art or child pornography? where do you draw the line? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

phredgreen · 06-15-2003, 11:16 PM

Quote:

<i>as seen here:http://news.mysanantonio.com/story.c...80&xlc=1012347</i>

<b>River Walk art or child porn?

By Ihosvani Rodriguez
San Antonio Express-News

Web Posted : 06/15/2003 12:00 AM </b>

Jock Sturges used the beaches of France as the backdrop to his pictures of nude boys and girls, while Sally Mann chose her family's farm to shoot nudes of her children.
Benito Tovar went to the River Walk.

Sturges and Mann have garnered much controversy over their photographs of nude minors, but they've also received worldwide acclaim as artists.

Tovar is no artist, at least according to local prosecutors.

The part-time Domino's pizza employee and former photography student at San Antonio College was arrested Nov. 3, 2001, after tourists reported seeing him taking pictures of a naked young man in a semisecluded stretch of the River Walk, police records indicate.

Charged with inducing the sexual performance of a minor and possession of child pornography, Tovar faces up to 20 years in prison and the label of sex offender for the rest of his life.

The charges come to the dismay of Tovar, who says he's an aspiring artist looking to expand his photography portfolio. He claims the eight black-and-white photos of the teen in different stages of undress as his art of the male nude form.

Tovar, 33, is scheduled to go to court June 23 in what could become the latest stage for the centuries-old debate over the line between art and pornography.

"This whole thing is ridiculous. It's being pushed by short-mindedness and ignorance," Tovar said. "When are people going to learn that just because a person is naked, it doesn't mean it's something sexual?"

Tovar said he met the 16-year-old San Antonio boy on a VIA bus. He said he scheduled about 15 models, including the teen, to meet him that day on the River Walk in the King William area for a morning shoot.

The teen was the only one to show up.

Click, click, click went Tovar's camera and off the teen's clothes came until he was completely nude. Tovar said the teen spontaneously began taking off his clothes without being asked.

Moments later, Tovar was in handcuffs headed to a police station where officers questioned him and confiscated his camera and film. That's when Tovar claims he first realized his model was underage.

Tovar's attorney, David Cuellar, is mulling whether to let District Court Judge Juanita Vasquez-Gardner or a jury decide the matter.

Cuellar acknowledged there's a risk jury members may have their judgment influenced by the nudity and not focus on the laws relevant to the issues.

"His intentions were never of a sexual nature," Cuellar said. "They're going after him by saying that he induced the teen into doing a (lewd act). There is no clear definition of lewd, and there was nothing lewd if his intentions were solely artistic."

Cuellar said the teen merely was posing, not touching himself and not sexually aroused — possible indicators of lewdness.

Prosecutors, however, said the photos are so pornographic they wouldn't provide Cuellar or reporters with copies, forcing the defense attorney and a hired art expert to review the pictures in the district attorney's office.

Both prosecutors and the defense have given the same descriptions of the photos to reporters, differing only on their opinion whether it's art or porn.

"If I made copies of these, or distribute them, then I'd be here in court facing child porn charges," Assistant District Attorney Scott Simpson said. "The kid is underage, and this guy knew he was underage, and he was taking pictures of him. It's that simple."

Ina Minjarez, who'll be leading the prosecution's case, said the deeper issue is not so much the art or pornography, but rather the exploitation of a teen who had a troubled past.

Local child advocates agree.

"What worries me the most is what must've happened to this child in his past to get him to this point where he's willing to take off his clothes and not think there's anything wrong with it," said Dr. Nancy Kellogg, medical director for the Alamo Child Advocacy Center.

Kellogg said that at 16, most teens are more vulnerable to being sexually exploited because they are becoming more familiar with sex and may not think what they are doing is wrong.

Whether it's exploitation or not, images of young children and adolescents are nothing new in the art world, said Dr. Anne Higonnet, a professor of art history at Barnard College in New York City.

Higonnet wrote "Pictures of Innocence" about the history of nude children in art and changes in child pornography laws.

"People with no clothes, including children, have always been the staple of art throughout the history of humanity," Higonnet said. "And there's always been a very broad divider that separates art and pornography."

She pointed to the ancient Greeks, who regarded statues of nude male teens, called "Kouroi," as one of the most sacred of art forms. At the same time, definition of art varies from culture to culture and between individuals, she said.

In the late 1970s and early '80s, Americans began taking a more critical view of child pornography.

In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled child pornography doesn't fall under the right to free speech, and made no exceptions for artistic images.

Congress went further in 1984 by prohibiting the possession or creation of sexual images of anyone under the age of 17.

"This case has a lot of edges," Higonnet said of Tovar's case. "He's 16, still a minor, but almost an adult. He's not actually posing in a sexually suggestive manner, yet he's still a nude adolescent. (Tovar) might not possess aesthetic quality to his work, but he's still an artist if he truly considers it.

"Ultimately, this will all come down to the definition that your community gives to art and pornography. In this case, the community meaning the jury."

okay... so where do you stand? where are these famous people right and this aspiring artist wrong? i am having real problems with the "child pornography hysteria" we've been noticing lately, it's just as bad as ashcroft covering up the statue behind him.

Satsuma · 06-15-2003, 11:36 PM

If it's not sexual, it's not really pornography. Either way, the guy's a creep.

YourNeverThere · 06-16-2003, 12:20 AM

ya i agree, its the intent not the content, the dudes a very gross individual who i dont want to condone, but porn is all about the intent, the context, its a sexual thing, if he calls it art, and its not sexual then i guess it is art, very very creepy art

seretogis · 06-16-2003, 12:23 AM

Calling it "art" doesn't make it any more legal to photograph a nude minor. I could rub feces in the face of a police officer in the name of "art" but I would still get my ass tossed in jail for it. Laws first, art second.

seretogis · 06-16-2003, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by YourNeverThere
ya i agree, its the intent not the content, the dudes a very gross individual who i dont want to condone, but porn is all about the intent, the context, its a sexual thing, if he calls it art, and its not sexual then i guess it is art, very very creepy art

Arousal and placement of the hands isn't really enough of a distinction between art and pornography. In fact, some would view pornography as an artform.

How about, instead, we just debate whether it is legal instead of whether to call it art or porn?

LittleOralAnnie · 06-16-2003, 12:26 AM

I love artwork as much as the next person and children are works of art in and of themselves but to photograph them nude to me is pornography. No matter how tasteful they are done. The only people that should be allowed to see a child nude is them and their parents until they reach a decent age where they are able to legally consent to stripping their clothes off. They must also be aware that this person is taking their pictures.

tricks · 06-16-2003, 03:25 AM

If the kid was 18, would it be pornography? If he didn't know...that's one thing. If he did, it's like getting caught speeding, in this case.

If he was 17 would it be alright? The age of consent is 17 in Texas. I found this out after going to the cops when I found a 17 yr old girl I know asleep on a couch in the arms of a 31 year old guy.

Kids are doing all sorts of things today that I wasn't even aware of when I was their age. If one underage kid takes a nude photo of another underage kid is it the same as this case?

I think it comes down to the photographers intentions as well. There are pictures and videos all over depicting those of legal age as minors, although they won't admit it.

Empty_One · 06-16-2003, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Calling it "art" doesn't make it any more legal to photograph a nude minor.

Does this mean I am going to be arrested if I take pictures of my newborn daughter taking her first bath?

How about 4 years from now, when she puts on her shirt, hat, and shoes, doesn't put on her pants, and runs around the house, and I take a picture because it's so cute?

Those are both descriptions of pictures taken of me when I was a child. I'm sure situations are going to come up that are similar to those with my daughter.

