Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12418&Form.ShowMessage=1219601

Thanks for the link AS.. Goood grief.. I guess as a Canadian, I can't really understand why the "Land of the Free" have such problems with showing the naked human body... Sex or "erotica" with children, as the law in our country is stated as 'The purposful act of children posing either with or without the context of knowledge of their actions express for the soul purposes of sexual gratification to others'. So.. If I understand this right.. KMART or any other store could be sued if someone took a look at their magazine and found 'sexual excitment' from seeing a photo of a child modeling the new summer bathing suites.. HOW does that make sense?? Help me understand this please.

That's the problem too many people are going overboard with a lot of things. It's great they want to stop child pornography and having children exploited and sexually abused but they are going on overkill. Same with the DMCA and copyright laws.

So where might one read this new law?

Not only going overboard but do they do enough research? Do they study the problem from all angles and then properly come up with a law that addresses the problem? I don't think so.

It' seems to be an ever growing problem with many new laws, the kneejerk reaction is always an over reaction - ill thought out, and potentially quite destructive. I am ALL for doing what is possible to stop kiddie porn/abuse/poedaphilia etc, it sickens me to the core, but some common sense as to what 'is' and what 'isn't even vaguely' needs to be excercised. We are becoming more paranoid as a society, and subsequently, guilt is almost enforced without any justification for it.

A few years ago in the UK a news reporter was arrested because of photos she had developed of her daughter in the bath. The charges were later dropped but it makes you wonder how far things will go and is it an offence to take these kind of pictures of your kids that parents have been taking since cameras were invented. Catlin

Arggh! - I remember that. I'd leap on anybody that ever insinuated any pictures I'd ever take of my children were 'inproper' or 'illegal' because they happened to be part or fully naked. I am afraid a accusation of that nature would unleash the 'primitive' in me, and god help anybody who made the association that a captured moment of beauty and innocence was child porn or abuse!!! My god what are we coming to!? :/ It also reminds me of some tragic events some years back where a couple of children were badly mauled by dogs - I seem to remember that two totally unrelated cases involving Rotweilers were used as a crusade campaign to potentially have all of that breed destroyed!! - that's like saying all Germans should have been exterminted for what Hitler and the Nazi's did.

There is still a public idea that only kids play computer games. Which is not quite the truth. I follow the game industry a lot and you should see some of the laws they try to pass about them.

Lots of knee jerk laws these days, have to be seen doing something before the sheeps attention span lapses on the topic of the day! (Yeah, I am getting rather cynical here, but with the DMCA, eternal copyright, TIA, PATRIOT and PATRIOT2, is it still the land of the free?) Up here in Canada we have learned to a certain degree that thought is required before making a law NO MATTER HOW MUCH the public whinges on about we need it NOW! Anything else will just end up failing a constitutional challenge and have to be redone. (We still screw it up sometimes though!) Catlin, I remember reading that case too. Stupid overzealous application of a law. Richard

I remeber something recently where a lady and her boyfriend were arrested because the pictures they took in to get developed were of her breastfeeding her son. They wanted to take these pictures because her boyfriend wasn't there for most of the breastfeeding so they wanted something to remember that stage. (the child was only maybe a year old in the pictures). You are right it's a knee-jerk reaction trying to get votes so they can stay in office. The way things are going this will no longer be a free country, you'll always be looking over your shoulder wondering if what you are doing is illegal. That is not the way this country was built.

I read an article a few years ago written by a man who infiltrated a group of Man-Boy Love advocates. These men watched a video of a high-school wrestling match and were getting off on it. If people want to get sexually aroused by children, they will regardless of what laws are passed. Incidentally, most sexual abuse takes place within families, but that is almost never discussed, much less acted on. Lin

Hi Lin

Actually you are right. There is more abuse that goes on in families. The reason one never hears about it is because these cases are done in secrecy.

However, the same problem exists there to.

I live I Denver and there have been two cases of parents who had naked pictures of their children. One was a very cutsy picture of a child in a tux without pants and underwear. The other was a picture of a child in a bath tub.

Social services removed the children because of the pictures. There was no evidence of sexual abuse. We know this only because of the publicised trial. They were found not guilty by a jury.

So here is the interesting rub. Not guilty does not mean innocent only that not enough evidence was present to get a conviction.

The parents involved did not get their children back for over a year after being found not guilty. One has to ask how many children are removed from their home for similar pictures and are not prosecuted because the DA knows they can't win. Instead we just remove the children. Talk to an adult sometime who was removed from their home as a child. They have horror stories that can't be heard without getting sick. That comes from those who were abused at home and those who swear they weren't abused.

From many of the things said in this forum, there are lots of parents ripe for the picking.

Wait a minute... What are you saying mprr? 2 Parents lose their children because they had perfectly normal photos of their children who happened to be semi naked???? - How can you base a decision of someones guilt because of a couple of photos, that many loving families will have?? You have illustrated the point perfectly, and shown how stupid the law is. {From many of the things said in this forum, there are lots of parents ripe for the picking. } WTF does that mean??? Lets clarify a few things for the hard of intelligence. Kiddie porn is sick beyond words. Child abuse is so uttely twisted, that NO excuse is acceptable to me. Actual abusers should be severely punished. Peadophiles should be removed from the planet. No questions _____ Parents having pictures of their kids first bath, playing in the pool on a hot day...whatever etc. are nothing to do with the above, certainly not from my perspective, and anyone that made that connection in my space would most likely leave it with a bloody nose for even thinking it. Jesus - it's bad enough knowing that it does happen out there, and that some people are that sick, but to then make the assumption that every other parent or gaurdian is doing/thinking the same because of he points illustrated is unbelievable. I refer you back to my point about Germans and Nazi's

Having several friends who were removed from their homes (2 due to family abuse, one who's parents were found not guilty) all of them suffered further abuse when fostered or in hostels. Removing from the family is not always the answer, explain to me how in any way, a child removed from his parents (due to some pics of him naked in a paddling pool) was subsequently abused for 9 months in a childrens hostel is right. I agree with kromekat, 'Kiddie porn is sick beyond words. Child abuse is so uttely twisted, that NO excuse is acceptable to me. Actual abusers should be severely punished. Peadophiles should be removed from the planet' I would remove all abusers of children permanently from the planet. (Of course you need some sort of safety net for wrongful prosecution, but I see no reason not to go for a lethal injection if a prosecution hasn't been overturned within say 5 years of original conviction)

I know that there is lots of abuse in the foster system, so it's hard to say whether it's better for the children to be removed from an abusive situation or leave them in it. Being abused anywhere is dangerous and harmful, but some types of abuse are hard to identify. If a child's parents have books of artwork and some of the paintings have naked people, is the child being abused because he or she has access to these books? Some people would say 'yes'. On the other hand, a fully clothed child really is being abused if an adult looks at them in a sexual way. The kid may not understand what is happening, but it makes them feel uncomfortable. Lin