On Mon, 05 May 2008 20:14:04 GMT, HMS Victor Victorian
<VictorVictorian@NBG.com> wrote:
>Note that the IWF considers the term "pornography" as having a
>somewhat legitimising effect, so they kindly request you all to refer
>to images rather as "PRCBSA" (rather cumbersome, certainly, but please
>see below).
>
>"Please note that "child pornography", "child porn" or "kiddie porn"
>are not acceptable terms. The use of such language acts to legitimise
>images which are not pornography, rather, they are permanent records
>of children being sexually abused and as such should be referred to as
>child sexual abuse images."
>
>The IWF's determination of what types of images constitute PRCBSA is a
>very wide one, indeed, if one considers the number of types of groups
>suddenly esponged from various news service providers. Is a picture
>of a nude boy standing, casting a fishing line out on a lake shore, a
>PRCBSA? If not, does it become a PRCBSA if one crops the image to
>centre the viewers line of sight with the lad's genitals? If the boy
>smiling or laughing, is he still being abused?
>
>Well, fear not. To paraphrase a rather succinct American judge, your
>heroes at IWF "know it when they see it--and you should, too!"
>
>Cheers,
>
>Victor
email me if you still have my email addy
Cheers
Moi
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
|