The question of intent has to mean something. If they are obvoiusely sexual pictures, then that is wrong. But, there are ways to take pictures that are not made to cause arousal, but yet have naked people in them. I see no problem with those. The problem lies in the people that get aroused by them.

seretogis · 06-16-2003, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Empty_One
Does this mean I am going to be arrested if I take pictures of my newborn daughter taking her first bath?

How about 4 years from now, when she puts on her shirt, hat, and shoes, doesn't put on her pants, and runs around the house, and I take a picture because it's so cute?

If you publicly exhibited said pictures, I think that would be cause for concern. Pornography laws are different for every state and often incredibly vague, but here is an example of Utah's:

link: http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/porn...enpornlaws.htm

Quote:

It is not illegal to possess a picture of a nude child, such as a picture of your baby being bathed. However, if the picture focuses on the child’s genitals or the child is posed in a sexual way, giving the impression that the intent of the picture is for sexual arousal, the picture is illegal.

Consider the following link, for a determination between a nude baby and nude child (well, before he goes off on an apologist tangent):

link: http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature...aid/print.html

Quote:

Consider this: Within the same cultural climate that sees sausages, showerheads and sofas as erotic props, "Naked Babies," a book of photographs of the same by Nick Kelsh with text by Anna Quindlen, is not just acceptable -- it's in its second printing. Quindlen's prose -- full of treacle and truism, bathos and balderdash -- provides a sentimental counterpoint that negates any suspicions aroused by Kelsh's rain of naked bodies: "Adults in the presence of a naked baby reach out their hands," she oozes, "as though to warm themselves at the fire of perfection."

But how exactly is it that nakedness is divine at one point and the desire to touch it an act of flat-out reverence when, a few years later on in the child's life, nakedness becomes shameful and any adults reaching out hands to warm themselves at the fire of perfection will find themselves in manacles? According to Quindlen, a naked baby is "androgynous," "sensual as anything but not sexual at all," while "a boy, a girl -- well, they are something else."

Sparhawk · 06-16-2003, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Empty_One
Does this mean I am going to be arrested if I take pictures of my newborn daughter taking her first bath?

How about 4 years from now, when she puts on her shirt, hat, and shoes, doesn't put on her pants, and runs around the house, and I take a picture because it's so cute?

Those are both descriptions of pictures taken of me when I was a child. I'm sure situations are going to come up that are similar to those with my daughter.

The question of intent has to mean something. If they are obvoiusely sexual pictures, then that is wrong. But, there are ways to take pictures that are not made to cause arousal, but yet have naked people in them. I see no problem with those. The problem lies in the people that get aroused by them.

Cursed naked baby pictures. It's something bordering on inevitable that any date I take to meet my parents somehow finds her way to dad's room. Cooing and giggling commence...

*ARRRRGGGHHHH*

Back to the thread though, if there isn't any intent to commit a crime, that's going to put the burden that much higher on the jury. It all comes down to the actual photos though, are they pornography? As that justiced said, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

Ganguro · 06-16-2003, 05:45 AM

I think in this case, based on the report given, the community is being a bit hypersensitive. Alas.. i will wait for art or someone more verbose to say their piece before i can really get into this discussion

warrrreagl · 06-16-2003, 06:00 AM

I would be more inclined to believe it's all about art when somebody finally does a photographic study of the pre-teen elbow or the many variations in young teens' earlobes.

What a coincidence that all of these artistic studies are about genitalia.

Troublebot · 06-16-2003, 06:17 AM

Pornography or not, this guy is a moron. Using anyone as a model, you should check ID, get a xeroxed copy if you can and have them sign a model release form. Sometimes I think it's too bad you can't jail people for being complete morons.

Wouldn't the case also depend on if they found more pornography in this guys home? I doubt that a pedophiliac's first thought is going to be, "Think I'll find some kids to take pictures of in public." I would imagine that there would be magazines, videos, etc. around his house.

gibber71 · 06-16-2003, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Empty_One
Does this mean I am going to be arrested if I take pictures of my newborn daughter taking her first bath?

