to email BBC News and complain they are still using term "child porn" on their news website.

[kissmyheathenass]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31015347 gary glitter related - ugghh.

I know lots of us find the term 'child porn offensive'. The BBC bends over backwards to avoid language which might offend so why do they think this is acceptable? I am emailing them to point out why they should to rephrase. If anyone else would like to email them, please do!

What would be the accepted term? I'm asking out of genuine confusion; I didn't realise the term 'child porn' was seen as offensive. Isn't it common knowledge that it is child abuse, referring to it as 'child porn' just explains what form the child abuse is in?

YANBU. Will fill in the form when I get to a computer.

Complaint submitted.

The term used by professionals (including counsel in this case) would be "images of child abuse" or "images of the sexual assault of a child" or similar.

I take the point that "pornography shows what form it takes" but so does "images" or "video" or "live streaming" .

It's important to keep a conceptual link between the act of child abuse and the images created from it. We have to be very clear that someone who views or seeks out images of abuse is complicit in that abuse.

The same could be said for racially abusive terms Dora or Disablist terms too.

"Abuse" moomin. Child abuse images.

Ah that makes sense, thank you. Will fill the form in.

So, the argument isn't about consent. It's about the term porn trivialising or distracting from the crime that is occurring.

That does make sense. I'd argue that with the BBC, then. Because the other argument is wrong.

The title has been changed to 'child abuse images', but the article text still contains the term "child pornography". My complaint has been sent.

I don't know about the BC bending over to avoid offensive language. I am in the second stage of a complaint with them at the moment over referring to a 10 year old girl as a 'suicide bomber'. So far their response has been that audiences are used to the term and so they are justified in using it to get the gist of the story across quickly. Please post their response to you (which will probably not be for a couple of weeks) as I'd be interested to see if it runs along the same lines.

Their other defence was It is impossible to know the precise circumstances of any of these people – and whether they volunteered to kill themselves or were forced to do so- essentially saying they believe a child can make an informed choice to do this. It will be even more interesting if they use that line although I doubt they will go that far...

Good start. There is now only one remaining reference (except where they are quoting him directly, which obviously they can't change).

And crucially it means the URL has changed.

Gosh, YANBU! I've been meaning to email BBC a couple of times now. In the last few months , ob their app they twice used the term 'child porn'.

Their other defence was "it is impossible to know the precise circumstances of any of these people – and whether they volunteered to kill themselves or were forced to do so"

But ... but ... that proves your point, not theirs.

I can see their title still stand on the app! I screen capped it (is that the right term?) and will email them shortly.

I am in the second stage of a complaint with them at the moment over referring to a 10 year old girl as a 'suicide bomber'. So far their response has been that audiences are used to the term and so they are justified in using it to get the gist of the story across quickly.

oh gosh.

YADDDDDNBU.

I'm another one who doesn't see the term child porn as offensive. Because to me it doesn't at all imply consent. Quite the opposite.

As for what paedophiles think of the term - to me that's irrelevant.

MrsHathaway mmm, not to mention that if audiences are 'used to' the phrase suicide bomber, which media outlet might be largely to blame for that...? I've never complained to the BBC before and was genuinely astonished at such a response.

I suspect the problem lies in the fact that porn is fast becoming a neutral word. People who are against the whole phrase have to work out what they actually are against. Campaigning on the basis of misunderstood vocabulary is probably a mistake.

I don't think a single person in this country honestly believes that "child porn" implies consent. It has a very clear meaning even if people with a dictionary like to argue over precise wording.

YABU. The bbc must tear their hair out spending millions trying to be the most right-on media organisation in the world and then they get people like the OP arguing quite ridiculously about semantics like this. Have people really got nothing better to do with their time? Perhaps not.

parakeet it might be irrelevant to you what paedophiles think, but I can assure you it isn't irrelevant to children being abused for these images. Those that view child abuse images often do not understand that they are abuse and by referring to them as child porn it normalises it and justifies it in their minds.

Of course those of us that are disgusted by the abuse and do not have a sexual interest in children understand what is meant. Behind every single image is a child being seriously abused, by only referring to it as child abuse images there is absolutely no ambiguity for those who are less clear in their minds.

Point is, it's abuse.

It looks like abuse, it stinks like abuse... It is ABUSE.

What it's used for is arguably immaterial.

CEOP, the NSPCC and all other charities and police that work in this area are very, very clear that they should always be referred to as child a use images and not child porn. As professionals who work with the fall our and abused children every day I think that is enough 'proof' for me that it is an issue.

This is ridiculous.

Children are used for sexual practices and you're all busy rearranging words.

For stuff people already know and understand.

People really are weird sometimes

Semantics are important, actually. Especially if it changes people's perception of something so heinous. Even if the shift in perception in small, it's positive.
'Dirty old man' and 'paedophile' represent different levels of depravity. To me, anyway.