From "French parents who exploit children for online fame face prosecution" (London Times).
७ मार्च, २०२३
"The average child has its image shared on social media 1,300 times before the age of 13...."
"[Bruno Studer, an Alsace MP for Macron’s Renaissance party] said parents seemed oblivious to the fact that 50 per cent of the pictures exchanged on paedophile forums originated from photographs posted by families on social media. 'Certain images, notably photographs of naked babies or young girls in gym outfits, particularly interest paedophile circles,' Studer’s bill says.... The law is aimed at reinforcing minors’ privacy and enabling family court judges to deprive parents of rights over their child’s image, which would be transferred to a third party such as a social worker. The child must be involved in a decision to post their image 'according to his or her age and degree of maturity,' the preamble to the bill says.... Some campaigners say the proposed law does not go far enough. 'It talks a lot about the right to one’s image, but not about the dignity of children'...."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२० टिप्पण्या:
AI is getting ready to deliver all the child porn they can handle.
I don’t feel good about prosecution but I do like public shaming…then public hangings if that doesn’t work…
My family can’t stand it that I’m not on the snapface, so they like to post pictures of me online then text and email me pictures of the posts. They’re assholes…
I'm not turning anything regarding my child over to the control of social workers.
My daughter ran around naked outdoors as a small child (it was common in our neighborhood) and I know some of those traipses were photographed (sometimes by me). I don't particularly care that some guy in Brazil might jerk off to it 6 months later--it does not harm her in any way and I have no intentions of depriving her of a joyous childhood experience over it.
The one and only reason child pornography is taboo is because of the harm to children. Too many politicians and other nannies need to be reminded of that and stop harming children in their puritanical zeal to make sure pedophiles get no release.
Macron's a socialist and sneaky fucker.
Happy family posts a photograph of their newborn on the internet. Yeah, let's make that a crime.
"Pedophile! Pedophile! How dare you love your baby in a way that increases pedophilia in our French population! We must stop these awful child rapes at their source, by criminalizing the parents who are ecstatic about their new child and sharing nudie picks on social media. You are criminals! Why can't you be more like those responsible French people who stab and poison babies and avoid this whole area. Frankly I think the state should be responsible for all of childcare. Obviously you baby-lovers have no idea what you're doing."
In the 60s is was not unusual for naked toddlers to be in a toddler pool on the lawn. Somehow civilization survived. Child sexual abuse was discovered as a "public problem" in the 70s along with its narrative.
Stabbing babies and selling their body parts to unethical biotech companies.
"Constitutional right! We should all do that."
Photographing your child who's dressed like Baby Yoda.
"Child exploitation! Slavery! So evil."
One thing I’ve learned from Ann is that society - and politicians in particular - don’t protect children and uses them for political purposes. That’s part of the reason why I testified in support of the Nebraska bill banning sex changes until age 19.
The leader of the effort to kill the Let Them Grow Act is Senator Machaela Cavanaugh. Maddow interviewed her. Shero!
The Left rallied in the Capitol Rotunda before the hearing. I was up front and took some pictures of these teenagers. Cavanaugh asked me not to take pictures of them notwithstanding that they were in a public space. According to the Left, it’s okay to perform medical experiments on mentally ill teenagers but not acceptable to take their pictures during a public protest.
Yeah, their hypocrites and crazy.
The liberal obsession with "dignity" is a way they delude themselves from their severe class-consciousness and how they hide their utter viciousness to people who are beneath them in intellect or status.
Liberals worried about "the dignity of children" are the same liberals who are baby-stabbing madmen when the child is too small to understand the ethical difficulties of infanticide.
Liberal: "Can you explain to me what Hamlet meant when he pondered existence? To be? Or not to be?"
Baby: "Goo goo gah gah."
Liberal: "You are beneath me in intellect."
Baby shits on himself.
Liberal: "Disgusting! You're not dignified at all!"
Liberal madman stabs baby multiple times.
Liberal madman to himself: "Hmmmmm. Better not take a photograph of that, people will be upset. At least I don't have to worry about exciting pedophiles with nudie pics."
