In the fall of 1997, child protection activists descended on Barnes and Noble stores across the United States to rip up books by Jock Sturges and David Hamilton, in an attempt to shame the company into discontinuing the sale of those books. The books include nude photographs of many people under eighteen years of age and the protectionist viewed them as child pornography. To those whom all nudity is pornographic, they would fit their definition of child pornography. But, there is no sexual activity, not intent in the photos, just nudity. This does not fit the legal definition of child porn. Barnes and Noble refused to remove the books from its shelves.

What did they accomplish? Bookstores across the country sold out of Jock Sturges and David Hamilton books. This is the opposite of what they wanted to happen. Who bought those books? Sure, some paedophiles did, having been apprised of ‘legal’ child porn. Instead of using perverted images of children, now they can use innocent pictures for their sexual gratification. Is this making children safer?

Other people buying the books are those that are curious. They can’t believe that a major bookstore can be legally selling child pornography. Because they are expecting perversion, do they look for the innocence in these pictures. No, they see the perversion that they are looking for. Why are they looking for perversion. Because they were told too. Some of these people will see the book as perverse and revolting. No problem there. Others will recognize the innocence even when looking for perversion. No problem there. But there are some that will look for the perversion and see it and even though they were not trying to be, will be aroused by the taboo value of it. Is this making children safer?

Some people buying the book are borderline paedophiles. They’ve had a disturbing thought or two but are a far way from molesting a child. As the people above, they buy the book for curiosity, but they have that disturbing thought at the back of their mind. Will they see innocence. No, they are looking for perversion so that is what they will see. Will looking for perversion dispel that thought. No, it will reinforce it. Is this making children safer?

NO! To all of the above. Infecting images of children with perversion does not make them safer. It puts them at risk. I know the child protection groups want to help children, but encouraging people to see perversion everywhere is not the way to do so. It is a reflection of their own perversion. This group is about infecting images and thoughts about children with innocence. That is the road to protecting them.

If we continue to keep enlarging the definition of child pornography, we will create an even larger market for infecting innocence with perversity. Only by seeing, and promoting, the innocence in images of children can we Turn Kids Back Into Kids instead of unwitting porn stars.