You never know.Several years ago someone working in a photo shop called the police because the pictures being developed had a kid in a bathtub.The father was arrested,the court case dragged on for two years,ruined his business,his reputation and basically his life only in the end to be found not guilty.

Advertisers can show babies asses in magazines and on t.v, but don't dare take a picture of your kid in the buff.Could come back to haunt you.

Realizm · 06-16-2003, 06:42 AM

Pictures for home and close family are niether art nor pornography. They are memories or links to the past.

Pictures for the masses to see could quite possibly be art, but it's really not necessary. Maybe it isn't pornography, but we don't need pictures of young boys and girls. There are a million other ways to express your art, and it doesn't need to be through pictures of naked kids.

gov135 · 06-16-2003, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis

How about, instead, we just debate whether it is legal instead of whether to call it art or porn?

That's the problem here with the LEGAL issue. The legality hinges on wheether or not it is art.

Sturges and Mann are legal - and they should be. Sturges shot beautiful images of nudist colonies, Mann shot images of her own family. This is certainly not my kind of art, but many people find the body as an art form very appealing - just look at Tilted Exhibition on this very board.

This guy is, however, in my opinion not an artist.

cowudders14 · 06-16-2003, 08:41 AM

Interesting - I'm really not sure myself on where you draw the line. Certainly whatever you think you will find many people saying the same and many people disagreeing - it's a hot topic for debate. Interestingly enough it's something I'm researching myself. Any more links to good information sites would be appreciated.

MSD · 06-16-2003, 08:43 AM

Quote:

"What worries me the most is what must've happened to this child in his past to get him to this point where he's willing to take off his clothes and not think there's anything wrong with it," said Dr. Nancy Kellogg, medical director for the Alamo Child Advocacy Center.

Kellogg said that at 16, most teens are more vulnerable to being sexually exploited because they are becoming more familiar with sex and may not think what they are doing is wrong.

I can't stand when the morality police come around and tell us that anyone who would do anything like posing nude or viewing pornography must be disturbed or have had some trauma in the past that screwed them up. At 16, people are mature enough to know what they're doing, at least in my experience. I'm not saying that they should do porn or be allowed to, but it's not a sign of mental problems.

I think the only exception to the child porn law would be the candid pics of the kid in the bathtub, newborn babies, stuff like that.

I also think that our society needs to lighten up on the taboos. Nudity does not automatically equal sexuality, we just make it seem tha way by brainwashing kids into thinking it does.

BBtB · 06-16-2003, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Kellogg said that at 16, most teens are more vulnerable to being sexually exploited because they are becoming more familiar with sex and may not think what they are doing is wrong.

First off to this let me say BULLSHIT. At 16 you are fully aware of right and wrong. But here is a better question. Is nudity wrong? I suppose thats the real question here. I mean consider the fact that we never saw nudity as wrong untill around 1500 years ago or so (for the most part that is.) and there for awhile they saw ALL nudity as wrong. Even so much as they wouldn't bathe because it required you to be nude. And what is nudity? Would it have been wrong to take a picture of a 16 year old girl topless? What about all those cultures where they are just like men and are always topless? When its on the discovery channel it is not art but it is legal. I think they core problem here is really just people being afraid of their own sexuality. Stating that the only way that a person would be willing to pose nude is if they had a troubled past. Or maybe they were trying to say that they only way anyone 16 or younger who would pose nude had a troubled past. If you were 17 or older it could just be normal. There is also the fact that in oklahoma 16 IS the legal age of consent. Utah used to be 14(and is currently 16 I believe). So what if he took these pictures in bricktown (Oklahoma city.) or in front of the great salt lake? THEN it would be art? I personally don't care if it is art or pornagraphy. I think that mentally a 16 year old boy CAN make that choice and legally should be able to. Also to the people asking about taking pictures of their own children in the bath or what not. Just watch where you get those devolped. Because yes, as stupid as it sounds, people DO get arrested for those.

spectre · 06-16-2003, 10:03 AM

My concern with this is, if he is let off it will set a precedent that will allow pedophiles to claim any pics of minors are "art." This goes back to something I've said numerous times, there's a difference between being an artist and an asshole. And this guy certainly isn't an artist.

