Cultural hysteria

This post appeared in my blog reading list overnight, and I saw it not long after it was published, being in the midst of a quiet few minutes at work as I was, so I've had plenty of time to consider its implications. It seems to me to be evidence of a degree of paranoia in society about the issue of 'paedophilia' (I use the word in quotes because I consider it to be, in terms of current usage as opposed to its correct dictionary definition, one of the most misused in the whole English language) which is rapidly becoming indistinguishable from cultural hysteria. A number of issues seem to me to be raised by the post, which I'll attempt to address separately - from my own perspective, of course.
First of all, the question raised by the post title, 'Is it the same as underage pornography?'. My understanding of the word 'pornography' is the definition given in Wikipedia, 'the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter'. If that definition is accepted, then pictures of children playing football, or any other sport, are unequivocally not pornographic. If, however, the meaning of the word is extended to include any image that may conceivably be used by someone for purposes of 'sexual gratification' then, although this may be seen by some to be a reductio ad adsurdum, no image of any child in any situation is permissible, because there might always be a person that could use an image in that way. And that doesn't just mean photographs, it means any portrayal of a child in any film or television programme, any artwork, ancient or modern, even cartoons - it's already illegal in many jurisdictions, including the UK, to possess sexually explicit cartoon images of minors, even though the characters are completely fictional, do not exist and have never existed, except in an artist's imagination. Given that, amongst other things, attractive children are used by advertisers to attempt to induce people to buy everything from cat food to holidays, I can't imagine that such a broad definition of 'child pornography' is ever likely to be enacted, but if that's the case, who draws the arbitrary line between what constitutes pornography and what does not?
Another point regards the taking of 'unauthorised' images of children in public places, whether surreptitiously or openly. If this is deemed to be unacceptable, where does that leave the status of the literally millions of CCTV cameras monitoring seemingly everyone and everything in this country, some even, according to a recent report I read, installed in the changing rooms and toilets of certain UK schools? Is the suggestion that children should be prevented from appearing in public at all? Raising a generation of children and young people with no experience of interacting with the 'outside world' hardly seems to me to be conducive to a healthy society. As was stated in one of the comments to the original post, many children have been so inured with 'stranger danger' that they are terrified of any contact at all with any adult they don't know, and, conversely, many adults would never approach a child not known to them, no matter how great the danger or distress the child might be in, for fear of being accused of molestation. And the sad irony is that study after study has shown that around 90% of all sexual abuse of children is perpetrated by people, family members, friends and acquaintances, or authority figures, already known to the child.
Returning to the suggestion made in the original post that the sporting pictures were intended to be used for sexual gratification, even if the assertion is true, I would ask 'Who is harmed?'. If the children concerned are not aware of either the pictures being taken, or the 'nefarious' use to which they might be put, or both, in what way is any such child damaged? My daughter has posted (completely non-pornographic) pictures of herself in cyberspace. If someone saw them and used them to fuel a masturbation fantasy of some kind of which she was totally unaware, how would she be harmed? I've never taken pictures of children not personally known to me, but, given my status as a self-confessed boylover, I will admit to having used my 'mental photograph album', my memories, particularly of DBJ, in the privacy of my bedroom. Given that I never even approached him, still less molested him, in actuality, does this admission mean that I've violated him in some way? If so, how?
No-one, of any age or gender, should be subjected to unwanted sexual advances or any kind of non-consensual sexual contact, but the balance between protection and infringement of individual freedom seems to me to be in danger of tipping too far in the direction of the authoritarian, 'Big Brother', version of society. Freedoms are hard-won, and all too easily lost.

Love & best wishes to all
Sammy B