"So it is our obligation to transmit (knowledge/ family history) it to the next generation. And it then becomes their obligation to transmit it to the next generation, and on down the line, this oral tradition and the transmitting of knowledge within the families. Unfortunately, with the advent of radio, much of this transmission was lost ... And the tradition of conversation began to suffer with the advent of radio. And, of course, TV almost has devastated the tradition of oral transmission of knowledge. And now the children are entertained by the TV and there's very little just conversation within the family where you spend a whole evening just sitting and talking, sitting and telling stories ... something vital, I feel, has been lost from the family unit by the invasion in our homes of radio and of television and of these other things that have taken away from the real honest relating heart-to-heart to people and that oral communication and all. And I think that a part of the breakdown of our society is surely traceable to the advent of entertainment in the home by way of radio and television. " (Chuck Smith, Commenting on the Book of Joel c2000)
Then the internet and now social media.
What a horrible swamp. How hard will it be to accuse a parent of failing adequately to protect a child from improper viewing/possession/sharing of the child’s image? Once a pic of little Johnny (fully clothed, at a family picnic) has been uploaded from Facebook and digitally altered to please some anonymous perv half a world away, who will police the violation, how, on whose dime and subject to what review or appeal?
Neither I nor my gkids parents put my grandchildren's pics on social media. I see no need for it and have heard too many stories of children's pictures being taken and used for purposes I wouldn't agree with.
The one and only reason child pornography is taboo is because of the harm to children.
That's exactly right. The crime is rape. You're investigating a rape, or a conspiracy to rape children. Owning a film of a child's rape is not a crime. It's evidence of a crime.
An analogy would be to arrest pro-lifers for having photographs of decapitated babies on their computers.
It's insanely over-broad to punish ordinary people for books, movies, photographs, or things they post on the internet.
1,300? That seems amazingly high. 100 pictures a year... I have rarely used my kids images on any social media post except in very special circumstances. I do not live vicariously through their lives. I have posted journals of their adoptions, but those were private, bin invitation only, affairs. Those invited know not to repost.
It is soon (as in less than 5 years) going to be possible to create child pornography that no human can distinguish between real and computer generated- stills are already approaching this level of "realness", and you don't need an "A.I" to do it either. It isn't illegal to possess or produce text-based child porn (stories about) as far as I know, so it is likely the law isn't going to automatically cover completely synthetic pictures and videos. It is a brave new world coming.
As for posting people's childrens' pictures in online social media- I wouldn't do it myself- I hate it when my family post pictures of me (adult me) on Facebook, and I have told them so, but they ignore my objections for the most part. I think children should have an expectation of privacy until they are adults in this manner, but it shouldn't be a matter for the law to adress. Ultimately, this needs to be left to the judgment of their parents. When you start using the law to address tangential "offenders" this way, it is a corruption, and a dangerous one at that.
I used to run a small preschool. We posted pictures on Facebook for marketing and sharing-with-our-families purposes (never with names or other identifiers, and as far as we could manage, at oblique angles so that children would be less recognizable), and parents were given the option to opt their children out of those posts. I didn't a lot of time scanning pictures to ensure that opted-out kids weren't in them.
I knew then that pedophiles could use those photos for their own titillation. They can use any child photo, including the ones that come in empty picture frames.
Boys used to jack off to their moms' Cosmo magazines. A book called It Looks Alive To Me in one of my elementary school libraries was totally dogeared because of one very abstruse "sex" scene (in a sarcophagus for reasons of the plot, described almost literally like this: "I heard her jeans-covered legs sliding close to mine"). Don't even get me started on that one Judy Blume book.
Pedophiles seem to me to have halted their psychosexual development at a very young age, while their physical sexual development has matured. It's sad in the abstract and unallowable in practice, but I don't know how to prevent the "harmless" form in which a pedophile never takes his pathology out of the chair in front of his computer.
I did have a preschool mom who was an early "influencer"; she was a mommy blogger who posted pictures of her kids constantly and made a good supplemental living at it, lots of cool free vacations and toys and gear as well as, eventually, money. I don't know what happened to her as her cute little ones got older and might have started to object to their online exposure. Maybe the freebies she got helped them come to terms with it, though.
her, his, theirs... it's a veritable colorful clump of excess carbon. #ClimateChange
it's a boy, it's a girl, it's a carbon sac of fluid
quoth the psychiatrist: nevermore
Years ago, I warned my daughter-in-law to take down her pictures of her naked baby son off the internet. It had never occurred to her that someone might have evil intentions about a cute infant picture. Not only that pedophiles could take an interest, but overzealous authorities could charge her with kiddie porn.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा