Art Erotica Pornography Obscenity and Child Pornography

[Absinthe]

Do they actually bust the "child modeling" sites?

 

[AutumnJazz]

Yeah, I think three have been busted over the past year or two. I can't think of any specifics, though.

 

[Absinthe]

Cool the only thing worse than them are the pageants but that is just my opinion.

 

[haris]

What would David Hamilton say...

 

[ehparis]

What would David Hamilton say...

I wonder what he'd have to say about the current big flap in Australia.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/05/24/1211183189567.html?s_rid=smh:top5

In the image portrayed I do find child pornography regardless of intent, "artistic merit," or any other consideration. The content of the photo is exploitive of children.

 

[DWThomas]

My Goodness.

How's that go -- if God had intended us to be seen nekkid, we'd be born without clothes on -- uh -- oh, nevermind.

Sorry, I can think of many things that might make me consider a picture pornographic, but IMHO that isn't even close.

DaveT

 

[SuzanneR]

You'd think these folks never saw the nude human form in the history of art???? Duh...

http://dasanpiero.googlepages.com/

 

[ny_photog]

And on and on and on ....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/washington/20scotus.html?scp=1&sq=child+pornography+ruling&st=nyt

Oh, and as to Canada....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080529.wquebec0529/BNStory/National/home

 

[AutumnJazz]

Oh, and as to Canada....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080529.wquebec0529/BNStory/National/home

And how is that relavent at all to the topic at hand?

 

[MattKing]

And on and on and on ....

Oh, and as to Canada....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080529.wquebec0529/BNStory/National/home

This is a case concerning the sort of horrific and abusive behavior that is an appropriate subject for the sanction of criminal law.

In the decision, the Supreme Court of Canada points out that if an image records abusive and harmful behavior, and then the image is distributed using the internet, then the abuse is made worse, and the harm is intensified.

Surely this is an example of the law focussing on what should be the law's focus (harmful actions) rather than a focus on images that do not inherently cause or report or accentuate harm.

I think the court should be commended for this. I think that, indirectly, it supports freedom of expression.

Matt

 

[patricia de roeck]

This topic is pretty current in Oz at the moment with an exhibition by Bill Henson being taken down, crated and removed by the police - it was classified as child porn because the images were of naked pre-pubescent boys and girls, about 12,13, years of age I believe. Our Prime Minister declared them appalling and obscene and backed their removal from the public gaze. Of course the 'public' got to see the images on TV and in the newspapers so no doubt the gallery's publicist is doing handstands as we speak. Maybe it comes down to the difference between the 'intent' of the artist and the 'perception' of the viewer - and to quote the Phantom "who knows what evil lurks in the heart of men".
Patricia

 

[fschifano]

- it was classified as child porn because the images were of naked pre-pubescent boys and girls, about 12,13, years of age...
Patricia

Twelve and thirteen years of age hardly qualifies as pre-pubescent. At that age, these kids are smack dab in the middle of puberty and approaching adolescence fast.

 

[firecracker]

If soft porn is still porn (I think it is), then take a look at this:

Dead Link Removed

It's at Yahoo Japan auction site, which is very popular and I think is a mirror of the Japanese mainstream pop culture. I just typed in "photo book(s)" in the books/magazines section, and you see what's brought up. I didn't specify what "type" of photo books at all, but this is the result, I believe on a daily basis.

Not all the young girls in the pictures you see are underage, but they pretend and play to look underage, and apparently there's a huge market for that to sell. And it's still all legal in this country,
which I think is pretty sick.

The law on child porn issues in Japan is changing and catching up with the trend in the advanced countries such as the U.S., but it still is pretty mild.

 

[jeroldharter]

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

Put another way, what sort of whack job would put picture's of his son's bris on his work computer? Maybe not pornography, but not really getting the job done at work either. Besides, isn't that digital anyway?

 

[Saganich]

I don't see much difference between porn and junk food. Why would anyone show off pictures of a bris? I'm glad I don't have any boys because I think I think bris is akin to mutilation. I mean you can't claim it is a hygiene thing anymore, and why is God so interested in my penis anyway? It's all so troubling.

 

[AutumnJazz]

I do not know of a nation where porn of individuals under the age of 18 is not considered child pornography, even if the national age of consent is 16 or lower.

A bris is extremely important in the Jewish faith. Showing pictures of it would be like showing pictures of a baptism or something similar.

And firecracker, isn't the point of anti-child porn laws to protect children from being abused? How exactly are children abused in the production of virtual child porn? (Eg. adults acting younger, drawn, written, etc.)

Let the mentally disturbed have their fake porn. If anything, it would probably make them seek out the stuff that hurts kids less.

 

[Vaughn]

All I know is that I have a series of manipulated SX-70 prints I took of my triplet boys before they learned to crawl -- and several of them I will not put on the internet because the risk is not worth it.

Vaughn

 

[AutumnJazz]

I would personally never put photos of loved ones on the internet.

 

[firecracker]

And firecracker, isn't the point of anti-child porn laws to protect children from being abused? How exactly are children abused in the production of virtual child porn? (Eg. adults acting younger, drawn, written, etc.)

I'm not an expert on this, but in Japan, especially in the media, it is not too uncommon to see girls as young as 12 or 13 years old wearing skimpy bikinis, etc. They are not adults acting whatever. They are kids.

The legal age for porn is 18, but maybe because the line between what's considered "porn/soft porn" and what is not is blurry or the concept of it is intentionally ignored by the society, I don't know, you see them everywhere even if you don't want to see.

It's a long story, but you have to live in the culture to understand what I'm talking about, I hate to say. This is the country where back in the 90's school girls would sell their used underwears in some stores in Tokyo, and that was not illegal...

 

[AutumnJazz]

Oh, that. Yeah. That used to happen in the US (not as overt, though) but they got shut down.

 

[Absinthe]

Put another way, what sort of whack job would put picture's of his son's bris on his work computer? Maybe not pornography, but not really getting the job done at work either. Besides, isn't that digital anyway?

Wasn't his work computer but his personal laptop. It was basically one shot in a roll or two of the whole ceremony. Which, I have known lots of folks to photograph as often as Catholic baptism pictures. I would not consider this fellow a whackjob in the slightest.

 

[zinnanti]

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

I think this debate gets sidetracked by lack of a critical distinction: (1) What it is versus (2) what will happen if you have it or something that looks like it.

Photographs of children as child porn entail a sweeping spectrum. In essence, child porn - as a federal definition and the definition in many states - is (1) the lewd display of the genitalia of a minor child or (2) a depiction of of underage persons engaged in a sexual act.

Of course, what is lewd? What constitutes a sexual act?

As artists - it's all about context. It doesn't make it any easier to pinpoint.

However, if you have something that appears to be child porn, at any level, you're probably looking for trouble though the work is legal.

Law enforcement has very little training in identifying child porn. I had a client who had a booby pic of his 17 year old girlfriend on his cell phone and he was arrested for child porn. It was not child porn - no sexual engagement and no lewd display of the genitals.

(On the other hand, I live in a place where you'ld get punched out for talking about evolution.)

Pictures of a bris are not child porn. Period.

Whether or not material constitutes child porn is established on a case by case basis regarding the context and content of the work.

 

[Absinthe]

I guess they are carrying the guns they get to arrest you, it isup to the guy with the brief case to see if you done wrong.

 

[zinnanti]

At least in the initial stages, that is correct.

God bless those who have taken the government to task on the issue and who continue to do their art despite the oppression.