Perversion is in the eye (maybe lower...) of the beholder. It is truly a shame that demented individuals gets titalated by the site of a bare chested three year old at a totally innocent, sweet moment. While I understand the knee jerk reaction and the instant response to protect our children from such a threat I cannot understand the idea that we need to restrict normal images of life while allowing truly perverse and debase images of children wide availability under "freedom of expression". I'm not sure what the answer is but this is not it.
Best regards,
Bob
I'm afraid I disagree with you. There is now an easily accessible global market of images of abused children, I know of at least one person in the UK who has been convicted of taking such images because they knew they could sell them.I sincerely doubt that any of the restrictions on showing naked children in pictures are going to have the slightest effect on the number of children who are abused. .
I'm afraid I disagree with you. There is now an easily accessible global market of images of abused children, I know of at least one person in the UK who has been convicted of taking such images because they knew they could sell them.
And ask yourself whether it's healthy that so many adults are petrified of going near kids (with or without a camera) in case they're labelled as pervs. Youth groups can't find enough people to help kids discover the world that exists away from their playstations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?