />
<br />
This was upheld in R v Smith & Jayson, when the judge ruled that, "the mens rea necessary to constitute the offence [of making an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child] is that the act of making should be a deliberate and intentional act with knowledge that the image made is, or is likely to be, an indecent image of a child" ''(R v Smith & Jayson, 2003)''. [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/smithJayson2003.html]<br />
<br />
A defendant must be proven (beyond reasonable doubt) to be aware that a cache of images exists, in order to be convicted for the possession offence. It should be noted that, in such cases, the defendant will still be convicted of the making offence, unless another defence applies.<br />
<br />
===Collages===<br />
<br />
Lord Justice Simon Brown ruled that "an image made by an exhibit which obviously consists, as this one does, of parts of two different photographs sellotaped together cannot be said to appear to be "a photograph" [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/302.html]. This means that, if a collage does not appear to be parts of a single photograph, it does not fall within the scope of the Protection of Children Act. A photocopy or scan of a collage may fall under the Act and could therefore be illegal if it shows a child and is judged to be indecent.<br />
<br />
===Law enforcement===<br />
<br />
It is a defence for the defendant to prove that images were made "for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings"<br />
<br />
==Sentencing==<br />
<br />
The sentencing guidelines for offences committed contrary to the Protection of Children Act were decided by the Sentencing Advisory Panel, to assist with sentencing during ''R v Oliver et al''<br />
<br />
The levels of indecency are as follows:<br />
<br />
<table border="1"><br />
<tr><br />
<td>Level</td><br />
<td>Definition</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td>Level 1</td><br />
<td>Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td>Level 2</td><br />
<td>Sexual activity between children or solo masturbation by a child.</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td>Level 3</td><br />
<td>Non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children.</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td>Level 4</td><br />
<td>Penetrative sexual activity between children and adults.</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td>Level 5</td><br />
<td>Sadism or bestiality</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
Judges use the following guidelines when sentencing someone who has been convicted under the <i>Protection of Children Act</i>:<br />
<br/><br />
<table border="1"><br />
<br/><br />
<tr><br />
<td>Guideline sentence</td><br />
<td>Circumstances</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td>Fine or conditional discharge</td><br />
<td>A fine may be appropriate if: <br />
<ul><br />
<li>the offender was merely in possession of material solely for own use, including where material was downloaded from the internet but not further distributed, and consisted entirely of pseudo-photographs, the making of which had involved no abuse or exploitation of children, or there was no more than a small quantity of material at level 1. <br />
<li>A conditional discharge may be appropriate in such a case if the offender pleaded and had no previous convictions.</td><br />
</ul><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td>Community sentence</td><br />
<td>A community sentence may be appropriate if the offender was in possession of a large amount of material at level 1 and/or a small number of images at level 2, provided the material was not distributed or shown to others.</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td>Up to 6 months’ custody</td><br />
<td>Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><br />
<li>Offender was in possession of a large amount of material at level 2 or a small amount at level 3 or above, or<br />
<li>Offender had shown, distributed, or exchanged indecent material at level 1 or 2 on a limited scale, without financial gain.</td><br />
</ul><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td>6–12 months custody</td><br />
<td>Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><br />
<li>Showing or distributing a large number of images at level 2 or 3, or<br />
<li>Possessing a small number of images at levels 4 or 5.</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td>12 months-3 years’ custody</td><br />
<td>Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><br />
<li>Possessing a large quantity of material at levels 4 or 5, even if there was no showing or distribution of it<br />
<li>Showing or distributing a large number of images at level 3<br />
<li>Producing or trading in material at levels 1, 2 or 3<br />
</ul><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td>Longer than 3 years custody</td><br />
<td>Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><br />
<li>Images at level 4 or 5 had been shown or distributed, or<br />
<li>Offender was actively involved in production of images at levels 4 or 5, especially where that involvement included a breach of trust, and whether or not there was an element of commercial gain, or<br />
<li>Offender commissioned or encouraged the production of such images<br />