CSflim · 06-16-2003, 10:03 AM

I have seen many adds for nappies (uh...diapers) on t.v. These show fully nude children running around, and make no attempt to obscure the genitalia. Is this a form of child pornography?

To me the issue of child-pornography v.s. tastful art is the same question of tasteful nude adult v.s. porn shoot. Ultimately it is down to the viewer to decide what it is. Pornography is a completely subjective thing, as they say Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Similarly Pornography is in the eye of the beholder.

To me, I have no problem with nude photography of under age people, assuming it is entirely consentual. I mean, if you want to gawk at nude kids, just take a trip to a nude beach. In Europe, a beach doesn't have to be explicitly stated as being a "nude beach", its just a freaking beach! In france, a family can go during the summer to the beach for a day. Clothing is entirely at the discretion of the wearer. If you want to sit around all day in your shorts, fine! If you feel let stripping off..fine! I don't believe anyone has yet turned into a derranged raving perverted lunatic after seeing some naked flesh for crying out loud! What makes photography any different?

Now don't get me wrong. I am TOTALLY and ABSOLUTELY against any form of child abuse/pornography. But in my opinion, in order for it to be defined as pornography, it must be overtly sexual, and being sexual with a minor is an offense. i.e. if you break the law with a minor, you are breaking a law....if you happen to be filming while you are breaking this law, you are also producing porn. "Child Porn" as referred to by the media involes non consentual sex with a minor: i.e. raping a child: This is what child porn is. Photographing a nude body is not porn.

CSflim · 06-16-2003, 11:24 AM

If any of you have little girls, you may have come accorss the magazines that they read (assuming you allow them to buy them). If not I would suggest you try and get a loan of some young pre-teen/early teen magazines. (12/13/14 that sort of age). It is there that you will find, what I believe to be the most dangerous form of child pornography: Young children being taught to dress up as pre teen sluts. I find these magazines incredibly disturbing. Far more disturbing that I would find tasteful nudes of young people.
Its all about context.
Nudity does not equal sexual
Fully clothed photography can easily be far more "pornographic" than nude photography.

The_Dude · 06-16-2003, 11:32 AM

i just dont think people should post pic's of pre-pubescent kids anywhere.

to me, that's child porn and that's just my opinion

BBtB · 06-16-2003, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
i just dont think people should post pic's of pre-pubescent kids anywhere.

to me, that's child porn and that's just my opinion

So are you therefor saying that these pictures are okay?

This is a key problem with "child" porn debates. Like in this particular debate the child was actully a 16 year old male. A far cry from pre-pubescent. So many people get tied up in their image of child porn that if someone first states something is child porn and then shows it to them nothing will change their mind about what it is. Even if it is an 18 year old woman who just looks young. They will get this image of some 43 year old touching 9 year old girls and go with that. Of course all of this goes back to to three related mind sets. The first is "Sex is dirty/evil/a sin/bad" the second is "All nudity is sexual (and inversely it can't be sexual without nudity. Which is to say most people would say a very provoctive picture of a 16 year old with tight bike shorts on IS sexual... but not illegal) " The third is "Anyone 17 and younger has no idea about sex and sexual manners and it should stay that way." Now of course the second two are completly false. The first one is debatable although I believe it is false. That is just me though. Sometimes we just need to look at our beliefs and question why we believe what we believe.

