Indecency & established photographers

garryl said:

So if they pass a law that, because any nudity is a turn on to perverts, that ALL
art that shows a nake child has to be burned- are you going to take the "moral high ground" , walk into the museums ,and strike the first match?

Click to expand...

Of course not! Please try to understand what I'm trying to say... Michael, if I may use your most eloquent quote, "This is one of the few "civilized" countries where nudity is considered sexual."
That is the problem in a nutshell. Being naked IS NOT in and of itself sexual. Technically, we should all (men, women, children, cats, everybody!) be able to run around naked and it shouldn't be a problem. What are clothes for? To protect our skin from the elements. But we can't all run around naked because of the prevailing attitude that if we are nude, then we are only looking to "get some". It couldn't possibly be because we enjoy the feeling of sunshine on our skin.
So my point is that if we lived in a more open minded society, if criminals were more appropriately punished for their crimes, if we didn't have to worry about pedophiles getting off on mass produced art that is just close enough to child pornography IN THEIR MINDS to allow them to get off then it wouldn't be an issue.
We don't live in that kind of world. We have to protect our children. The law is not going to do it for us - hell, the law allows sick monsters out on the streets! So there is one tiny aspect of 'art' that we do not make available because it is just one small control we have in the variable. Children are beautiful beings - it's no wonder they are popular subjects. But there is no reason in the world to eroticize (sp?) them on film.

Digidurst said:

But there is no reason in the world to eroticize (sp?) them on film.

Click to expand...

This one statement tells me that I'm wasting my time trying to convince you that fear of a "maybe" is no excuse to ban a whole genre' of art. That nude child photography is polluted because of "guilt by association". Therefore I'll not comment further.

In any free society there comes attached with it the condition of responsibility. I see naked women in magazines, does not mean that I can rape. I see diamonds in a window does not mean that I can steal.

If we want freedom we must accept the fact that we have to control our behavior. If we want others telling us what to do then we just admit that we are unable to police ourselves.

Child porn is a tricky one. In fact porn of all types is tricky. Are there victims, or aren't there.

If someone can not control themselves and molest children or adults then they need to be removed from society. To ban everything from lingerie ads to photos of kids frolicking in a wading pool is not acceptable in a free society.

The people who want to do this are zealots who are usually tied into some religious group that want everything legislated.

Not a great idea in a free society.


Michael

Digidurst said:

So there is one tiny aspect of 'art' that we do not make available because it is just one small control we have in the variable.

Click to expand...

trouble is it's not just one small area - if you're going to restrict something because a VANISHINGLY SMALL minority will find it erotic, then you're setting a precident that even you can't live with.

If we've learnt one thing from the web it's that given any subject, if you look hard enough you'll find some (or more likely a large group of people!) who get off on it.

All forms of shoes should be banned immediatly. Undergarments are a real problem - we obviously have to restrict them as many people find them erotic, but then people wouldn't be able to wear them, and other people would find that erotic.

Well even if we can't sort all that stuff out, the least we can do is ban the bible - that's the number one favourite read of your preditory psychopath.

Maybe we should just lock up all the perverts - no wait a minute, LOADS of them really like that!! Bring back the birch - a good caning should sort them out...


Ian

Digidurst said:

In my opinion, that means that they [children] should not be photographed in any way, shape or form that might evoke a provocative response and parents who have allowed such are either stupid or unwilling to face the reality of the world we live in.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but there have been actual cases of pedophiles who have been found to be aroused by the absolutely most casual fully-clothed holiday snapshots of children (and had collections of such snaps). So what you propose is a total ban on all photography of children (courts have also ruled in some cases that non-photographic representations, where no child was involved at all, may still be offenses). Such absolutist comments are appropriate for the Taliban, but have no place in a free society (like the one that lets you post whatever opinions you like).

First of all, let me point out my gratitude for the fact that we have been able to discuss this delicate issue in a rational manner despite our differences in opinion. I appreciate that!

I don't have the answers... my attitude is "live and let live" so long as you harm no one in the process. I don't want to see our rights stripped away but I also don't want to see children harmed. So, I can control what I do, what I choose to look at, what art I choose to support. I can act as sole judge and jury in keeping with what I believe is right and wrong. It is my responsibility to act according to my conscience just as it is yours. At the end of the day, I suppose that is all any of us can do.

This is really interesting, because I ran into an ethical dilemna involving this sort of thing in one of my classes. In fact talking about this may get me hot water with some people, but hey, if you don't piss someone off, you aren't alive.

