This article is a good tool for differentiating between lots of different terms that are often kind of blurry. It is based on another article that was featured in the Times magazine. Although the general definition of pornography is something that contains sexual content of some sort, it isn’t considered to be illegal unless it appears to be obscene or it’s child pornography. The definition of obscene is if fails to meet 3 requirements. First, if the material is what the state considers to be inappropriate, it is considered obscene. Secondly, if the material is offensive to a reasonable man in the standard community, it’s considered obscene. Lastly, the material must lack literary, artistic, musical, or political value. With regards to child pornography, none of those guidelines actually apply when real children are used to depict sexual acts because the focus is no loner on the content of the material but rather the conduct of the material. If one were to use computer-generated images of children engaging in sexual acts that would not be considered child pornography because real children were not actually used in the process. I think that it doesn’t matter whether the material is depicting real children or computer-generated children, no one should be posting images of “children” engaging in sexual acts. IF, for any reason, children come across such material, how do you think they will grow up?
Even though there are chances that children will come across some type of pornography online or pedophiles will contact them and send them indecent material, it’s actually quite rare. As it states in the article, the chances are much greater for a child to come across predators on the street corner rather than on the internet. In any case, I feel that parents should be with their children when they are surfing the net all the time (at least at the beginning to get the children set up on certain programs).