Humanities desk
< July 9	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 10[edit]

Self-made child porn[edit]

While reading this article (which doesn't seem to be a hoax given the coverage it's getting in various sources), I wondered why it is illegal for a child (person under 18 in the US) to create child pornography of themselves. So, can someone explain to me or point me to references which would explain to me why it is illegal in the US to create child pornography of oneself? I can see why it would be illegal to coerce a child into doing it but I don't understand the thinking behind it being illegal for the child.

Note: I'm not looking for legal advice. Just knowledge about the reasons behind the law. I'm not a child. I don't intend on making/distributing/viewing child pornography. And I am in no way connected to the case which I have linked to.

Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 01:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious explanation is that children are not considered legally competent to make such decisions, therefore it's not allowed. And more sinisterly, it could end up in the wrong hands and the child could unintentionally invite severe harm to himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, I think he's asking why a child could be punished like a grown pedophile for taking a picture of themselves. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to wonder why, if them is singular, the reflexive form isn't themself. —Tamfang (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason why it can't be. I myself have used that word. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

(edit conflict)My guess would be that the law simply does not yet differentiate between "child pornography made by an adult," "child pornography made by another child," and "child pornography made by the child depicted." Most people wouldn't want to believe the distinction is necessary, or at least most lawmakers like to pretend they wouldn't think about it. Folks could try to argue that that would open the defense "I just found it, the kid made it," but IIRC mere possession of child pornography is illegal. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of mine tells me that the judge actually has half a brain and threw out the request, if not the case. He has not called for the police department to be prosecuted for attempted manufacturing of child pornography, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia sexting has led to some kids being placed on the sex offenders' register for life. The law is out of touch with technology, and reality. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the very definition of "pornography" is a moving feast, as this story from Russia reveals. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really admire his sense of diplomacy in the suggestion "The note could be replaced with an image of the Crimean city of Sevastopol to celebrate Russia's takeover of the Ukrainian peninsula..." HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that any politician who voted to add such an exclusion would be attacked as having "weakened sex offender laws", and portrayed as pro-pedophile, and thus soundly defeated for re-election. StuRat (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The vital thing to understand is that this issue is seen primarily as an offense against censorship rather than for the protection of children. In the U.S., assertions of a right to free speech were largely ignored regarding any sort of "pornography" until Miller v. California, which offered some limited protections that as that article describes, in New York v. Ferber were taken not to exempt images of children. This is further illustrated by Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, in which laws to prohibit drawings were finally struck down (but it can still be prosecuted on a case by case basis as obscenity - see Mike Diana).

To put it simply, despite some highly commendable exceptions, Americans haven't seemed much interested in actually protecting poor children from child prostitution, with our article describing 100,000-300,000 current cases (0.1% of the population?!). They seem more interested in blocking disturbing images, or if that fails, to prohibit search engines to tell people where they can be found. Wnt (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I expect it has little to do with child pornography and it is more a misguided (if not sinister) attempt to defend a young woman's honor.--Wikimedes (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Job Application Query[edit]

This may be in the wrong section (sorry if it is). But my question is I've filled in several job applications, both in paper & online, & I've been asked several questions on them (like National Insurance number, Date of Birth, etc) that I was previously told, when I was a client of Reeds, Ingeus, Pertemps... basically all of the employment agencies that the Jobcentre Plus has sent me to. What should I do, What is/was the wright thing to do when it comes to these types of questions ? Scotius (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question. Are you worried that giving out all that personal info to so many potential employers might lead to identity fraud ? StuRat (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was while at the various employment agencies, the advisers there told us to be careful when giving that kind of information out. Either because it could be a bogus application (which was reported recently for a number of vacancies on the Directgov website) or that there could be one or more people at the workplace for that vacancy that may be untrustworthy. One adviser even said that if possible, wright on the app' form somewhere that you are willing to give that information in person. But from a number of advisers at the Jobcentre Plus, I've GOT to give that information out whenever possible. Scotius (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not sure at exactly what I should or shouldn't do.Scotius (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, under current UK legislation, giving your date of birth could encourage an employer to contravene age discrimination legislation, and best advice (from a careers adviser) is currently to leave it off CVs. Your NI number should only be given to an employer, i.e. when you have been offered and accepted a job, in order to prevent fraud. I think the JCP advisers are looking for an excuse to sanction people which is why you've had some very dodgy advice from them. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you want to avoid any spelling errors on job applications, as that leaves a poor impression. So, be sure to use "write" when you mean writing. "Wright" is an old term for a job specialty, such as a wheelwright or cartwright. (And "right", of course, refers to a direction, correctness, or privilege, while "rite" is a traditional practice, such as funeral rites.) StuRat (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I fill this darn thing in regularly for a non-computer-literate friend. The directgov site allows you to create a CV which you can then attach directly to an application. Obviously you can decide what information to include on your CV. You can also create several different CVs. However, only a minority of the advertised jobs allow you to apply that way. Most redirect you to a website run by the company or an agency acting on their behalf. In each case the information required will differ. Part of the problem is that so many jobs have online application forms which force you to complete required information, otherwise you cannot submit the form. In the end you have to decide whether or not you wish to proceed if you think the information requested is inappropriate. Paul B (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we're missing what may be the OP's key question. Unfortunately even if I'm right, I don't think we can offer direct help since it will likely cross in to legal advice field.