</ul><br />
<br/><br />
(An offender whose conduct merited more than 3 years would merit a higher sentence if his conduct was within more than one of the categories)<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td>Sentences approaching the 10 year maximum</td><br />
<td>Appropriate in very serious cases where the offender had a previous conviction either for dealing in child pornography or for abusing children sexually or with violence.</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table>[http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/guidelines/other/courtappeal/default.asp?T=Cases&catID=5&subject=PORNOGRAPHY&SubSubject=Making%20and%20distributing%20indecent%20photographs%20of%20a%20child]<br />
<br />
<br />
Images which are below the threshhold for Level 1 - but which are judged to be indecent by a jury - will be treated as Level 1 images during sentencing; therefore a naturist image with no erotic posing will be treated as a Level 1 indecent image of a child, if judged to be indecent.<br />
<br />
<br />
A person who is convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act is also likely to be banned from working with children in the United Kingdom, and ordered to sign the Sex Offenders Register.<br />
<br />
==Important Notes==<br />
<br />
*Any image may <i>technically</i> be indecent under UK law. <br />
*Even if an image has been declared as decent by one jury, it may be still be declared indecent by another jury. <br />
*Despite precedents stating that the context of an image does not affect indecency, a jury may be more likely to rule that an image is indecent if they believe that the defendant is attracted to children.<br />
*Previous interpretations of the indecency suggest that "indecency" has a lower threshhold than "pornography", so what is "indecent" (and therefore illegal) is not necessarily "pornographic".<br />
<br />
[[Category:Censorship]] [[Category:Law]] [[Category:United Kingdom Law]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Indecent_images_of_children&diff=332Indecent images of children2008-04-28T01:03:55Z<p>Brian: Please fix the table if you can. It needs converting to wiki format, but I don't know how to do that. I know that I need to do some other minor fixes</p>
<hr />
<div>An indecent image of a child is a photograph or pseudo-photograph (including one comprised in a film) which shows a child and is indecent. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
==Definition of a photograph==<br />
<br />
In <i>R v Fellows & Arnold</i> (1994), the appealant contended that an image stored electronically could not constitute an indecent photograph of a child under section 7 of the Protection of Children Act. <br />
<br />
It was ruled that an electronically stored image was a "copy of an indecent photograph of a child". The court stated that "there is no restriction on the nature of a copy, [and a copy of a photograph is data which] represents the original photograph, in another form". It was also stated that "there is nothing in the Act which makes it necessary that [a] copy should itself be a photograph within the dictionary or the statutory definition, and if there was, it would make the inclusion of the reference to a copy unnecessary. So we conclude that there is no restriction on the nature of a copy [..]" [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1996/825.html]<br />
<br />
According to section 7 of the Protection of Children Act, references to a photograph are "the negative as well as the positive version; and data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into a photograph." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&activetextdocid=1502066]<br />
<br />
So, an image stored electronically is a copy of a photograph and is illegal if it is indecent and shows a child.<br />
<br />
==Definition of a pseudo-photograph==<br />
<br />
A pseudo-photograph is an image which has the appearance of a photograph, but which is not a photograph. A pseudo-photograph of a child does not necessarily show a <i>real</i> child.<br />
<br />
==Defintion of a child==<br />
<br />
A child was originally defined as a person under the age of 16, however the [[Sexual Offences Act (2003)]] raised the defintion of "child" to a person under the age of 18.<br />
<br />
==Indecency==<br />
<br />
The decency of an image is an objective test; that is, it is decided by the jury. Indecency is considered to be a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_of_fact question of fact].<br />
<br />
===Interpretation===<br />
<br />
In order to judge whether an image is indecent, the jury must "apply[..] the recognised standards of propriety." (''R v Graham-Kerr'', 1988) [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/grahamKerr.html].<br />
<br />
In 2003, the Sentencing Advisory Panel provided guidance for Judges considering sentences for people convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act. The lowest level of indecency was described as "images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity", which would suggest that naturist images without posing are not indecent. Despite this, a number of people have been convicted of an offence for making and possessing naturist images. In 2003, Tom O'Carroll was convicted of "evading the prohibition on the importation of indecent material", for importing photographs of "young naked child[ren] engaging in normal outdoor activity such as playing on a beach". One should never assume that an image must be pornographic for it to be indecent.<br />
