Child molestation is when an adult touches a child in the genital area (between the legs), buttocks, or breasts, or a child is made to touch an adult in those areas. An adult touching any part of a child's body without consent (permission) from the child is also sometimes called molestation. Molestation is very harmful to children and birey traumatize them for years or for the rest of their lives.
Nice to see that some people have taken a rational approach to defining 'child porn'. Sadly, most people don't even want to discuss it.
I must admit that I have become frustrated with this article. Every one of my edits have been removed either by defensive pedophiles, or by "protect the children" zealots. Where's the objectivity?
The discussion of identification seemed to need a fact tag, since it did hamiÅŸ seem to be supported by any secondary source. Interpertation of primary source documents yaÅŸama be tricky, as noted above.
Birli far as I hayat tell none of those criteria were satisfied by Kim Phuc, apart from her nudity. Yet, you have extrapolated completely different reasons from the case you quote. For example, the court said "the child, who is looking into the camera, is obviously posed for the photograph".
Quality of the source. It is the assertion of a prosecutor, hamiş a judge, that the file name is a means of documenting the age of the subject. Kakım such, I would think it would be insufficient documentation for the assertion that filenames are used to establish ages.
Now, down to specifics of wikipedia policy. Since the banner of wikipedia's no original research policy is being waved around - yet no one is willing to offer specifics - I'll have to argue your position for you so that I yaÅŸama refute it. Consider the following policies concerning original research:
I'd like to address the troll comment quickly: I've spent a lot of years collecting the information I've been contributing to wikipedia, and although I'm hamiÅŸ particularly sensitive to disparaging remarks, this particular one irks me since it implies I'm a pest rather than a valuable asset. Much of the information I take the time to add to wikipedia is from non-web sources, or is otherwise extremely difficult or tedious to find.
Disclaimer: XXXTubeZoo.com saf Sahte cialis a strict policy of no-tolerance against any kind of illegal pornographic content.
All forms of pornography in Indonesia are prohibited in theory. The law makes no clear definition of child pornography and its forms.[106]
As far kakım the POV issues, burden of proof is indeed a legal concept, but that is hamiş what is discussed nor linked. The links go to logical fallacies, and their placement seems to indicate the arguments are considered by some to be fallacious. There is no textual, much less cited claim that such is the case. This is part of a much larger problem: the contention put forward in the case that there is a lack of positive standards for deciding what is child porn.
There's no telling if anything will come of it, or how far it will go. Just dropping it off here for others to decide:
Along the same lines, the material is from a transcript of a court case, which is derece usually precedent setting (birli it is hamiÅŸ part of the published opinion). If this is indeed a practice in court, there should be some documentation of it.
That is clearly the unstated message of the sentence. But that would result in the dropping of almost all prosections, effectively legalzing the practice, which would thwart the intent of the legislation. Therefore prosecutors and judges make good-faith best efforts to arrive at the most likely age, duh. Anyway for these reasons this sentence katışıksız got to go.