I became aware that a 23 year-old student at the school I attend had taken many sexually graphic pictures of his girl friend and showed them in class.

Problem was, she was under age.

He had recently broken up with her (when she turned 18 oddly enough) and did this big series on it using his NEW girlfriend (age unknown but looked very young) to talk about his OLD girlfriend (CREEPY!)

Anyway, turns out this is the story of his underage sweety - By his own admission ming you.

He starts dating her when he is 21 and she is 15. He claims she is, hold on to your hats, schizophrenic and her dad doesn't help her. So his parents move HER into the house with HIM where they share a bed.

Yeah.... Not cool. Then she became "too much to handle" because of her schizopgrenia at the age of 18, so they simply threw this girl out of the house and onto the street.

Welcome to the face of suburban evil folks.

As someone who worked at a high school it took a LOT for me to not walk up to him and pound him into the ground until he resembled liquid light. This freak not only used an underage girl inappropriately, he used a severly mentally ill girl at that. Imagine a teenager with LESS capacity for reason! Good choices are not gonna exist. And when he was done with her, he threw her out of the house. Last he heard she was living on the street, homeless and crazy.

So I did what anyone could do.

I called the cops.

He disappeared soon afterwards from school.

Do I regret it?

Not a bit. I probably made some enemies by doing this if he was pulled in by law enforcement. But he violated not only the law, but ethics.

We, as photographers need to police ourselves some. We need to be more vocal about what is blatantly wrong. Often I see people do things in photography that are just wrong. Mostly for the "shock" value (they rarely become famous I have discovered). We need to, as a group, be able to say "Nope, that ain't right."

Often we don't. This is why when I protested a Witkin speech in town, I was labeled "pro-censorship."

Not really, just pro-don't steal bodies.

Speak up or shut up I say.

In the UK the paranoia about child abuse has got to such a stage that it is going to have an impact on many photographers even though most probably don't yet realise it. There is a scheme called LeisureWatch which is being introduced to various holiday parks, country parks and to some beaches, piers and other places popular with visitors. The LeisureWatch staff who will be in contact withn the Police by mobile phone will watch out for photographers behaving "inappropriately" and will then question them "in a non-confrontational manner" as to what they are doing, do they have any family with them etc. If they don't provide satisfactory replies they will be reported. Particularly to be watched are lone photographers and those with "long lenses" - so anyone going to these places to photograph birdlife or other flora and fauna can expect to be third degreed about their intentions, though it will help if they can drag along a "family member". It was also suggested that it might be a good idea to "pre-announce your visit". So don't decide on the spur of the moment to go somewhere to take a few photographs because obviously only pediaphiles do that.

When I read all this a few days ago in the respected journal "Amateur Photographer" I though it was the April 1st issue but not so. What is so laughable about this is that those sad people who need to obtain images of children for gratification only have to turn on their TV's. There we are fed a daily diet of reality programs about parents who can't control their kids who are paraded before us screaming and yelling and throwing temper tantrums. And the same article of the Amateur Photographer "helpfully" included a short piece about how to take photos of the TV screen!

If only all this effort and money could be put into research into why some children grow into child abusers and try to combat the problem at source (one suspects bad parenting & distubed childhoods are probably in there somewhere) instead of stigmatising photographers and looking for easy scapegoats. Meanwhile we slowly but surely descend down the road to a police state; already the most closely spied on community in western europe we will no doubt eventually reach the staqge where all photographers have to be on a Photography Register (with extra fees for owning a telephoto lens over 90mm) and have to display a special badge at all times. Does this remind you of anything?

Robert Kennedy said:

I called the cops.
He disappeared soon afterwards from school.
Do I regret it?
Not a bit. I probably made some enemies by doing this if he was pulled in by law enforcement. But he violated not only the law, but ethics.

Click to expand...

As everyone knows - or might know - I am adamantly opposed to censoring art - but this is not the question here. I would have done the same. This is an obviously disturbed individual - from an obviously disturbed family, and there is no other course of reasonable action than to protect the members of society from their ravages.

What I am trying to say is - BRAVO!!!

Brac said:

If only all this effort and money could be put into research into why some children grow into child abusers and try to combat the problem at source (one suspects bad parenting & distubed childhoods are probably in there somewhere) instead of stigmatising photographers and looking for easy scapegoats. Meanwhile we slowly but surely descend down the road to a police state; already the most closely spied on community in western europe we will no doubt eventually reach the staqge where all photographers have to be on a Photography Register (with extra fees for owning a telephoto lens over 90mm) and have to display a special badge at all times. Does this remind you of anything?