<br />
Put simply, a photograph or pseudo-photograph is judged to be indecent if the jury believes that it would offend the majority of the population of the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
===Context===<br />
<br />
In R v Graham-Kerr, the defendant had taken (naked) photographs of a male child during a naturists-only event at a swimming pool. The Police interviewed the defendant about his intentions in taking the photographs, and he admitted that he received "'sexual gratification by taking or looking at such photographs". The Judge stated that the jury were entitled to take into account the circumstances, motives, and sexual intentions of the take. <br />
<br />
At the appeal against conviction, the Judge ruled that "''the circumstances and the motivation of the taker may be relevant to the mens rea of the take as to whether his taking was intentional or accidental and so on, but it is not relevant to whether or not the photograph is in itself indecent''". The conviction was quashed. [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/grahamKerr.html]<br />
<br />
In ''R v Mould'' (2000), the Appeal Court ruled that "Mr Burton [representing Mr Mould] was rightly concerned that the jury, in deciding whether or not the photograph was indecent, would wrongly take into account [data showing access to paedophile discussion forums]." Although it was agreed that the jury should not use such information to make a judgment regarding the decency of the image for which Mr Mould was convicted, it was understood that "the prosecution [successfully] sought to rely on it in order to prove that the appellant had deliberately created the .bmp file." [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/mould2000.html] <br />
<br />
While a defendant's proven sexual attraction to children should not affect indecency, it may affect the perceived ''mens rea'' of an act.<br />
<br />
==Criminal offences==<br />
<br />
Under the (amended) Protection of Children Act, it is an offence for a person:<br />
<br />
<br />
:* to take, or permit to be taken, or to make any indecent photograph of a child . . .; or<br />
:* to distribute or show such indecent photographs; or<br />
:* to have in his possession such indecent photographs [outdated text removed]; or<br />
:* to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs, or intends to do so. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059]<br />
<br />
Under the Sexual Offences Act (2003), it is an offence to cause, control, arrange or facilitate a child's involvement in pornography. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820967][http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820968][http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820969]<br />
<br />
It is an offence to "attempt to incite" any criminal offence in the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
===The "making" offence===<br />
<br />
Causing an indecent photograph of a child to exist on a computer screen is considered to be "making an indecent photograph of a child".<br />
<br />
"A person who either downloads images on to disc or who prints them off is making them. The Act is not only concerned with the original creation of images, but also their proliferation. Photographs or pseudo-photographs found on the Internet may have originated from outside the United Kingdom; to download or print within the jurisdiction is to create new material which hitherto may not have existed therein." (R v Bowden) [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/bowden1999.html]<br />
<br />
===Offences committed abroad===<br />
<br />
Any act done by a person (who was on 1st September 1997, or has since become, a British citizen or resident in the United Kingdom) in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom which—<br />
<br />
:: (a) constituted an offence under the law in force in that country or territory, and<br />
<br />
:: (b) would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies if it had been done in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland,<br />
<br />
constitutes that sexual offence under the law of that part of the United Kingdom. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820998]<br />
<br />
This means that one may be prosecuted under the Protection of Children Act (as amended by the Sexual Offences Act) if he commits a child sex offence in a foreign territory (under that territory's laws), which would also have constituted an offence if it were done in England, Wales, or Northern Ireland.<br />
<br />
This Section of the Sexual Offences Act is likely to be amended by the [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill]].<br />
<br />
==Defences==<br />
<br />
There are a small number of defences against charges under the Protection of Children Act. Below is a list of defences set by the statutes, precedents and case law.<br />
<br />
===Marriage and other relationships===<br />
<br />
In cases where a defendant has taken or made a photographic image of a child over the age of 16, the defendant is not guilty if, at the time when he obtained the photograph, he and the child:<br />
