Aussies, please help me understand this article.
Specifically, what is meant by “child abuse websites”? Websites that “promote” child abuse? Websites showing abused children (for the gratification of those that get off on it)? Euphemism for child pornography?
Senator Conroy’s media release on the subject refers you to the Interpol website, and that attempts to give some definitions and some “appropriate terminology”.
[QUOTE=Interpol]
Child abuse is not pornography
A sexual image of a child is “abuse” or “exploitation” and should never be described as “pornography”.
Pornography is a term used for adults engaging in consensual sexual acts distributed (mostly) legally to the general public for their sexual pleasure. Child abuse images are not. They involve children who cannot and would not consent and who are victims of a crime.
The child abuse images are documented evidence of a crime in progress – a child being sexually abused.
[/QUOTE]
Hmmm… Double-plus good newspeak.
It sounds like “child abuse” = “child pornography” in this context. What do you mean by “Websites showing abused children”? Do you mean websites that show non-sexual and non-violent images of children who have been abused in the past? Are there people who get off on that? Really? Banning showing pictures of abused children could throw journalists for a loop and involve questions of intent. How long must a formerly abused child remain abuse-free before their image may be shown again? Imagine a high school yearbook that said, “Images of Susan Jones, Mary McDonald, and Ann Jacobson are not shown because they were abused.”
I don’t really know. What with Rule 34 and all that, once I read that article I assumed there were guys who got off on pics of belt-shaped bruises across kids’ legs, or something.
Without reading the article, I would have assumed that a “child abuse website” would be one that advocated disciplinary or teaching methods that met the legal standard of “abuse.” For example, a site extolling the virtues of Michael and Debi Pearl’s book, To Train Up A Child - which suggests striking insufficiently obedient children and infants with 1/4" plumbing supply line, PVC pipe, switches, rulers, and other implements - might qualify as a “child abuse website.”
It seems to me that pornography, whether it depicts children or adults, is something that exists as an aid to sexual gratification. I can see where someone would want to restrict depictions or advocacy of child abuse, regardless of whether it’s likely to be used in a sexual or erotic context.
As Giles explained and is clear from the first two paragraphs “child abuse” is their politically correct term for child pornography.
On a related note, pictures of naked children are NOT necessarily child pornography (in the US at least). There needs to be a clear sexual context.
Oh, I see. It’s like “homicide bomber” being used as a term for someone who kills himself in a bomb attack.
Then what do you Aussies call child abuse?
Child abuse. To them, it’s all child abuse, whether it’s physical child abuse (hitting) or sexual child abuse (fondling, raping, exploiting).