Click to expand...

By my opinion, we must understand few things, and that is:

1. Paedophiles are real and serious threat.
2. People, especially parents have need and urge to do something. to protect children.
3. Dealing with paedophiles as mentioned in above quota is one way, but it require long time and effort.
4. So, people(parents) must have feeling that they are doing something for protecting theire children. And fastest and most visible results, among some others, are dealing with people who make photographs. That way, while waiting for real, multiaproach action against paedophilia, dealing with photographers give parents feeling, or atleast illusion, that they are doing something for protecting theire children. That is normal. Problem is when that grow into histeria in which innocent photographers get hurts(get beaten or get in trouble with police and others), but you can see those photographers as "collatelar damage" in war against paedophilia.

I will repeat my (ironic) advice. Get the hell away from children. Even if you see child in trouble, call authorities and go away. Don't talk with them, do't photograph them, and especially don't touch children. If they are in trouble, theire parents are those who are responsibile. Why to be wrongly accused?

Now just a darned-tootin minute here - how many pedophiles take pictures of children in public, anyway? Do we know if it's one of their characteristic behaviors? If it is not, then the 'leisure' law is just plain misguided and possibly distracting from our becoming more educated and aware of what pedophillia (sp?) really is, how to spot it. Maybe the later is impossible. Could be. I've never seen such a character but I'm told "they are everywhere". This is truly a depressing subject that reminds me of the "Commie under every bed" thing of the fifties.

haris said:

I will repeat my (ironic) advice. Get the hell away from children. Even if you see child in trouble, call authorities and go away. Don't talk with them, do't photograph them, and especially don't touch children. If they are in trouble, theire parents are those who are responsibile. Why to be wrongly accused?

Click to expand...

And I'll repeat my reply: If I see a child in trouble I WILL stop and help. Of course one of those ways would be to call the authorities ... but I will actively help, even if it does mean that I will be "falsely accused".

Providing fuel for some panic-stricken part of society would be a trivial price to pay for maintaining my status as a human being... which would happen immediately if I turned my back to a child in distress and left it all to the responsibility of the parents.

I agree, Ed.

Example of what kind society we are turning to...

German/Luxembourgh satellite television RTL, had documentary like this: two acrots, in foct one actor and one actress, played next role; they are on street and he acting like hitting, beating her. She scream for help. Candid camera tapes reaction of people passing buy. less than 10 % of people tried to help. People were afraid of be beaten of actor(he looked wery strong and frightening).

I am afraid there will come a day when my above writting about helping children will be true...

Some places it's a lot more than merely the police you have to worry about:

Just outside Mexico City a mob mistook three undercover cops—who were photographing near a school—for child molesters, and killed two of them.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2510

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4040815.stm

I'm not sure which is scarier, the mob reaction to the photographers, or the absolute worthlessness and cowardice of the Mexican police force that took THREE AND A HALF HOURS after the first call for help to rescue their remaining colleague. Doesn't "Officer down!" have a Spanish equivalent? Is there any other country on earth with police this useless?

Blansky already said what I wanted to say, an probably said it better. We need to take respnisibility for our own actions. We need to stop letting zealots and extremists make our decisions for us. Everything you can think of will be erotic to someone. Making laws because of "what if" is not only false, it presumes we will all be guilty in the future. It is a slap in the face of all people who are normal (whatever that is). It also is usually attached to the "slippery slope", and just spirals out of control. And, just to be a smart ass, the people who push the most for these sort of laws are way more messed up in the head than the rest of us (to put it mildly).

For all,

If you already didn't, please wach movie "Dirty pictures"(TV movie). No, not pornography or erotic theme, movie is about Robert Maplethorpe(already dead at that time) exhibition in Cincinnaty and what director of museum who provide exhibition must go throuhg. Director of movie is Frank Pierson, lead role(director of museum Dennis Barrie) played by James Woods, year of production 2000. Country of production: USA. MPAA rated R (of course ).

Very connected to the theme we are talking about.

European cinycally yours

Robert I applaud you for reporting the incidents.....in the public school in Nevada a teacher by state statutes must report "possible" abuse.....or what might appear to be abuse etc...while this can get touchy teachers must be child advocates....
teacher here can be held in violation if it is shown that information was with held etc.