<br />
:: (a) were married; or<br />
<br />
:: (b) lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship; and <br />
<br />
:: (c) the defendant reasonably believed that the child consented to the image being obtained. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820963]<br />
<br />
This exemption was introduced in 2003 under the Sexual Offences Act, which had changed the statutory definition of "child" (in the Protection of Children Act) from 16 to 18.<br />
<br />
===Mens Rea===<br />
<br />
The Criminal Justice Act provides that: <br />
<br />
"Where a person is charged with an offence of possession, it shall be a defence for him to prove –<br />
<br />
:: (a) that he had a legitimate reason for having the photograph or pseudo-photograph in his possession; or<br />
<br />
:: (b) that he had not himself seen the photograph or pseudo- photograph and did not know nor had any cause to suspect, it to be indecent; or<br />
<br />
:: (c) that the photograph or pseudo-photograph was sent to him without any prior request made by him or on his behalf and that he did not keep it for any unreasonable time." [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=2116646&ActiveTextDocId=2116851]<br />
<br />
The same defences may be applied to the other offences under Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act.<br />
<br />
It is also a defence for the defendant to prove that he did not take, make, distribute, show or possess an image which the knowledge that the image was, or was likely to be:<br />
<br />
::* an indecent image; and<br />
::* an image of a child.<br />
<br />
This was upheld in R v Smith & Jayson, when the judge ruled that, "the mens rea necessary to constitute the offence [of making an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child] is that the act of making should be a deliberate and intentional act with knowledge that the image made is, or is likely to be, an indecent image of a child" ''(R v Smith & Jayson, 2003)''. [http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/smithJayson2003.html]<br />
<br />
A defendant must be proven (beyond reasonable doubt) to be aware that a cache of images exists, in order to be convicted for the possession offence. It should be noted that, in such cases, the defendant will still be convicted of the making offence, unless another defence applies.<br />
<br />
===Collages===<br />
<br />
Lord Justice Simon Brown ruled that "an image made by an exhibit which obviously consists, as this one does, of parts of two different photographs sellotaped together cannot be said to appear to be "a photograph" [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/302.html]. This means that, if a collage does not appear to be parts of a single photograph, it does not fall within the scope of the Protection of Children Act. A photocopy or scan of a collage may fall under the Act and could therefore be illegal if it shows a child and is judged to be indecent.<br />
<br />
===Law enforcement===<br />
<br />
It is a defence for the defendant to prove that images were made "for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings"<br />
<br />
==Sentencing==<br />
<br />
The sentencing guidelines for offences committed contrary to the Protection of Children Act were decided by the Sentencing Advisory Panel, to assist with sentencing during ''R v Oliver et al''<br />
<br />
The levels of indecency are as follows:<br />
<br />
<table border="1"><br />
<tr><br />
<td>Level</td><br />
<td>Definition</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td>Level 1</td><br />
<td>Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td>Level 2</td><br />
<td>Sexual activity between children or solo masturbation by a child.</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td>Level 3</td><br />
<td>Non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children.</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td>Level 4</td><br />
<td>Penetrative sexual activity between children and adults.</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td>Level 5</td><br />
<td>Sadism or bestiality</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
Judges use the following guidelines when sentencing someone who has been convicted under the <i>Protection of Children Act</i>:<br />
<br/><br />
<table border="1"><br />
<br/><br />
<tr><br />
<td>Guideline sentence</td><br />
<td>Circumstances</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td>Fine or conditional discharge</td><br />
<td>A fine may be appropriate if: <br />
<ul><br />
<li>the offender was merely in possession of material solely for own use, including where material was downloaded from the internet but not further distributed, and consisted entirely of pseudo-photographs, the making of which had involved no abuse or exploitation of children, or there was no more than a small quantity of material at level 1. <br />
<li>A conditional discharge may be appropriate in such a case if the offender pleaded and had no previous convictions.</td><br />
</ul><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td>Community sentence</td><br />
