Art Erotica Pornography Obscenity and Child Pornography

Where exactly are the lines for the labels.

I have a friend with a newborn, and he had photographs of his son's bris on his laptop. He was showing them to a friend and someone else piped in and said that he should be in trouble for having child pornography on his computer.

Recently on the news, there was an article about some fake company selling child pornography, and when someone purchased something from them that was probable cause and a warrant was issued, they confiscated this fellows computer and charged him with possession of child pornography.

This got me to thinking, what exactly is child pornography? I gotta believe the picture of my friend's son's bris can't possibly be... Is the picture of the little girl that Maplethorp did where you can see up her skirt and tell she is a girl? What about all the stuff that Jock Sturges does on the nude beaches? Or all the stuff by Colby Katz?

I had assumed like many others that an image of a child in the nude could be construed as child pornography. At least, according to the legal definition at

http://www.legislationline.org/legislation.php?tid=178&lid=1474&less=false

that is not the case.

If you look at some of the sites like

http://www.asacp.org/page.php

they accept reports of child pornography and theoretically chase it down to eliminate it.

Interestingly enough, they list things they will not accept reports of and it is interesting to even find out that there are sites like child modeling sites and apparently some of them are in some pretty sexual positions.

So what is obscenity? Here is one definition

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/o002.htm

although I think I like Tom Lehrer's from the song "Smut" where the lyric states "As the judge remarked the day that he acquitted my Aunt Hortense, To be smut, it must be utterly without redeeming social importance."

Must be some fine lines. This is more a statement of observation than a question at all. Just some things to think about.

What sort of whack job could possibly construe pictures of an infant's bris to be pornographic?

Oh, this thread is quite different than I had expected from the title. Maybe next time.

fschifano said:

What sort of whack job could possibly construe pictures of an infant's bris to be pornographic?

Click to expand...

Well the fellow was quite serious. Anyway, point is that when someone says a word/phrase like "Child Pornography" i means different thigns in different people's ears.

Byorke, it is just a stream of consciousness post... feel free to take it anywhere you choose

Look at the photos in "Show Me", a text to teach sex to children published in the 70s. This book was endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church.

Today, it would be porn.

PE

Yet the most offensive bits of "Show Me" are in Parr/Badger's history of photo books. Tsk.

I am sure that consumers of child porn are upset and feeling ripped-off by those bris snaps, to be sure. There oughta be a law.

I was told that some pictures of playing children by Sally Mann, an great artist who I do respect very much, ( Dead Link Removed ) were considered as child porn in the US, I could not believe my ears...

Pornography, and obscenity, are legal concepts, and relate to the law's struggle to differentiate between that which is harmful and destructive and worthy of societal sanction, and that which should be independent of such sanction.

Questions of Ethics and Philosophy are important to the discussion of those concepts, but they are balnced by questions of freedom, and practicality as well.

The question of nudity makes this even more complex - there is a vast difference of opinion on this earth about whether nudity and sexuality have any equivalency, and if so, how much.

Matt

Photo Engineer said:

Look at the photos in "Show Me", a text to teach sex to children published in the 70s. This book was endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church.

Today, it would be porn.

PE

Click to expand...

Wow! I had a neighbor when I was about 11 or 12 I think. I remember he sneaked that book out of his dad's book shelf and we looked at it. I am not certain from what I remember that there was anything all that "hard core" to it. But we new we were looking at something we shouldn't be.

Of course, at even earlier in my life, my mom was doing a lot of painting and taking art classes (back when only one person in a family had to work to eat). She had books on figure study, and loads of stuff with nekid people and such, and there was nothing "dirty" or wrong with any of them and there was never any need to "sneak" you just looked at them and enjoyed the beauty of the human body.

Personally, I have been very desensitized to images pornographic, artistic or otherwise (have I mentioned that I used to work for Penthouse?) So I don't see much difference between Pornography and Erotica or whatever other label it carries beyond "I like this" and "I dislike that" and "That image makes me feel all tingly... like when we had to climb the rope in gym class just kidding)"

Certainly if I see an image of a child, nude clothed or otherwise I see the beauty of youth as well as whatever other artistic curves and angles and artistic merit the image has.

If I see an image of anyone child, adult, even animal being abused or brutalizes or somehow being "wrongly" treated (to my values of what I feel is wrong) I feel an emotion and generally a negative one. If I take the time to differentiate between the photojournalism aspect of it vs the image setup in a studio or what-have-you it may change my opinion of it as well.

I used to say that the difference between pornography and erotic art was the feet and tops of the head. It seemed like in pictures I considered pornographic they either cut off the top of the model's head or her feet or legs from about the knees down. If they showed the whole model including the top of her head and bottom of her feet, then it was art. I've since changed my mind on that too.

In obscenity, there is a degree of the definition involving "offensiveness". And another involving primarily prurient interests. However, as much as some art should lift up, some should make us feel other emotions, and even offend too. Some should make you want to look away or hide your eyes as you pass.

Was it Stewart I think, that said "...I know it when I see it..." one would think there has to be something more to it than that. There must be a line. Especially, if you are to discuss it, you have to know or agree on what things are called.

If you say "View Camera" or "Monorail Camera" I have an image in my mind that immediately comes to me. And it is probably the same or similar image that comes to you. However, we do not really have the same image when one says Erotica, or Pornography, or Obscenity or Art...

Photo Engineer said:

Look at the photos in "Show Me", a text to teach sex to children published in the 70s. This book was endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church.

Today, it would be porn.

PE

Click to expand...