GakFace · 06-16-2003, 03:26 PM

Hmm.. I'm just not sure, I mean when you're 16, you know the way of the world, you're not some innocent child anymore. They need to look at the pictures and see if its sexual. Not whether or not some guy will get off on it. As yes, Lingerie can be LOTS more sexier than nudeness. And by all reasonings.. thats not naked. There are some sick freaks who will get off on ANYTHING.. "ooh look! A Pole!" ..... ugh, but there are freaks like that, so that can't be how to judge this, but how the pictures look. One thing got to me tho...

Quote:

"What worries me the most is what must've happened to this child in his past to get him to this point where he's willing to take off his clothes and not think there's anything wrong with it," said Dr. Nancy Kellogg, medical director for the Alamo Child Advocacy Center.

I dont' get it.. Something had to HAPPEN to him, to feel comfortable in the nude? So is she saying that all Nudists are mentally ill? Cause I can tell you they aren't, they're probably the smartest, as they can look at a naked person, and still see the person inside. So he could get naked in public and feel fine.. what the hell is so incredibly wrong with that? So he is comfortable with his body... Don't make him think different!!!!.. ugh anyone else agree with me?

BTW, where is Art? I know he'd have a great post on this.

The_Dude · 06-16-2003, 03:46 PM

i dont think we should be protecting 16 yr old's.

they know what they are doing if they are posing nude; we just need to protect the pre-pubescents

Slims · 06-16-2003, 07:02 PM

Aren't child pornography laws in place to prevent the secual exploitation of children?

Shouldn't whether or not someone was being exploited be a significant factor in determining whether a picture is porn or not?

I remember reading a story where a man was arrested for child pornography for drawing pictures of young children having sex. Who does that exploit? I think what he did was sick, but I don't think drawing pictures should be illegal.

I think that laws do need to be in place to protect minor, but at the same time, we could be a little less victorian about sexuality and the human body.

Stiltzkin · 06-16-2003, 07:03 PM

The average 16-year-old may know what sex is "all about", and "know what's going on", but you and I can rest assured that the world's population of 16-year-olds are still naïve. Sure, they're old enough to think for themselves, and in most cases old enough to make a descision for themselves, but they are not yet experienced enough to know the right descision. Hell, most anyone between the ages of even 17-21 are still naïve. But then the porn industry would die if every model had to take a competency test before posing nude. So... I digress. As with this issue and countless others, there is no solution, no definite answer written in granite.

MacGnG · 06-16-2003, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satsuma
If it's not sexual, it's not really pornography. Either way, the guy's a creep.

yea!

seretogis · 06-16-2003, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
i dont think we should be protecting 16 yr old's.

they know what they are doing if they are posing nude; we just need to protect the pre-pubescents

Puberty does not equal "maturity".

I think it is interesting that the photographer cried out that he "didn't know he was underage", as if he knew that what he was doing would be considered illegal if he were a minor. That alone makes is pretty fishy to me.

Quote:

Originally posted by gov135 That's the problem here with the LEGAL issue. The legality hinges on wheether or not it is art.

Artists should respect the law, not be above it. That was my point. Anyone want to volunteer to let me splash goat's blood all over the front of their house as an "artistic statement" and not press charges?

cowudders14 · 06-17-2003, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GakFace
I dont' get it.. Something had to HAPPEN to him, to feel comfortable in the nude? So is she saying that all Nudists are mentally ill? Cause I can tell you they aren't, they're probably the smartest, as they can look at a naked person, and still see the person inside. So he could get naked in public and feel fine.. what the hell is so incredibly wrong with that? So he is comfortable with his body... Don't make him think different!!!!.. ugh anyone else agree with me

Completely 100%. I like being in the nude at home, although I'd think twice about doing it outside. There's nothing wrong with wearing your "birth suit" - we were born naked! Why is that suddenly wrong?