But it may be the OPs key question is what TammyMoet hinted at, namely what do they actually have to do to ensure they aren't sanctioned. I know little about the UK benefit/assistance scheme but I believe and this seems to be supported by what TammyMoet said and our article Jobseeker's Allowance, that it's similar to that in NZ and in a number of other countries. You have to be actively seeking working to qualify for the main unemployeement benefit. If the people in charge say you are not doing what's expected of you, they may cut some or all of your benefits. If the OP is concerned about this, then it's not really totally up to them whether the information appropriate if they want to keep their current assistance. (I'm fairly sure they couldn't refuse to fill in all application which want their employment history or education history for example.)

I'm guessing if the people in charge of OPs case complain of them not filling in applications (and therefore not fulfilling the requirements to look for work), they will have to be able to successfully argue that their refusal was resonable because of the information requested. As I said I don't think we can tell them what they can and cannot refuse, but we can probably offer advice on who they can speak to if they are concerned (be it a third party organisation offering help, their MP or someother representative, or someone higher up in organisation involved who they can explain their concerns/refusal to fill in certain applications to).

Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If my experience is anything to go be, you only have to do the bare minimum to avoid sanctions. I don't present that as factual information, just experience. The website is one of those things that were introduced in order to create the impression that people were being forced to look for work. It's supposed to provide evidence that you are indeed actively seeking it, which is, as you say, required for Jobseeker's allowance. It takes about half an hour to simply list relevant jobs you have looked at. After the first week I told my friend that I had no intention of actually filling out any of the application forms on her behalf, as it would take too much time, but would download the information and list jobs identified on the "activities" boxes, which are required. She has never been asked to provide evidence that she ever actually applied for any them - which she hasn't! That said, the allowance will be, and often is, instantly stopped if appointments are missed or the form is not completed to at least a minimum standard. One then has to fill in an online "rapid reclaim" form. Since my friend regularly fails to turn up, this happens all the time. Paul B (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Book yourself in at your local Citizens' Advice Bureau, because they are the very best people to answer any and all questions of this sort, are reliable, will often phone people up for you and help sort out misunderstandings, and can hook you up with legal assistance when needed and possible. Do it now. 86.129.13.205 (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Environment, health, and economy[edit]

Which entities are supporting environmentally sustainable, economically equitable, small, local businesses in healthful workplaces?
—Wavelength (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not many. International Fund for Agricultural Development perhaps. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.—Wavelength (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Books About the Role of Children in Gang Warfare[edit]

Hey! I'm looking for non-fictional books specifically exploring the ways in which gang warfare and tribal violence have affected children in places like Mexico, Ireland, Africa, and Afghanistan. I've read Malala's book and a memoir written by a child soldier, "A Long Way Gone." Can you think of any others? Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.97.12 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First Kill Your Family. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'm currently reading that one, too — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelancholyDanish (talk • contribs) 03:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about Sanyika Shakur's Monster? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! MelancholyDanish (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)MelancholyDanish[reply]

Canadian Armed Forces insignia[edit]

I've gone through dozens of pages (including Canadian Forces ranks and insignia on Wikipedia), and tried dozens of Google searches, but can't find a name or description of either of these pins.

File:Will delete once I have an answer.jpg

Colour version of the pin with the crown: http://www.williamscully.ca/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=slideshow.Slideshow&g2_itemId=13087

Any idea what these would describe? I have a 1990s portrait in a photographer's fonds, that this is cropped from. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt the left one a version of the the canadian army (or land forces) badge ? MilborneOne (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The right one looks like a flight crew qualification badge or similar. MilborneOne (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does appear to be, according to this enthusiast's website - http://va3kgb.ve3kbr.com/forces/air_trade_badges.htm#quals Dalliance (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, thank you both! -- Zanimum (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]