By the way, I did see the reference to the RC church in the post. I am taking the high road and not shooting a cheap shot as would any comedian of the day considering the subject matter.

fschifano said:

What sort of whack job could possibly construe pictures of an infant's bris to be pornographic?

Click to expand...

Yeah. If a little naked kid makes someone immediately think "sexual" there's probably a screw loose upstairs somewhere.

For the sake of having the cleanest, simplest, and most effective definition, I think the legal line needs to be drawn conservatively, but in the way that matters the most - whether or not a kid was exploited in the making of the photograph. All other considerations are practically irrelevant. If some sick creep wants to masturbate to stock photos of kids in bathing suits or something, that's his problem, unless he's actually out molesting real kids (which is already illegal). Basically, if someone is sexually exploiting a kid (with or without photographing them), they should have their nuts slowly smashed in a vice, but in the grey area of "photographs of naked kids" I think we really have no choice but to err on the side of keeping innocent family photographs or even "fine art" from being legally defined as "child porn".

In other words, if no crime was committed in making the photograph it shouldn't be criminal. Child porn is pretty clear cut from what I've read in the papers, and those real sickos need to be punished - not normal people with photographs of their nephew's Bris, or whatever.

leicam5 said:

I was told that some pictures of playing children by Sally Mann, an great artist who I do respect very much, ( Dead Link Removed ) were considered as child porn in the US, I could not believe my ears...

Click to expand...

Well think about any existing work. My favorite example is the whole Tracy Lords issue. She was adult enough looking to anyone that saw her, and went so far as presenting false identification to perform her modeling and acting. When created and people looked at it, it was not considered KP, however, when it came out that she was only 17 when it was made, it became KP. Though it didn't really inspire people to go violate children, and she was obviously not exploited in the making of it (opinion). Theoretically you could look at it 1 day and it was legal and then the next it was not.

For what that is worth go back and look at the gorgeous Betty Page stuff. How much of which was destroyed because it was declared obscene. Granted, it was done with primarily prurient interest in mind, and catered to the BDSM crowd who may have still been categorized in DSM as sick... No excuse...

Best of all, I remember all sorts of FCC restrictiions on what you could show on TV. It did get pushed because on PBS occasionally you would see a breast or bare bottom either live action or in some Old Master or Pre-Raphelite painting... Then, in prime time, on national TV they showed "Roots" with more breasts than I could count ... And that was not an issue, but here in the 21st century JJ's Wardrobe malfunction was a big deal with only 1 breast...

I remember in the early 80's a woman painter in VA was arrested and I believe went to trail for taking photo's of her 2 or 3 month old infant child (sex unknown) lying on their back. The VA cops said if you see genitals, it's porn.

And of course let's not forget Jock Sturges.

Well first of all, you can show genetalia as long as it isn't the "primary focus" of the image.

I think Jock Sturges stuff is amazing! Kind of defines the differnce between naked and nude in my opinion.

How about the album cover from Nirvana, Nevermind I don't think anyone could call that KP but you can tell it's a boy

BTW, here is the kid now (with clothes on)

http://www.paxtonland.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/baby-on-nevermind-album-cover.JPG

I just wish to heck I knew what a "bris" was... Hate to think of what I might have been missing out on.

eddym said:

I just wish to heck I knew what a "bris" was... Hate to think of what I might have been missing out on.

Click to expand...

You should watch "Robin Hood: Men in Tights". The scene with Mel Brooks as Rabbi Tuckman explaining a circumcision is one of the funniest scenes I remember seeing in a very long time

That's totally hilarious. I never even noticed the penis until I looked it up again just now. Yeah, I owned the album. It was just a naked baby swimming after a dollar bill.

Absinthe said:

How about the album cover from Nirvana, Nevermind I don't think anyone could call that KP but you can tell it's a boy

BTW, here is the kid now (with clothes on)

http://www.paxtonland.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/baby-on-nevermind-album-cover.JPG

Click to expand...

Unfortunatly child pornography is a legal defination, and as such is highly open to interpretation. I remember a case a few years back where a woman was taking community college photography, and did some photos of her 10 year old daughter, partially clothed, and completly unclothed, due to problems at the college photo lab, the students where allowed to have their film developed at local photo shops/huts/etc. when she was called that the film was ready, she went to pic it up, and was promptly arrested by waiting police officers on child pornography charges, there was no sexuall contect, but her locality had some specific laws on the books describing pictures depicting children with exposed genitals (except in medical contexts) or sexuall positions or alluding to sexual activity as child porn. The case was dropped do to outgrage across the photo community.
In short, kinda depends on your localities laws, and their interpretation.

eddym said:

I just wish to heck I knew what a "bris" was... Hate to think of what I might have been missing out on.

Click to expand...

It is a circumcision. If you are Jewish, it is done by a Rabbi and there is a whole ritual to it and usually pictures are taken

One of Absinthe's comments got me to thinking, images of nude women where you could see the tops of her feet could or could not be porn. If the pose has her pulling up her legs to show her feet from down under ( just for you Sean ) it sure looked like porn to me. I'll let you know after more research.

Photo Engineer said:

Look at the photos in "Show Me", a text to teach sex to children published in the 70s. This book was endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

It's available on Amazon - 2 used copies for $500 ea!

All I was alluding to was the habit of the magazines to chop off the head and feet in the photos

You can certainly have a nice picture and see both the bottom of the feet, the bottom of the model and the face all at once and still be nice and pornographic .... I mean erotic

Nudity does not constitute pornography.

It would suck if child-porn was just defined as naked kids, because then they couldn't bust those disgusting "child modeling" sites.