Wednesday, 29 May 2013

IIOC - The First Question One Must Ask, Is, 'What is Pornography'? (Part 1)

Tuesday, 28 May 2013

The media and "Child Porn"

"Having spent a bit of time thinking about a relevant article in the media that best describes how not to report the crime of downloading / making indecent images of children, one tabloid immediately came to mind. Not that I am singling this particular paper out, but out of all the UK tabloids, this one uses the term that I am highlighting in this post, namely "child porn" on almost a daily basis.

My journey into the hell that is internet child porn - Amanda Platell

I wish the media would stop using this phrase. In reality, these are images of children who have been sexually exploited or abused - "crime scene photos". Using this phrase trivialises this crime hugely by labelling it as just another type of porn. We already have "food porn", "car porn" "poverty porn" - indeed anything and everything can be labelled as "porn". Should we be trivialising pictures and videos of child abuse by labelling them as just another "porn"?"

Here is the (one of a number) fault in the logic (and legal precedent) of the CPI ...

"Pornography is defined [one definition] as "the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual arousal and erotic satisfaction", however the only people who would actively look at these images and describe it as such are paedophiles [sic]. Why should the media use such paedo-friendly [sic] language in their reporting - facilitating and helping [sic] paedophiles [sic] somehow justify [sic] their crimes? Answer - they shouldn't and they need to stop!"

Open door: Why the term 'child porn' should not be used



The OSC never uses the term 'child porn[ography]', unless the material, under consideration, clearly is so, beyond reasonable doubt.

For images, we prefer 'Indecent Images of Children' (IIOC) - the primary legal term, in our primary jurisdiction. 

If one wishes to use the term CSAI's, then one must first define the term 'abuse' .

We will return, to this issue, later.



Addendum (30/5/13)

Jim Gamble

Dr Sara Payne MBE

Shy Keenan

Shy Keenan

Many good people do so, Ms Keenan, and for very good reasons.

Shy Keenan


Fleur Strong (PACE)

Tessa Chapman (ITN5)


Addendum (1/6/13)

Please tell us, what is the difference, Mark, and why?

Please tell us, Mark, how CSAI, is any clearer or objective?


Addendum (3/6/13)

Friday, 31 May 2013 

Media AVP (Anti Victim Prejudice) 1, "Indecent Images Of Children - a follow up" 

"Following my first post, (Media Prejudice), now that we all know [sic] that images and films of child abuse and child rape should never be referred to as any sort of "porn" [sic], the question now is what exactly should they be called? [they may be a number of things, porn and not-porn]" 


Addendum (19/9/13)

Saturday, 14 September 2013

The BBC, the term "Child Porn" and why complaints of this nature are a waste of time

"A brief posting on the BBC's stance on their use of the term "Child Porn". The one organisation I no longer bother to complain to about this - hopefully the below will explain why.

In a nutshell they have no objection to using this phrase in their reporting as long as they also include "indecent images of children" somewhere else in the articles. Not sure why they think this acceptable - by their reasoning one could use the term n****r as well as long as you include the words "black person" - no sense I know, but one that they have used.

Below is a PDF from the BBC Trust complaints section, detailing my complaints and their responses. It is from page 41 to 44, so not that long. It is worth a read, below in blue, to see both my points and their (pretty rubbish to be honest) answers."

No comments:

Post a Comment