rstuart <" Like you, if I thought distributing pictures caused child abuse, I would want it banned. But unlike you I am not prepared to jump to that conclusion simply because I find the pictures distasteful. I want to see evidence first. This is because, apparently unlike you, I am prepared to defend the right of everybody to do what the dammed well please in private, if it effects nobody else."

You are one sick puppy rstuart! Are you serious? Do you honestly think the children posing or acting in child pornography material could possibly 'enjoy' it? Do you think it wouldn't affect them? Really?

If we don't stop the supply of this disgusting material at it's source, then kids will never be safe.

Are you suggesting that if we, as adults want to, for example, kill someone in a mad orgy and film it for other people's 'viewing pleasure', that this should be fine in a free society?

Of course not, because that is illegal.
So is child pornography.

@suzeonline: Do you honestly think the children posing or acting in child pornography material could possibly 'enjoy' it?

I guess if nothing else your comment illustrates just how much difficulty some have with separating pictures from the act being photographed. Actually, no one could be that thick, so I am guessing imagine you are just stubbornly refusing to acknowledge a difference exists.

Still, it's pretty amazing, given how obvious the difference is. If you looked at this video of innocent people being mowed down by 30 calibre machine gun fire, you would be rather taken aback if I then accused you of murdering someone. http://www.collateralmurder.com/ Yet you apparently feel perfectly comfortable of accusing someone looking at child porn of being a paedophile.

The comment of yours I quoted is just plain wrong as well - another wild exaggeration. As a rule pre-pubescent kids feel no more uncomfortable having their pictures taken naked than when they fully clothed. Accusing people taking happy snaps of partially clothed kids of abusing them, or indeed locking sexting teenagers on the same premise is just absurd. Yet that is how far you and your kind are apparently prepared to stretch things to make your point.

So, since you lot continually accuse me of supporting paedophilia, I'll spell out the distinction. Paedophilia is someone sexually abusing kids. No one here condones that, and frankly you accusing me condoning it borders on slander. Taking pictures, particularly of kids clearly isn't abuse as it doesn't harm them.

Now I will another statement that will undoubtedly bring you all back, baying for more of my blood. We are better off if the paedophiles do take pictures of their crimes. To see why, think of how much easier the police's job would be if every criminal distributed photographs of themselves committing their crimes on the internet. And yet, by some perverted twisted logic, you want to shut this down by accusing people who look at those pictures of committing the crimes depicted.

If you think this is helping kids, you have rocks in your head.

Rstuart

I am amazed you are still standing, missing all limbs and now apparently your head.

I will carefully state the following:

Taking pornographic images of children is illegal.

Possessing pornographic images of children is illegal.

Distributing pornographic images is, by default, illegal.

The reason is because children are exploited to create said images. Which means children are psychologically and/or physically harmed by this behaviour.

Capiche?

@Severin: The reason is because children are exploited to create said images.

No, that almost certainly isn't the case, and I have already explained why so why repeat it and expect me to accept it?

The children are exploited because some pervert wants to have sex with them. End of story. That he takes pictures of it so he can share them and brag about his exploits with his mates is almost a side issue.

You seem to imagine there is some huge market in child porn, with people making millions in the style portrayed in Underbelly. There isn't. That is probably because of every country on the planet being so intolerant of people abusing kids, making the risks enormous. We penalise paedophiles more than drug trafficers. It just isn't worth the money.

The interesting thing for me is if you do believe child porn is made for money, then the obvious solution is to only make trading pictures of naked kids for money illegal. This has the nice side effect of exempting the legitimate reasons for taking pictures of naked kids - happy snaps, sexting and so on. It still has a couple of nasty side effects. I don't know how obviously legitimate activities like those of Bill Henson would fare under such a regime. But still, it would be much better than what we have now.

So, Severin would you accept making viewing child porn legal provided the pictures aren't bought and sold? It does fix the "children are abused to make money" issue as much as it can be, and does mean we can take happy snaps or ourselves, family and friends without having to worry about being accused of being a paedophile. But I suspect you will baulk at the idea. Your issue really isn't the kids, that is just a convenient foil. Its those shudders of disgust you get when you think about those fifthly old men getting off on naked pictures of kids. Well there is an easy solution for that. Don't let your imagination go there, and don't blame others if it does.

Severin, I think we are flogging a dead horse here!

rstuart, we aren't talking about 'happy snaps' of naked children taken by relatives or friends of these children.

We are talking about child PORNOGRAPHY.
It is now, and will always be, illegal in all it's forms.

Anyone who doesn't agree with that is as sick as the paedophiles.
You need to get some help.

I am done arguing with you on this.
Have a wonderful day....

I agree that rstuart's obtuseness about child pornography appears to be intractable. While images of naked children are not in themselves necessarily pornographic or harmful to the children involved, the act of uploading them to a porno website for the sexual gratification of others is considered unacceptable in our society, and is reflected in the laws against such activities.

On the other hand, images of children engaged in overtly sexual behaviour are not only pornographic, but inherently involve child sexual abuse in their production. To absolve consumers of such vile material of any responsibility for its production, as rstuart does, indicates an amorality that is unacceptable where kids are involved. Further, his repeated claim that child pornography isn't produced for profit is quite bizarre, given the number of offenders who are regularly caught by tracing their credit card details.

While rstuart is entitled to his opinions and to express them, I am very pleased that if he were to be detected putting them into practice in Australia he would be charged with offences that the community takes very seriously indeed. I certainly wouldn't let any of my kids and grandkids within cooee of anyone who expressed such views.

rstuart may regard my comments in this regard as a "low blow", but I am quite sincere in my concern for any children with whom he has unsupervised contact, given his demonstrated attitude to child pornography.

However, I agree that he is intransigent on this subject and that there is little point in continuing this argument with him. Mind you, if he is in the habit of putting his odious ideas into practice, I sincerely hope that he is apprehended and charged as soon as possible, for the sake of the kids who are exploited by him and other consumers of child porn.