# When does 'art' become porn?



## Graeme (Jun 6, 2008)

Hotly debated over the past week, even involving the Prime Minister and celebrities, such as Cate Blanchett. It started with this...

Police quiz photographer over nude shots - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

...and ended(?) with this..no charges being laid...

Australian Authorities Permit Publication of Nude Photo of 13 Year-Old Girl

If you had a daughter aged thirteen, would you allow her to be photographed nude for 'art'?


----------



## Njaco (Jun 6, 2008)

A quick response from me would be I can think of no reason that I would allow my daughter at that age to be photographed. Until they reach the age of 18 I'm the adult and guardian of her and I make the decisions. I can't think of anything short of a medical reason. Not art.


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Jun 6, 2008)

Njaco said:


> A quick response from me would be I can think of no reason that I would allow my daughter at that age to be photographed. Until they reach the age of 18 I'm the adult and guardian of her and I make the decisions. I can't think of anything short of a medical reason. Not art.



  Ditto for me. I do not have children and I view it as extremely immoral.


----------



## DOUGRD (Jun 7, 2008)

Here's another thought....What is the artistic advantage to photographing a 13 year old rather than an 18 year old? I think if the photographer wanted to capture an innocent pose or flawless skin then there are older (legal) models who could fill the bill. So what's the point? I think he was just trying to "buck" the system.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 7, 2008)

That "Photographer" should be arrexted and bunked up in the same cell as Bubba the 300 pound "Greenbough Ass-Raper"....


----------



## rochie (Jun 7, 2008)

i agree with les, there is absolutley no justification for photographing minors naked


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 7, 2008)

With Les and Rochie....


----------



## evangilder (Jun 7, 2008)

Unbelievable. What I find disturbing is the Australian laws on this. The classification board needs to be looked into.


> The board's decision comes only two weeks after they *deemed acceptable* nude photos of a 16 year-old girl found in Russh magazine. After investigating the pictures, which depicted the girl sharing a bubble bath with a 15 year-old boy and included four champagne bottles in close proximity, the board said the publication "does not need to be classified."



They need to deem these images as completely unacceptable and start arresting these photographers. There is art, porn and child exploitation. There is no reason for a child to have nude photos taken unless, as njaco pointed out, for medical reasons. And then, it needs to be monitored closely.

Being a photographer myself, I am appalled at what some of my fellow photographers will do.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 7, 2008)

WTF!


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 7, 2008)

I like what US Supreme Court Justices Potter Stewert said about pornography.

"hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it."

_Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)_


----------



## evangilder (Jun 7, 2008)

I don't consider nude photos porn, for the most part. Nude photos of children, aside from medical necessity, is just criminal. It's not "art", it's not "expression", it's exploitation and abuse.


----------



## trackend (Jun 7, 2008)

I'll go with that Eric. its gratification for some nutters perversion (usually the photographers) they just call it art to hide their twisted minds. 
I have done a few nude shoots when I was in a photographic club it was not really my thing as I prefer portraits.


----------



## Maestro (Jun 8, 2008)

What the fawk ?

Taking a shot of a nude minor is child porn and should be threated as such. You arrest the pedophile photographer and put him in jail... In the same wing that all those Hell's Angels bikers and let him get ass-raped in the shower by all those gang members.

And if you want to know the difference between art and porn, it's rather easy... A nude girl is art. A nude girl with something in her ass or p*ssy is porn.


----------



## Soren (Jun 8, 2008)

Disgusting. Those photographers should be arrested no doubt about it.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 8, 2008)

evangilder said:


> Unbelievable. *What I find disturbing is the Australian laws on this.* The classification board needs to be looked into.
> 
> 
> They need to deem these images as completely unacceptable and start arresting these photographers. There is art, porn and child exploitation.



*Australian law?* Eric, you do realize that nudity, even of children, is also protected by US law also do you not? In fact even Canada has stricter laws than the US in some ways.

In the USA nudity of children is not pornograpy *if it does not involve any sexual content* according to US supreme court rulings.



Njaco said:


> A quick response from me would be I can think of no reason that I would allow my daughter at that age to be photographed.



And no father would Njaco, unless he was a pervert or an idiot!

However, do you think that the parents of Miley Cyrus {Hannah Montana} are much better? They allowed their 15 year old daughter to be photographed naked, with a sheet barely covering the "naughty bits" - in what would seem to be a provocative or "sexual" pose.


