Conversation:

"A man who downloaded images from naturist web sites of young boys posed naked while engaged in various sporting activities, has been fined €500 by Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. ..."
published 10/06/2005
The Irish Times http://www.ireland.com


Define pornography.

These kids were naked, but not in a sexual setting. The pictures were presumably taken and posted on the web with the knowledge and permission of the children and their parents. How much bearing does the fact that they were children have on the case? Should the internet site also be prosecuted?

The man pleaded guilty, by the way.

TRiG.

And that's European date style: 10th June 2005; not October 6th, 2005.

Hi TRiG

Your link does not take me to the article in question.

I might ask some questions though.
What, exactly was the charge that the man pleaded guilty to?
Do we know for certain that the consent of the parents and children concerned had been obtained before their pictures were used on the web site?
What was his mitigation?
What did he intend to use the downloaded photos for and why download them instead of simply linking to the site?
What was/is his job?

I suspect that the fact these were images of children downloaded onto his computer was material given the high profile that child pornography has at the moment.

As for a definition of pornography you could do worse that this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography

turvy

I was screwing up an old newspaper to start the fire with when I spotted that article. It was only a couple of paragraphs. After burning it I began to think about it and formed the questions I have asked so I looked it up on the web. You have to be logged in to read the article so I've just quoted the opening words that appear in the search results (I searched ireland.com for 'naturist'.) I remembered that he had pleaded guilty but I don't think there was any more information. If there was, I don't remember it.

TRiG.

Thanks for the link.

~ I would say it was unwise to post photographs of naked children nowadays. Once upon a time these things sat in a family album and were only dragged out to embarass you when you brought a new partner round.

Times have changed, much more is in the public domain, especially when held on a computer.

Must back-up my photos to CD.

Naturalists are permitted to photograph their young as textiles are, but you must question the mentality of the parents to put those photographs on a public website where perverts could down load them. What sort of parent does that to it's child? Surely the parenting of these should be called into question and their motives in putting these photographs into the public domain.

The subject is also touched on in the h2g2 entry A523504.

KaduFlyer

They could just be very naive.

Yes photos of this sort are fine within the family, but that's where they should remain.

I do have to question the parents motives, they could just be very naive, but still the photos shouldn't be publically available.

When issues like this come up, I am always frightened by the extent to which our lives, and the lives of our children, are impacted negatively by the precautions we take against paedophiles. All abuse of children (and adults!) is wrong, IMO. Nevertheless, I think we need a measured and considered response to these issues. Children today aren't permitted to 'play out', as I did, out of fear. I wonder if this fear is in balance with the threat which *really* exists?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I suspect we just hear more about it. There might also be an argument that children who don't 'play out' are less streetwise. It's difficult to get the balance right between protecting children & enabling them to be independent.

I'd also like to hear what the charge was for this guy. I think any laws that forbids having pictures of naked children, needs to be looked at again. People are so hysterical these days.

People say that children don't play out any more, but looking out of my window now I can see about twelve of them, playing out. And I live on a main road.

I think it's just middle class kids that don't play out.. or maybe that's because I don't know any.

Their parents probably couldn't afford a playstation.

How old are the kids?
I remember playing on the streets and walking to and from school before I was 7. I think thats rare nowadays but probably as much due to more cars around as fear of pedophilia.

Well they've got in now, it's about 11pm. The ones out early were about 8 or 9, there are also some teengaers who are drinking out there.

well at the age of 10 I was always in bed by 8PM
that may've been a middle-class thing

The 9 year olds have gone in long ago, and the 14 year olds went in around midnight. I think they're Anti Social thoguh, they to tend to break things, like car windscreens.

never mind, Tony will slap a curfew on them and that'll solve everything

Maybe the middle class are just weird. I live in a middle-class neighbourhood, it's about 8:30pm, I'm looking out my window and there is absolutely no one outside, except for the occasional adult dog-walker who goes by.

I have these occasional fits of embarrassment that I'm so entrenched in middle-class-ness.

At least I don't own a playstation...