Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

Another, much more important point made by Mr. Gamble, was that pornography is something consenting adults take part of. Mr Gamble explained that in the 'child porn' case, the children are not consenting but do blame themselves for taking part. By using the phrase 'child porn' we reinforce this distorted perception.
I don't think words or terminology should be completely banned, but to emphasise this matter with editors might be a good idea - I'm sure none of them wants to hurt the children more.

I think that the language we use is extremely important, and the campaign to restrict official communication to a set of words sounds very much like George Orwell's Newspeak portrayed in 1984.

Whilst some people might feel some terms e.g. child porn trivialise a subject other may feel that repeating images of sexual abuse of children somewhat tedious.

In addition 'images of sexual abuse of children' does not imply that the images were used for sexual gratification, which the phrase child porn clearly does.

Our method of communication should be free and clear. It should not be subject to rules and regulation about which terms can be used in which context. Grammatical rules of convention are fine, but Government or political correctness stymies debate and obscures meanining.

If you cannot say what you mean you cannot mean what you say.

Please keep reporting using the phrases that best communicate the matter in hand, tailored to your various audiences. Different channels require different language and the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú newsroom does a particularly good job at this. And don't be stifled by political correctness any more than you are already.

When writing about such a delicate subject I believe editors should be using only the strongest and un-challengeable wording.

Some of your readers will challenge the word 'pornography' with what is acceptable or not. Most of whom will have never heard of the IWF. No-one can challenge whether child abuse is acceptable or not.

Its not about using words that are PC but about using words that hit the problem home to every reader and listener.

Newsbeat is a fine example of inaccurate and short form news reporting. I struggle to take the show seriously which is a deep shame when reporting these subjects. Sometimes I feel that Newsbeat is no better than having the Sun newspaper read to me.

I heard some of this debate, before turning the radio off (I can't stand Jeremy Vine). To my mind, it was Jim Gamble that is in danger of doing the "trivialising" - I was left wondering why he had nothing better to do than worry about wording that everyone understands the true meaning of.

Somebody within the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú needs to step in and put a line under these arguaments about what is and what isn't acceptable language.
On one hand you have discussion like the above suggesting we are trivialising one of the most horrid forms of abuse possible by using the phrase 'child-porn' (prison slang calls the perpetrators of this abuse 'nonces', does that make the perpetrators any less reviled?), on the other hand you have radio1 arguing the use of the word 'faggot' allegedly insulting in a song, but ok for news readers.
The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has always been a champion of good english, but what message does this public quibbling send?

What about the children listening to Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú/radio reports? I don't want to have to explain to my four yr old what the details of "child pornography " mean!

There is a reason, sometimes, for using discreet shorthand which is understood by all who need to know what it means, yet does not unnecessecarily distress those who can't get comprehend the world out there, and the awful things that go on.

Language can be misused to downplay the impact of what is being discussed ('collateral damage' springs to mind) but in the specific case given I think the reverse is true.
The argument to use the language proposed by Mr Gamble is akin to replacing the word 'terrorist' with 'murderer'. It suggests a fixed perspective rather than an objective one.
I recognise that nobody would reasonably take a different view from Mr Gamble on this particular issue - but when emotive language gets used it's best left to the players in the drama - not the observer.

New post and new appointment for a modern day scourge

He has to promote subject and new role intensly to justify appointment

he will see and exaggerate evil everywhere

he will hear and exaggerate evil everywhere

everybody will be speaking with an evil tongue and have evil intent if not following his new departments line.

Do your important job dont pratt about by promoting the cause or splitting hairs by concentrating on the fine print

I think that this debate of semantics is understandable, but pedantic. If anybody is discussing the sexual abuse of children, the creation or proliferation of images of children being sexually abused, or the exploitation of children for such a purpose, it is inherently obvious that the acts are heinous, and for a sexual nature. Whether I hear the phrase "child-porn", "child-pornography" or "images of the sexual abuse of children", I am shocked, inferring an atrocious crime, not angered at the slightly vernacular "child-porn", or concerned about some sort of implied amelioration of the crime of child-pornography. I find it hard to believe that any individual who would hear "child-porn" on the radio or on the television would merely shrug their shoulders and accept it as an inevitable pursuit of the pathologically disturbed. "child-porn", if anything, is an easily accessible, easily understandable phrase which, while having an inherent shock value, is understood by the masses and communicates clearly the severe nature of what is being discussed: pornography is for sexual gratification, children are not. The collocation of the two, for me at least, provides the antithesis to ameliorating the impact of the words. It in fact strengthens it, because sexual gratification can never be related to children, and presents an oxymoron which is memorable and shocking. In a world of political correctness, I would strongly urge editors to consider where the line between politically correct euphemisms and intelligible reporting should be drawn.

I support restricting the word 'pornography' to adults: as Maya says, it has connotations of consent. What writers need is a new one-word term, 'fraid I don't have any suggestions for that, any language scholars out there could help?

It's worth noting that the equality drawn by Jim Gamble is false - not all 'child pornography' is 'images of sexual abuse of children'. As well as photographs of real abuse the law also bans synthetic images made without the involvement of real children, and there have been several high-profile police investigations into works of art including naked children who were clearly not being sexually abused.

There's a large overlap, but the terms are not interchangeable, and you should use whichever conveys the correct meaning in each particular situation; preemptively banning any form of words can only serve to obscure the truth.

I think it is right to call it child abuse because that is what it is. I also think that a lot of the other terms we use should also 'tell the truth'. For example 'joyriders' should be called just what they are - car thieves.