----------



## Soren (Jun 8, 2008)

Freebird, 

I googled Miley Cyrus and the picture of her you mentioned (I think atleast) popped up along with articles about it causing a lot of stir. Now looking at the picture is shows nothing other than her back really. Now that having been said it still isn't right, but it's not as vulgar as the case with the art exhibition which I view as downright criminal.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 9, 2008)

I don't agree with the Miley Cyrus photos either. Anytime a child is exploited like that, it emboldens the next person to take it a step further until it is "normal" by societal standards. It will never be "normal" to me. God help the bastard that even suggests a nude photo of *my *daughter.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 9, 2008)

I hold you hit Eric...what would you like, a nice baseball bat of hickory wood or a more modern one...?


----------



## Njaco (Jun 9, 2008)

Its putting the thought in children that acting like that is grown up and OK which it is not.

Same for Jon Bonet Ramsey - those people  dissgust me.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 9, 2008)

...WHO??


----------



## Njaco (Jun 9, 2008)

JonBenÃ©t Ramsey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"JonBenét Patricia Ramsey (August 6, 1990—December 25, 1996) was an American girl made famous by her mysterious Christmas time murder and the subsequent media coverage. She was found dead in the basement of her parents' home in Boulder, Colorado, nearly eight hours after she was reported missing. The case is notable in both its longevity and the media interest it has generated in the US. After several grand jury hearings, the case is still unsolved."

6 Years old and dressing her up like a floozy to win pageants.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 9, 2008)

Sick!


----------



## A4K (Jun 9, 2008)

I can't think of a single justifiable reason as to why it was advantageous to use a 13 year old over an 18 year old - unless he's using the 'shock method' to get famous quicker (the old 'get your record banned, and it will sell like hot cakes' trick)..?


----------



## evangilder (Jun 9, 2008)

I was thinking the same thing, njaco. The whole Ramsey case was disturbing. And Lucky, a good Louisville slugger would definitely do the trick.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 9, 2008)

They can argue in the courts all they want about art and what isn't - at least there is a yardstick to compare by or start from. But these "Little Miss" pageants are horrible! Someone ought to look into that - I think its just as bad.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 9, 2008)

I couldn't agree with you more Njaco ol' chap...! Should be BANNED!


----------



## Soren (Jun 9, 2008)

Njaco said:


> They can argue in the courts all they want about art and what isn't - at least there is a yardstick to compare by or start from. But these "Little Miss" pageants are horrible! Someone ought to look into that - I think its just as bad.




Fully agreed.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 9, 2008)

Njaco said:


> 6 Years old and dressing her up like a floozy to win pageants.



And we wonder why the 12 13 yr old girls want to dress up act like they are adults...



evangilder said:


> I was thinking the same thing, njaco. The whole Ramsey case was disturbing.



Sure was, creepy in fact.


----------



## Trebor (Jun 9, 2008)

I watch Law Order Special Victims Unit all the time, and I've learned that child porn can be from infancy to like age 16. I hope they arrest his ass for child endangerment


----------



## Maestro (Jun 10, 2008)

evangilder said:


> I was thinking the same thing, njaco. The whole Ramsey case was disturbing. And Lucky, a good *Louisville slugger* would definitely do the trick.



Uh ? Enlighten me there, Evan... What is a Louisville slugger ?  



Trebor said:


> I watch Law Order Special Victims Unit all the time, and I've learned that child porn can be from infancy to like age 16. I hope they arrest his ass for child endangerment



Yes, in the US at least. Anything pornography made with peoples under the age of concent (16 in the US, 14 in Canada) is considered child pornography. Above that age ( but still under 18 ) it bears an other name... And the punishment is not as severe.

And it just remembered me of something I heard in the news lately... Well, in fact it's two stories. Thanks Howard Stern...

The Associated Press: Teens are sending nude photos via cell phone
Teen Nabbed For Naked MySpace Photos - May 21, 2008


----------



## Njaco (Jun 10, 2008)

A Louisville slugger is a good 'ol wooden baseball bat. So named because I believe that they're made in St. Louis, MO. Or at least they used to be.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 10, 2008)

Actually, it's made in Louisville Kentucky by the Hillerich and Bradsby company. The company is also known for hockey sticks, baseball gloves and other sports equipment. They also make an aluminum slugger called the Exogrid. But this'll work:


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 10, 2008)

Looks like you'll get a goooood swing with that one Eric....


