Are nudists relieved of laws around child pornography?

[Deleted]

Interesting discussion popped up on a dutch forum for men. Someone linked, what seemed first an innocent pic of some hot naked women. The source from that picture however was a nudist website called PureNudism endorsing and promoting a "nudist lifestyle". Still no problem right?

HOWEVER, among the pictures are pictures of naked children in all kinds of different positions doing different activities. Theres literally no distinqtion between age as girls age 5-15 appear to be in them aswell full frontal, etc..

--SNIP--

Update
1. This website is selling pictures of naked children to "people".
2. This website is also selling video's of naked people (read: children) for $100,- a piece

3. It has become abundantly clear this website is using "nudism" as a cover-up to sell nude pictures and video's of children to pedophiles. Yet somehow I see people defending this website and its practises, ive drawn my conclusion from that, so should you.

[Deleted]

How's a photo of a naked human being pornography? Are they having sex or masturbating there?

[Gumboy]

I'm not mature enough to be a nudist. I think I would giggle a lot.

[WskyDK]

Nudity != child pornography.

[Gumboy]

Nudity != child pornography.

The issue is, posting pictures of "Nudism" online, when it is children, is 100% certainly being used by pedophiles to get off, period.

I've heard of that website, and while they don't say it, I'm sorry, but posting some of the pictures they do is either:

A. Intended to be used by pedophiles
or
B. They are incredibly stupid and think that everyone feels the same way about naked children as they do, and no pedo's exist that will look at the pictures.

[s_bushido]

Why would taking pictures of naked kids in a nudist environment be any different than taking pictures of naked kids in a tribal environment? Do you report national geographic for producing child pornography as well?

[kamuimac]

if the site admins dont filter out and delete pictures with naked children it should be taken down asap - report it to authorities and retard admins will get what they deserve.

[Deleted]

What's the issue here?

Naked children aren't pornographic, and pictures of naked children quite simply aren't child pornography (at least in the Netherlands. In the UK they might fall under some 'lewd images' clause that was introduced recently...)

Pictures of children in a normal pose, in a safe & natural environment and without a clear focus on their genitals aren't considered to be pornographic, even with their clothes off. Which is good, because you don't want to get arrested for snapping a pic of your kid in a bath or on the beach.
They become pornographic if the pose is 'erotic', if there's a focus on the genitals or (obviously) if they depict sexual abuse. Even pictures of (partially) clothed children in 'erotic' posed photoshoots can be considered child pornographic, even when 'normal' pictures of naked children are not considered to be.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Interesting discussion popped up on a dutch forum for men. Someone linked, what seemed first an innocent pic of some hot naked women.
The source from that picture however was a nudist website called PureNudism endorsing and promoting a "nudist lifestyle". Still no problem right?

HOWEVER, among the pictures are pictures of naked children in all kinds of different positions doing different activities. Theres literally no distinqtion between age as girls age 5-15 appear to be in them aswell full frontal, etc.. So i reported that website for producing and spreading kiddyporn. They claim to describe it like this:



So what do you think? Is this CP? Or is this freedom of expression? Why doesnt google exclude this from the search results?(i urge everyone not to link directly to the website btw due to its content)

CP does not necessarily mean "Pictures of naked kids"...most countries require the photos to be of a sexual nature for it to be considered child porn.

I don't know where the website you are talking about is based....but here are the laws regarding child porn in Canada

163.1 (1) In this section, “child pornography” means
(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;
(b) any written material, visual representation or audio recording that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act;
(c) any written material whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act; or
(d) any audio recording that has as its dominant characteristic the description, presentation or representation, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.

[Gumboy]

What's the issue here?

Naked children aren't pornographic, and pictures of naked children quite simply aren't child pornography (at least in the Netherlands. In the UK they might fall under some 'lewd images' clause that was introduced recently...)