I agree that the words "child porn" trivialise what the photos are. We would never call photographs of an adult rape being committed just "porn" - we would call it photos of a crime being committed. There is a sense in the term "porn" of the people in the photos choosing to pose or model for the photos. The children, however are not choosing to pose, they are having a ghastly crime committed against them.
I was myself sexually abused in childhood, and the very idea of any photos of that abuse being called just "porn" would be a further insult to me - I would be left feeling that I had been made a "porn star" on top of everything else.

The distinction I would personally like to see the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú and other media take more care on is between paedophiles and child abusers. The former is often used as shorthand for the latter - e.g. "images created by paedophile networks" - yet the two are not always synonymous. Not all paedophiles are child abusers (a paedophile is someone who finds children attractive - this does not mean they all automatically go out & abuse children, any more than all heterosexual men go out and rape women) & not all child abusers are paedophiles - indeed, I believe most child abuse (albeit violent rather than sexual) is actually committed by women!

I'd also say I wish we could keep the concern but lose the hysteria. It's so very wrong that child abuse was endemic for so many years in our institutions. But it's also wrong when some schools stop parents from filming their children's sports days or nativity plays. We need balance here, and that's where the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú needs to support this.

The English language in particular is very versatile and subtle, but many people's use of it is somewhat restricted and confused by experience and misunderstanding. If it were possible to use the absolutely correct terminology at all times, in such a way as to be unambiguously clear to all, then it would barely be necessary to string more than three or four sentences together for any report, since everything would be clear and any connotations would be obvious. Fortunately clarification always comes, so that whilst "child porn" may not be the best terminology, the meaning of this particular useage always follows in some form.

Of course we should be careful about the language we use, but quibbling over phrases such as "child pornography" and whether, taken in isolation, it implies consent, the nature of use, or even if it implies that it is made for/by children, is unhelpful, since the accompanying text should (and in my expereince is) always clarifying.

Regarding Henri's comment (above) on children listening to the news reports: you would have just as much trouble explaining to a 4-year-old what it means to be "sexually abused" as to explain "child pornography", so I don't think that such arguments hold any water.

Also, the definition of pornography is that its use is intended to cause arousal. this is exactly the distinction between images of sexual abuse, and the images of naked children that were investigated only a few weeks ago when displayed in a gallery. These were not pornography since there was no sexuality imposed upon the subject, and they did not show any evidence of abuse. Pornography featuring children will, by definition, involve a display oof sexuality with a child subject, and/or may also show signs of other abuse.

Just because we are all used to 'porn' in one form or another these days, doesn't mean that 'child porn' is in any sense trivialised in anyone's mind, especially considering the large amount of 'agresive' pornograohy widely available, and I think that anyone that seriously considers 'child porn' a trivialisation of the matter should carefully reconsider their position.

If space is an issue, I am highly in favor of being precise. Child Rape is the same number of characters as Child Porn, and is EXACTLY what we're really talking about. Sexual exploitation of anyone who says no or is incapable of saying no is rape, plainly.

I think that whilst many people may be clear that the term 'child porn' actually means child sexual abuse, there are people out there who are committing these horrific offences and perhaps those are the people who benefit from it being 'down-played' to the phrase 'child-porn'. Perhaps if we think about how this phrase came about and in whose interest it may be to keep this as the description for such serious criminal acts. Perhaps if the offenders had to call it downloading illegal child sexual abuse images it would make them face the seriousness of what they are doing and be very clear that society sees it exactly that way. The word 'porn' to me definately denotes something more glamourous perhaps than young children being abused in such horrific ways we perhaps could not begin to imagine - I think that we need to be asking those who have been sexually abused what they would prefer to have printed on the 'headlines' - maybe thats more important than saving space?

I would be delighted to be proven wrong and have my knowledge expanded, but I think there's a sound etymological reason why "pornography" is an incorrect word to use in the case of child abuse. Pornography comes to us from a French word adapted from the Greek language with a clear prefix and suffix which would break the derivation of the word down to "writing about prostitutes". To me, this implies there is a degree of choice on the part of the object of the images to participate in them, which is evidently not the case. I would tend to prefer the wording "images of children being raped" or "images of children being indecently assaulted", as appropriate. It is a shame that the more accurate word pederasty has fallen out of favour for erotic acts involving children.

Anyone who has sex with children will find a way to justify it. By referring to sexual abuse of children as "child porn" you are playing into their hands. A relative of mine who was a convicted child abuser told me that as all women were born with intact genitiles they were sexually active from birth. This was his justification for abusing his near female relatives. offenders who target boys will have another justification, most offenders I met refused to see that they had done anythnig wrong. Pornography is a sexual act between consenting adults viewed by other adults. Sex with a child is a perversion and nothing to do with porn.
As for Phil's comment about women being the biggest abusers physically of children - I wonder where he gets his info. The comment that web editors need to save space - sorry thats not a good enough reason to downplay the sexual assault of anyone.

This blog has made me realise that I have subliminally established my own definitions of "child porn(ography)" and "pictures of child sexual abuse". For the former, I tend to assume it refers to pictures of naked children, the latter being images of children being sexually abused. Whilst the creation, dissemination and viewing of either type of image is heinous, the latter is worse to my mind. I think it is important for the news to have phrases which distinguish between the two. They are factually different - and that is what counts. News media can not let some individuals' moral judgments of their equivalence determine that the same language be used to describe both.

There are those within our society whose understanding of the word pornography is that it is erotic and titillating, I'm sure the peodophiles who view these images of children being sexually abused would share in this understanding. Therefore to use this same word in a headline to describe acts of rape and serious sexual abuse on a child is both diminishing of the horror of the acts and of the lifelong effects of the violation of the child and of their childhood.

Child porn? Child abuse?

While we inanely quibble over terminology... the perpetrators of these crimes are out there doing the deed. Are our priorities correct?