If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
child porn?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
i was just wondering...is it still child pornography when a naked picture of a child is taken even though it isnt intended for others to see it? 
0
Comments
if it's taken for deviant purpose, then i would imagine yes.
Taking a picture of naked child isn't illegal in itself of course.
no it's not, however if you take pictures of naked children and start posting them up on the internet, then you're fucked...
"Hello...police?"
lol.
Nah, again it'll be the same, it's the motivation between the photography/filming. Unless you're filming because you're a paedophile or intend to pass it on the peadophiles, it's cushty. That's how i presume the law will work anyway.
It isn't illegal to do either, but you may find yourself under suspicion.
Source
There are five categories of child abuse images. Category One is naked images of children, in a non-sexual setting but with a sexual focus. For instance, taking pictures of naturist children but focusing the camera on the genitals. Cat 2 is non-penetrative sexual acts between children, including masturbation, and cat 3 is penetrative sex between children or non-penetrative sex between a child and an adult. Cat 4 is penetrative sex between a child and an adult, and category 5 is serious sexual abuse, including sadism and bestiality.
In the strictest terms taking pictures of your kids in the bath isn't child abuse, and therefore not child pornography, and therefore not illegal. It does get tricky as many home snaps could be construed as category one if the police wanted to, but sentencing guidelines indicate that category one pictures and photos are not serious enough to merit prosecution on themselves.
Take a lot of naked pictures of your kids, or any pictures of naked kids not your own, and you will find yourself getting investigated. Generally it wouldn't go any further without more serious categories of images also taken or stored.
Having spent the day reading this shite, it does make the law seem less appealing.
Pornography is sexual. Just because a person is naked, it doesnt necessarily mean its sexual. The difference is pretty obvious.
Pedos will get turned on looking at kids walking down the street. They get the real horn form the additions catalogue. Should they be banned too, just because someone, somewhere, might look at it in a "dodgy" manner?
Art is obviously art. Children naked playing together is innocent, children sucking each other off is not. I think the difference is obvious, and those who decry anyone who looks at, or takes pictures of, naked children are idiots.
Jail them all!
Well what I meant by the dodgy positions they were in - one was a baby with a naked 6/7 y o standing over the baby naked with her legs on either side of the baby's head. From my point of view there were sexual connotations in this.
Can't find the article through google, really worried about the kind of words I put into a search engine lest a child porn website comes up etc.
Why?
But anyway, whoever said 'hang'em all' could you please start with this pathetic piece of vermin;
http://www.wkrc.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=9F022CA7-F175-4FF6-A1E3-D43679DE2ED1
In my opinion it has a strong sexual reference, especially since the baby is more or less forced to stare straight up at the girls vagina. However, I may just be a prude.
It doesn't sound disgusting or sick at all, to me. Children play with each other without clothes when they are young, it doesn't mean it is sexual. Children play with each other in swimsuits for holiday and clothing brochures, that isn't sexual either.
Paedophiles will find the latter sexually stimulating, there was a court case not so long ago where a paedophile wanted access to the GUS catalogue in his prison cell, and the prison service refused it because he only wanted it for the swimwear and underwear sections in it.
You cant ban things that dont harm anybody, just because somebody may possibly get off on it.