06-16-2003, 12:20 AM	#3 (permalink)
YourNeverThere Practical Anarchist Location: Yesterday i woke up stuck in hollywood	ya i agree, its the intent not the content, the dudes a very gross individual who i dont want to condone, but porn is all about the intent, the context, its a sexual thing, if he calls it art, and its not sexual then i guess it is art, very very creepy art __________________ The Above post is a direct quote from Shakespeare

06-16-2003, 12:23 AM	#4 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	Calling it "art" doesn't make it any more legal to photograph a nude minor. I could rub feces in the face of a police officer in the name of "art" but I would still get my ass tossed in jail for it. Laws first, art second. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

06-16-2003, 03:25 AM	#7 (permalink)
tricks Crazy	If the kid was 18, would it be pornography? If he didn't know...that's one thing. If he did, it's like getting caught speeding, in this case. If he was 17 would it be alright? The age of consent is 17 in Texas. I found this out after going to the cops when I found a 17 yr old girl I know asleep on a couch in the arms of a 31 year old guy. Kids are doing all sorts of things today that I wasn't even aware of when I was their age. If one underage kid takes a nude photo of another underage kid is it the same as this case? I think it comes down to the photographers intentions as well. There are pictures and videos all over depicting those of legal age as minors, although they won't admit it. __________________ People Are Stupid. People can be made to believe any lie, either because they want it to be true or because they fear that it is.

06-16-2003, 06:00 AM	#12 (permalink)
warrrreagl pinche vato Location: backwater, Third World, land of cotton	I would be more inclined to believe it's all about art when somebody finally does a photographic study of the pre-teen elbow or the many variations in young teens' earlobes. What a coincidence that all of these artistic studies are about genitalia. __________________ Living is easy with eyes closed.

06-16-2003, 06:17 AM	#13 (permalink)
Troublebot Intently Rocking Location: Davey's	Pornography or not, this guy is a moron. Using anyone as a model, you should check ID, get a xeroxed copy if you can and have them sign a model release form. Sometimes I think it's too bad you can't jail people for being complete morons. Wouldn't the case also depend on if they found more pornography in this guys home? I doubt that a pedophiliac's first thought is going to be, "Think I'll find some kids to take pictures of in public." I would imagine that there would be magazines, videos, etc. around his house. __________________ Howard Moon: The wind is my only friend. Wind: [whistling] I hate you.

06-15-2003, 11:36 PM	#2 (permalink)
Satsuma Upright	If it's not sexual, it's not really pornography. Either way, the guy's a creep.

06-16-2003, 12:26 AM	#6 (permalink)
LittleOralAnnie Banned	I love artwork as much as the next person and children are works of art in and of themselves but to photograph them nude to me is pornography. No matter how tasteful they are done. The only people that should be allowed to see a child nude is them and their parents until they reach a decent age where they are able to legally consent to stripping their clothes off. They must also be aware that this person is taking their pictures.

06-16-2003, 05:45 AM	#11 (permalink)
Ganguro Army of Me	I think in this case, based on the report given, the community is being a bit hypersensitive. Alas.. i will wait for art or someone more verbose to say their piece before i can really get into this discussion

06-16-2003, 06:42 AM	#15 (permalink)
Realizm Insane Location: A fuzzy cloud.	Pictures for home and close family are niether art nor pornography. They are memories or links to the past. Pictures for the masses to see could quite possibly be art, but it's really not necessary. Maybe it isn't pornography, but we don't need pictures of young boys and girls. There are a million other ways to express your art, and it doesn't need to be through pictures of naked kids.

06-16-2003, 08:41 AM	#17 (permalink)
cowudders14 Bringer of good Moos... Location: Midlands, UK	Interesting - I'm really not sure myself on where you draw the line. Certainly whatever you think you will find many people saying the same and many people disagreeing - it's a hot topic for debate. Interestingly enough it's something I'm researching myself. Any more links to good information sites would be appreciated. __________________ Moo! I'm mooey!

