Why child abuse images are sin

Many parents and other entitled adults misunderstood what child online exploitation. Most think it is a fringe problem "over there" while perpetrating the crime themselves. The moral line against child exploitation images is very clear, and determined by the child.

The Greek root word denoting parental entitlement is πλεονέκτης (Latin: pleonektés) and refers to wanting to showcase your child to the point of imposing said want onto a child, which, in the case of child pornography, leads to sexually entitled showcasing, denoted by the Greek root word πορνεία (Latin: porneia) and refers to ANY sexual contact perceived by the child, meaning physical, textual/written, verbal, symbolic, with child sexual abuse being the broader form of fornication, ranging in severity from leering/menacing to rape/lust murder. 

Exploitative parents document their children in a public venue, with no intent to remove said images, and with intent to shut up and punish the child's wishes for the images to be taken down. Among parents, there are a bunch of minor offenders among major offenders, with the offenders usually being pro-spanking in some capacity, thus authoritarian or authoritative in some capacity in a controlling, punitive, or demeaning way.

When looking for an image, I always look for signs of consent, and most images of, say, young girls in swimsuits on search engines, are taken with consent, usually by way of contract, with release from the parents signed as well. It is not a moral crime to look at a consensual image of a child, but it is abuse to share it to a broader network with intent to sexualize the child victim/target, unless the child is an adult over age 18 and consents to the share. Any time a child's likeness is re-shared for sexualizing and objectifying purposes, it is a shaming device to the child victim/target involved. Notifying the child of specific use is also a form of child sexual abuse.

Signs of consent include normal happiness, meaning not coyness due to enjoying being depicted (a false promise in some "light" depictions), as well as normal pose (hand on hip), and a web address that does not admit to sexualizing subjects (no hotstuff.zzz or beautygirls.xyz) even at the level of mere beauty. The purpose of the image has to be something OTHER than any sexual and/or pageant usage, meaning perhaps clothing ads and so forth. Otherwise, you are giving illicit images clicks that they shouldn't have. All self-made material is acceptable within the law. A child has the right, upon knowing a person viewed their image in that manner, or finding out some other way (maybe she is a hacker on the side). However, at the same time, children should not be notified of their image being used unless they want to, for whatever purposes that they want to, and it should be presumed that a child sort of knows or will know that others will use their image, but doesn't exactly want to know of specific cases. Most of these girls do grow up in gentle parenting homes, and thus are not shy about their body, but even they have limits.

It is unclear how many parents exploit their children online, using social media. As an anti-spanking vigilante, I can tell that it is a very common way of exploiting children. The idea is that you catch all the little fish, and scan for them, and then you catch the big fish, which is a close-knit group of parents on the dark web sharing depictions of their own abuse of their children. Instead of "honeypots", how about prosecuting every single parent on some statute, no matter how insignificant, and working from there. Here in Berks County, Pennsylvania, we can use either the harassment or the disorderly conduct statute, depending on which, in the individual case, would get a higher sentence. The criterion would not just be posting the image, but whether the parent would punish the child for protesting about the image. It is my understanding that many parents actually would, for being "a spoilsport" and "ungrateful for being appreciated". Unfortunately, even social media platforms don't do much. 

This is a crime I do not accuse parents of lightly. They tend to be the type to post everything about their child, as if it is only a temporary release of energy, not understanding that things stay on the Internet forever. Perhaps it is something that they would be embarrassed about as a teenager, which should be heeded, but with statute of limitations laws running out for victims of such abuse by then. Under Christian law, the standard, like all moral crimes, is "innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt", meaning I do turn a blind eye to all parents in interaction, but bear witness and monitor the quality of the images nonetheless, as well as the quantity. The quality is actually better, because such parents would actually post pictures of their child when the child appears, due to the ambiance of the footage, inattentive to the nature of them being photographed. Generally, I would end up having to shun a parent when they pleaded for their parents to remove an embarrassing image, and the answer is "No, you were cute then. so stop it! So ungrateful!". If the images get too extreme on my friends list, meaning photos of children crying and "look how beautiful those baby tears are. It'll be nothing when they are older". Said every child pornographer to rationalize their depraved, wicked moral crimes against children...I have no friends that are like this, but know that this does happen on some friends lists. I am very careful who I allow to be my friend, as I see friends as exclusive to those I really trust and possibly have interests in common. If you promote child abuse material on my page, I kick you off. Sorry, cutting the cord. Never had to do that on this, thank God.

Consent should be enforced by the law in adult/child relations, not just the upper rings, with the child perceiving non-consent in most cases, especially those not related to sexuality. Nobody under age 18 should be having sex at all, in my faux-moral Christian view as children are exempt from Divine Prosecution. 

Children in Pennsylvania, namely teens, do have a right to legal recourse if a RECENT image of them was shared without consent, meaning within 90 days of posting (screenshot the timestamp and the post as evidence, and also report to Facebook to ensure avenues). You would have to prove harassment, meaning state to your parent, guardian, or other caregiver that you want them to take down that image, and be specific about the image, while video recording on a phone or other device their refusal. Then, take a walk, drive (if you are old enough and have a license), or hitch a ride to the local police station to file a report. The fine should say "non-traffic summary citation". Anything that is defamatory like that is against the law, if you perceive abuse in that situation. It is not a form of discipline so if you get punished, the officers CANNOT arrest your parents merely for that but possibly CAN arrest them about the images if they refuse to pay the fine...On a larger scale, anything said by a parent that is insensitive and outside the realm of normal discipline is harassment, and can be charged as such. 

To see if your harassment laws fit, check the criminal statutes on the website of your state's legislature, or other web library documenting state statutes. "Statutes" are written laws that are codified like a book, and these days can be read online, for free, without a subscription. "Title" can be analogous to "chapter" in a book.