We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.
3 added a translation of the linked article.
source | link

I think the second paragraph has some sense of truth in it. In the Netherlands at least there is a very important legal distinction between pedophilia and pedosexuality.

The philia means attraction/love, while -erotic or -sexuality actually means following up on that philia. Whereas the latter is definitely illegal in most states, the former arguably is not. It is after all pretty hard to prove someone has certain feelings.

Here in the Netherlands there were organisations fighting for their right to exist on grounds of being pedophiliacs, instead of pedosexuals, however they lost a case in 2015 at the European Court for Human Rights: (translated from Dtuch)

The European Court for Human Rights has rejected the claims that pedophiliac organisation Martijn made to prevent closure of the organisation. This means the organisation will remain illegal. According to the Strassburg court it was unclear whether the person that requested attorney Spong to file the case, actually represented the organisation.

This caused the case to not make it to court. According to the office of attorney Spong, the European Court has taken a formal stance. "The court implies that a prohibited organisation cannot be represented", attorney Sidney Smeeds says.

According to him, the court in Strassburg had a chance to make a ruling about the freedom of organisation and speech. "In the last weeks, we have seen that in Europe people can be killed for their opinions and in a vulnerable society, even impopular opinions should be representable", according to Smeets. "The European Court had the ideal oppurtunity to have a say about that."

(...)

Last year's April, the [Dutch] High Court ruled that the organisation should be dissolved. The Judge went against an earlier ruling from a lower court. That court ruled that while the opinions and actions of Martijn were rejectable, but did not warrant a prohibition.

The High Court did find a prohibition fitting, "in the interest of protecting the health, rights and freedoms of children.

This does show at least an attempt to place a certain perspective on the term. That is, they suggest that pedophilia is relatable to an opinion rather than an action.

I think the second paragraph has some sense of truth in it. In the Netherlands at least there is a very important legal distinction between pedophilia and pedosexuality.

The philia means attraction/love, while -erotic or -sexuality actually means following up on that philia. Whereas the latter is definitely illegal in most states, the former arguably is not. It is after all pretty hard to prove someone has certain feelings.

Here in the Netherlands there were organisations fighting for their right to exist on grounds of being pedophiliacs, instead of pedosexuals, however they lost a case in 2015 at the European Court for Human Rights: (translated from Dtuch)

The European Court for Human Rights has rejected the claims that pedophiliac organisation Martijn made to prevent closure of the organisation. This means the organisation will remain illegal. According to the Strassburg court it was unclear whether the person that requested attorney Spong to file the case, actually represented the organisation.

(...)

Last year's April, the [Dutch] High Court ruled that the organisation should be dissolved. The Judge went against an earlier ruling from a lower court. That court ruled that while the opinions and actions of Martijn were rejectable, but did not warrant a prohibition.

The High Court did find a prohibition fitting, "in the interest of protecting the health, rights and freedoms of children.

This does show at least an attempt to place a certain perspective on the term.

I think the second paragraph has some sense of truth in it. In the Netherlands at least there is a very important legal distinction between pedophilia and pedosexuality.

The philia means attraction/love, while -erotic or -sexuality actually means following up on that philia. Whereas the latter is definitely illegal in most states, the former arguably is not. It is after all pretty hard to prove someone has certain feelings.

Here in the Netherlands there were organisations fighting for their right to exist on grounds of being pedophiliacs, instead of pedosexuals, however they lost a case in 2015 at the European Court for Human Rights: (translated from Dtuch)

The European Court for Human Rights has rejected the claims that pedophiliac organisation Martijn made to prevent closure of the organisation. This means the organisation will remain illegal. According to the Strassburg court it was unclear whether the person that requested attorney Spong to file the case, actually represented the organisation.

This caused the case to not make it to court. According to the office of attorney Spong, the European Court has taken a formal stance. "The court implies that a prohibited organisation cannot be represented", attorney Sidney Smeeds says.

According to him, the court in Strassburg had a chance to make a ruling about the freedom of organisation and speech. "In the last weeks, we have seen that in Europe people can be killed for their opinions and in a vulnerable society, even impopular opinions should be representable", according to Smeets. "The European Court had the ideal oppurtunity to have a say about that."