06-16-2003, 10:03 AM	#20 (permalink)
spectre Junkie	My concern with this is, if he is let off it will set a precedent that will allow pedophiles to claim any pics of minors are "art." This goes back to something I've said numerous times, there's a difference between being an artist and an asshole. And this guy certainly isn't an artist. __________________ "Fuck these chains No goddamn slave I will be different" ~ Machine Head

06-16-2003, 10:03 AM	#21 (permalink)
CSflim Sky Piercer Location: Ireland	I have seen many adds for nappies (uh...diapers) on t.v. These show fully nude children running around, and make no attempt to obscure the genitalia. Is this a form of child pornography? To me the issue of child-pornography v.s. tastful art is the same question of tasteful nude adult v.s. porn shoot. Ultimately it is down to the viewer to decide what it is. Pornography is a completely subjective thing, as they say Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Similarly Pornography is in the eye of the beholder. To me, I have no problem with nude photography of under age people, assuming it is entirely consentual. I mean, if you want to gawk at nude kids, just take a trip to a nude beach. In Europe, a beach doesn't have to be explicitly stated as being a "nude beach", its just a freaking beach! In france, a family can go during the summer to the beach for a day. Clothing is entirely at the discretion of the wearer. If you want to sit around all day in your shorts, fine! If you feel let stripping off..fine! I don't believe anyone has yet turned into a derranged raving perverted lunatic after seeing some naked flesh for crying out loud! What makes photography any different? Now don't get me wrong. I am TOTALLY and ABSOLUTELY against any form of child abuse/pornography. But in my opinion, in order for it to be defined as pornography, it must be overtly sexual, and being sexual with a minor is an offense. i.e. if you break the law with a minor, you are breaking a law....if you happen to be filming while you are breaking this law, you are also producing porn. "Child Porn" as referred to by the media involes non consentual sex with a minor: i.e. raping a child: This is what child porn is. Photographing a nude body is not porn. __________________

06-16-2003, 11:24 AM	#22 (permalink)
CSflim Sky Piercer Location: Ireland	If any of you have little girls, you may have come accorss the magazines that they read (assuming you allow them to buy them). If not I would suggest you try and get a loan of some young pre-teen/early teen magazines. (12/13/14 that sort of age). It is there that you will find, what I believe to be the most dangerous form of child pornography: Young children being taught to dress up as pre teen sluts. I find these magazines incredibly disturbing. Far more disturbing that I would find tasteful nudes of young people. Its all about context. Nudity does not equal sexual Fully clothed photography can easily be far more "pornographic" than nude photography. __________________

06-16-2003, 11:32 AM	#23 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i just dont think people should post pic's of pre-pubescent kids anywhere. to me, that's child porn and that's just my opinion __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-16-2003, 03:46 PM	#26 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i dont think we should be protecting 16 yr old's. they know what they are doing if they are posing nude; we just need to protect the pre-pubescents __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-16-2003, 07:02 PM	#27 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Aren't child pornography laws in place to prevent the secual exploitation of children? Shouldn't whether or not someone was being exploited be a significant factor in determining whether a picture is porn or not? I remember reading a story where a man was arrested for child pornography for drawing pictures of young children having sex. Who does that exploit? I think what he did was sick, but I don't think drawing pictures should be illegal. I think that laws do need to be in place to protect minor, but at the same time, we could be a little less victorian about sexuality and the human body. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

06-16-2003, 07:03 PM	#28 (permalink)
Stiltzkin Junkie	The average 16-year-old may know what sex is "all about", and "know what's going on", but you and I can rest assured that the world's population of 16-year-olds are still naïve. Sure, they're old enough to think for themselves, and in most cases old enough to make a descision for themselves, but they are not yet experienced enough to know the right descision. Hell, most anyone between the ages of even 17-21 are still naïve. But then the porn industry would die if every model had to take a competency test before posing nude. So... I digress. As with this issue and countless others, there is no solution, no definite answer written in granite. __________________ The most important thing in this world is love.