<td>A community sentence may be appropriate if the offender was in possession of a large amount of material at level 1 and/or a small number of images at level 2, provided the material was not distributed or shown to others.</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td>Up to 6 months’ custody</td><br />
<td>Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><br />
<li>Offender was in possession of a large amount of material at level 2 or a small amount at level 3 or above, or<br />
<li>Offender had shown, distributed, or exchanged indecent material at level 1 or 2 on a limited scale, without financial gain.</td><br />
</ul><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td>6–12 months custody</td><br />
<td>Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><br />
<li>Showing or distributing a large number of images at level 2 or 3, or<br />
<li>Possessing a small number of images at levels 4 or 5.</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td>12 months-3 years’ custody</td><br />
<td>Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><br />
<li>Possessing a large quantity of material at levels 4 or 5, even if there was no showing or distribution of it<br />
<li>Showing or distributing a large number of images at level 3<br />
<li>Producing or trading in material at levels 1, 2 or 3<br />
</ul><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td>Longer than 3 years custody</td><br />
<td>Appropriate if:<br />
<ul><br />
<li>Images at level 4 or 5 had been shown or distributed, or<br />
<li>Offender was actively involved in production of images at levels 4 or 5, especially where that involvement included a breach of trust, and whether or not there was an element of commercial gain, or<br />
<li>Offender commissioned or encouraged the production of such images<br />
</ul><br />
<br/><br />
(An offender whose conduct merited more than 3 years would merit a higher sentence if his conduct was within more than one of the categories)<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td>Sentences approaching the 10 year maximum</td><br />
<td>Appropriate in very serious cases where the offender had a previous conviction either for dealing in child pornography or for abusing children sexually or with violence.</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table>[http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/guidelines/other/courtappeal/default.asp?T=Cases&catID=5&subject=PORNOGRAPHY&SubSubject=Making%20and%20distributing%20indecent%20photographs%20of%20a%20child]<br />
<br />
<br />
Images which are below the threshhold for Level 1 - but which are judged to be indecent by a jury - will be treated as Level 1 images during sentencing; therefore a naturist image with no erotic posing will be treated as a Level 1 indecent image of a child, if judged to be indecent.<br />
<br />
<br />
A person who is convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act is also likely to be banned from working with children in the United Kingdom, and ordered to sign the Sex Offenders Register.<br />
<br />
==Important Notes==<br />
<br />
*Any image may <i>technically</i> be indecent under UK law. <br />
*Even if an image has been declared as decent by one jury, it may be still be declared indecent by another jury. <br />
*Despite precedents stating that the context of an image does not affect indecency, a jury may be more likely to rule that an image is indecent if they believe that the defendant is attracted to children.<br />
*Previous interpretations of the indecency suggest that "indecency" has a lower threshhold than "pornography", so what is "indecent" (and therefore illegal) is not necessarily "pornographic".</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Criminal_Justice_and_Immigration_Act&diff=274Criminal Justice and Immigration Act2008-04-20T00:47:00Z<p>Brian: grammar, wikilink</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill''' is a public [[Bill]] in the [[United Kingdom]]. It was introduced by [[David Hanson]] in 2006 and is currently being read in the [[House of Lords]]. [http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2007-08/criminaljusticeandimmigration.html]<br />
<br />
==Indecent images of children==<br />
<br />
Section 68 of the Bill seeks to amend Section 7 of the [[Protection of Children Act (1978)]]. A reference to a pseudo-photograph will now include -<br />
<br />
:(a) a tracing or other image, whether made by electronic or other means (of whatever nature)—<br />
<br />
:::(i) which is not itself a photograph or pseudo-photograph, but<br />
<br />
:::(ii) which is derived from the whole or part of a photograph or pseudo-photograph (or a combination of either or both); and<br />
<br />
:(b) data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into an image within paragraph (a) [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/041/08041.50-56.html#j405]<br />
<br />
Under Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act, it is an offence to take, make, possess, distribute or show an [[indecent images of children|indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph]], or a reference to such an image. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&activetextdocid=1502060]<br />
<br />
Section 68 of the Bill will also allow the [[Secret Intelligence Service]] to engage in acts which are prohibited by the Protection of Children Act.<br />
<br />
==Offences committed abroad==<br />
<br />