(...)

Last year's April, the [Dutch] High Court ruled that the organisation should be dissolved. The Judge went against an earlier ruling from a lower court. That court ruled that while the opinions and actions of Martijn were rejectable, but did not warrant a prohibition.

The High Court did find a prohibition fitting, "in the interest of protecting the health, rights and freedoms of children.

This does show at least an attempt to place a certain perspective on the term. That is, they suggest that pedophilia is relatable to an opinion rather than an action.

2 added a translation of the linked article.
source | link

I think the second paragraph has some sense of truth in it. In the Netherlands at least there is a very important legal distinction between pedophilia and pedosexuality.

The philia means attraction/love, while -erotic or -sexuality actually means following up on that philia. Whereas the latter is definitely illegal in most states, the former arguably is not. It is after all pretty hard to prove someone has certain feelings.

Here in the Netherlands there were organisations fighting for their right to exist on grounds of being pedophiliacs, instead of pedosexuals, however they lost a case in 2015 at the European Court for Human Rights.: (Dutch link, sorrytranslated from Dtuch)

The European Court for Human Rights has rejected the claims that pedophiliac organisation Martijn made to prevent closure of the organisation. This means the organisation will remain illegal. According to the Strassburg court it was unclear whether the person that requested attorney Spong to file the case, actually represented the organisation.

(...)

Last year's April, the [Dutch] High Court ruled that the organisation should be dissolved. The Judge went against an earlier ruling from a lower court. That court ruled that while the opinions and actions of Martijn were rejectable, but did not warrant a prohibition.

The High Court did find a prohibition fitting, "in the interest of protecting the health, rights and freedoms of children.

This does show at least an attempt to place a certain perspective on the term.

I think the second paragraph has some sense of truth in it. In the Netherlands at least there is a very important legal distinction between pedophilia and pedosexuality.

The philia means attraction/love, while -erotic or -sexuality actually means following up on that philia. Whereas the latter is definitely illegal in most states, the former arguably is not. It is after all pretty hard to prove someone has certain feelings.

Here in the Netherlands there were organisations fighting for their right to exist on grounds of being pedophiliacs, instead of pedosexuals, however they lost a case in 2015 at the European Court for Human Rights. (Dutch link, sorry)

This does show at least an attempt to place a certain perspective on the term.

I think the second paragraph has some sense of truth in it. In the Netherlands at least there is a very important legal distinction between pedophilia and pedosexuality.

The philia means attraction/love, while -erotic or -sexuality actually means following up on that philia. Whereas the latter is definitely illegal in most states, the former arguably is not. It is after all pretty hard to prove someone has certain feelings.

Here in the Netherlands there were organisations fighting for their right to exist on grounds of being pedophiliacs, instead of pedosexuals, however they lost a case in 2015 at the European Court for Human Rights: (translated from Dtuch)

The European Court for Human Rights has rejected the claims that pedophiliac organisation Martijn made to prevent closure of the organisation. This means the organisation will remain illegal. According to the Strassburg court it was unclear whether the person that requested attorney Spong to file the case, actually represented the organisation.

(...)

Last year's April, the [Dutch] High Court ruled that the organisation should be dissolved. The Judge went against an earlier ruling from a lower court. That court ruled that while the opinions and actions of Martijn were rejectable, but did not warrant a prohibition.

The High Court did find a prohibition fitting, "in the interest of protecting the health, rights and freedoms of children.

This does show at least an attempt to place a certain perspective on the term.

1
source | link

I think the second paragraph has some sense of truth in it. In the Netherlands at least there is a very important legal distinction between pedophilia and pedosexuality.

The philia means attraction/love, while -erotic or -sexuality actually means following up on that philia. Whereas the latter is definitely illegal in most states, the former arguably is not. It is after all pretty hard to prove someone has certain feelings.

Here in the Netherlands there were organisations fighting for their right to exist on grounds of being pedophiliacs, instead of pedosexuals, however they lost a case in 2015 at the European Court for Human Rights. (Dutch link, sorry)

This does show at least an attempt to place a certain perspective on the term.