Pictures of children in a normal pose, in a safe & natural environment and without a clear focus on their genitals aren't considered to be pornographic, even with their clothes off. Which is good, because you don't want to get arrested for snapping a pic of your kid in a bath or on the beach.
They become pornographic if the pose is 'erotic', if there's a focus on the genitals or (obviously) if they depict sexual abuse. Even pictures of (partially) clothed children in 'erotic' posed photoshoots can be considered child pornographic, even when 'normal' pictures of naked children are not considered to be.

But if that website is being used by pedophiles to view naked children, is it not pornographic?

[s_bushido]

But if that website is being used by pedophiles to view naked children, is it not pornographic?

People can get off on pretty much anything. If the children in the pictures aren't being exploited or harmed, you have no case.

[Deleted]

But if that website is being used by pedophiles to view naked children, is it not pornographic?

No; the pictures have to by themselves be pornographic, in order for them to be considered child pornography.

Pedophiles (and regular people) will undoubtedly fap to the Wehkamp underwear catalogue, as they include pictures of models in all sorts of poses wearing just the underwear that's being sold - and yes, they do sell children's underwear. But the fact that this happens doesn't make the Wehkamp underwear catalogue child pornography.

Of course it's a bit of a grey area because the 'real' purpose of naturism pictures on the internet is much more vague. In reality, pedophiles might be the majority. But legally, it's not considered child pornography unless there is clear sexual intent in the pictures themselves. Nudity alone doesn't qualify.

[Gumboy]

People can get off on pretty much anything. If the children in the pictures aren't being exploited or harmed, you have no case.

I am not trying to make a case; I am saying that the website should be responsible and realize that their are some sick people out there that are going to masturbate/fantacize about the children they are posting...

I am no lawyer and nothing I say is in regards to legality. I am speaking about real life and consequences of posting pictures of your naked children online, even on "Nudist" websites. Not everyone views nudity the same way.

[Dispraise]

But if that website is being used by pedophiles to view naked children, is it not pornographic?

If I used a picture of a particularly boring rock to get off, is it pornographic?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I am not trying to make a case; I am saying that the website should be responsible and realize that their are some sick people out there that are going to masturbate/fantacize about the children they are posting...

I am no lawyer and nothing I say is in regards to legality. I am speaking about real life and consequences of posting pictures of your naked children online, even on "Nudist" websites. Not everyone views nudity the same way.

What those sickos do in the privacy of their own home doesn't harm the children. Child Pornography laws are there to protect children.

[Slant]

Nudity != child pornography.

Nudity of underages children with genitals = child pornography, I'm not talking about family photos, I'm talking about poses and staged photos. Protection of children is paramount to anything else, including someone's interest to "inform the public". And let's be honest, having a site entirely made up of photos without any real text to describe the context is pretty much a porn website, not a side informing about nudism.

The dangerous thing is that they may actually attract the wrong kinds of people ot the nudist movement.

[fluffhead]

If I used a picture of a particularly boring rock to get off, is it pornographic?

Whatever gets your rocks off

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Nudity of underages children with genitals = child pornography. Intent doesn't really play into it. Protection of children is paramount to anything else, including someone's interest to "inform the public". And let's be honest, having a site entirely made up of photos without any real text to describe the context is pretty much a porn website.

The dangerous thing is that they may actually attract the wrong kinds of people ot the nudist movement.

Intent entirely plays into it.

Are you saying that if your mom took a photo of you in the bathtub she is a child pornographer?

[Slant]

Of course it's a bit of a grey area because the 'real' purpose of naturism pictures on the internet is much more vague. In reality, pedophiles might be the majority. But legally, it's not considered child pornography unless there is clear sexual intent in the pictures themselves. Nudity alone doesn't qualify.

Is that so? Well, I'm surprised. Guess my assumptions were wrong...

- - - Updated - - -

Intent entirely plays into it.

Are you saying that if your mom took a photo of you in the bathtub she is a child pornographer?

If she later put it on a website to cash in on that photo, yes. Imagine an 18yr old coed taking the same kind of photo of herself, is that pornographic?

[Acidbaron]

The pictures would have to be in erotic context, thus sexual poses. So no just nude kid pictures aren't seen as child pornography it all depends on the context however.