Section 71 of the Bill [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/041/08041.50-56.html#jNC35] intends to allow the [[Crown Prosecution Service|CPS]] to prosecute British nationals for acts done legally abroad, if the acts are contrary to laws listed in Schedule 2 [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&ActiveTextDocId=821091] of the [[Sexual Offences Act (2003)|Sexual Offences Act]]. This removes the requirement of [[dual criminality]].<br />
<br />
==Sex offenders==<br />
<br />
Section 139 of the Bill will allow the Police to disclose information about sex offenders to members of the public [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/041/08041.100-106.html#jNC38] and Section 141 of the Bill will force sex offenders to disclose any information which is requested by the Secretary of State (or one of his/her delegates) [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/041/08041.100-106.html#jNC40].<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
<br />
*[http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2007-08/criminaljusticeandimmigration.html Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill at Parliament.uk]<br />
*[http://anu.nfshost.com/2008/the-contemporary-moral-crusade Article about the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, at anu.nfshost.com]<br />
<br />
[[Category: Law]] [[Category: United Kingdom Law]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Criminal_Justice_and_Immigration_Act&diff=272Criminal Justice and Immigration Act2008-04-20T00:34:22Z<p>Brian: cat</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill''' is a public [[Bill]] in the [[United Kingdom]]. It was introduced by [[David Hanson]] in 2006 and is currently being read in the [[House of Lords]]. [http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2007-08/criminaljusticeandimmigration.html]<br />
<br />
==Indecent images of children==<br />
<br />
Section 68 of the Bill seeks to amend Section 7 of the [[Protection of Children Act (1978)]]. A reference to a pseudo-photograph will now include -<br />
<br />
:(a) a tracing or other image, whether made by electronic or other means (of whatever nature)—<br />
<br />
:::(i) which is not itself a photograph or pseudo-photograph, but<br />
<br />
:::(ii) which is derived from the whole or part of a photograph or pseudo-photograph (or a combination of either or both); and<br />
<br />
:(b) data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into an image within paragraph (a) [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/041/08041.50-56.html#j405]<br />
<br />
Under Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act, it is an offence to take, make, possess, distribute or show an indecent photograph or a pseudo-photograph, or a reference to such an image. [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&activetextdocid=1502060]<br />
<br />
Section 68 of the Bill will also allow the [[Secret Intelligence Service]] to engage in acts which are prohibited by the Protection of Children Act.<br />
<br />
==Offences committed abroad==<br />
<br />
Section 71 of the Bill [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/041/08041.50-56.html#jNC35] intends to allow the [[Crown Prosecution Service|CPS]] to prosecute British nationals for acts done legally abroad, if the acts are contrary to laws listed in Schedule 2 [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&ActiveTextDocId=821091] of the [[Sexual Offences Act (2003)|Sexual Offences Act]]. This removes the requirement of [[dual criminality]].<br />
<br />
==Sex offenders==<br />
<br />
Section 139 of the Bill will allow the Police to disclose information about sex offenders to members of the public [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/041/08041.100-106.html#jNC38] and Section 141 of the Bill will force sex offenders to disclose any information which is requested by the Secretary of State (or one of his/her delegates) [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/041/08041.100-106.html#jNC40].<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
<br />
*[http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2007-08/criminaljusticeandimmigration.html Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill at Parliament.uk]<br />
*[http://anu.nfshost.com/2008/the-contemporary-moral-crusade Article about the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, at anu.nfshost.com]<br />
<br />
[[Category: Law]] [[Category: United Kingdom Law]]</div>Brianhttps://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Child_Pornography_Laws&diff=271Child Pornography Laws2008-04-20T00:32:17Z<p>Brian: </p>
<hr />
<div>:''For research, see [[Child Pornography]]''<br />
The definition of "'''child pornography'''" is the subject of much debate, particularly in courts. The legal definition varies across jurisdictions, however most countries prohibit photographs depicting minors engaged in sexual activity. Many jurisdictions, notably [[Canada]], also prohibit non-photographic pornographic media featuring children, including computer-generated images, texts, and even audio recordings. In many countries, including the [[United Kingdom]] and [[Australia]], nudist depictions of children are generally prohibited.<br />
<br />
[[Category: Law]] [[Category: International Law]]</div>Brian