----------



## Freebird (Jun 10, 2008)

Maestro said:


> Yes, in the US at least. *Anything pornography* made with peoples under the age of concent (16 in the US, 14 in Canada) is considered child pornography. Above that age ( but still under 18 ) it bears an other name... And the punishment is not as severe.
> 
> And it just remembered me of something I heard in the news lately... Well, in fact it's two stories. Thanks Howard Stern...



Depends on your defenition of pornography Maestro. The US courts have repeatedly held that images of nudity {even of a child} are not pornography as long as there is no "sexual content"

But the question is this - If the 17 year old is charged with pornography, why was the original "producer" not charged? {the 16 yr old girl who sent the pics via e-mail}


----------



## Maestro (Jun 10, 2008)

freebird said:


> But the question is this - If the 17 year old is charged with pornography, why was the original "producer" not charged? {the 16 yr old girl who sent the pics via e-mail}



May be because she is also the victim ? She "self-photographed" to make a "surprise" to her boyfriend, but the bastard published the pictures.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 11, 2008)

Maestro said:


> May be because she is also the victim ? She "self-photographed" to make a "surprise" to her boyfriend, but the bastard published the pictures.




Ah yes but it would be hard to justify a very stiff charge against him but not her. 

And unless she was engaged in some "sexual activity" it does not meet the defenition of child porn to begin with.

Don't misunderstand me, I sympathise with this girl to some extent, but it's time that these silly girls who e-mail their pictures realize that they have done this to themselves.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 11, 2008)

Thanks for the correction, Eric. Never got past football too much.


----------



## Maestro (Jun 22, 2008)

evangilder said:


> I don't agree with the Miley Cyrus photos either. Anytime a child is exploited like that, it emboldens the next person to take it a step further until it is "normal" by societal standards. It will never be "normal" to me. God help the bastard that even suggests a nude photo of *my *daughter.



Talking of Miley Cyrus, I just found that article... Now the real question : Do you believe it ? I don't. If that had happened to my daughter, I would have took an apointment with her publicist and showed up wit a MEB in my back pocket.

The Associated Press: Cyrus says he was surprised by Vanity Fair photo


----------



## Graeme (Jun 23, 2008)

As a result of the 'Henson Affair', Australian parents may be banned from taking photos of their children at school activities and sports events...






Parents banned from snapping kids at sport | NEWS.com.au

*
Parents banned from snapping kids at sport*

June 22, 2008 03:01am
Article from: The Sunday Telegraph
_
PARENTS are furious after being banned from taking photographs of their children at weekend sporting events.

They say the Bill Henson affair has made sports clubs paranoid about allowing them to photograph their children.

Henson was cleared after police seized naked photographs of a 13- year-old girl from an art gallery.

Netball, basketball, rugby league, AFL, cricket, soccer and baseball clubs have imposed rules to prevent photos of young players being taken without the consent of all parents and coaches.

NSW's Macarthur junior baseball league president Maud Goldfinch said parents had to sign a form confirming they would not take photographs without permission.

Ms Goldfinch said that as a parent, she did not agree with the policy, which deprived children of happy sporting memories.

"A lot of parents don't agree with what's going on.

"They're quite upset by not being able to take photos of their children - they see it as an invasion of their privacy.

"The Bill Henson (saga) brought it to a head. It's made people more aware ... and it brings debate around the topic."

Parents also need to give permission before photographs are uploaded to the club's website.

One father said he was made to feel like a pedophile while photographing his eight-year-old daughter on the netball court.

Michael Bianchino lodged a complaint with the Hills District Netball Association after it forbade him to photograph his daughter, Mia, during an under-nine match at Pennant Hills Park on May 31.

"The way I was treated, I was made to feel like a pedophile," Mr Bianchino said.

"I just said: 'I'm taking photos of my daughter - if anyone has a problem with their child being in the image, let me know."'

Club president Jennie Thompson repeatedly refused to comment on the incident, but said the club's policy was that parents could take photographs only after seeking permission.

"Our stance and our club's stance is that we ask people to obtain permission prior to taking photographs of junior players," she said.

Cherrybrook United Netball Club president Debbie Whittle said it was hard to get permission from every parent, so few photographs were taken.

"You want to get these memories for your children to keep.

"It's an important part of their childhood, and you're limited because of all these rulings about getting permission," she said._


----------



## eddie_brunette (Jun 23, 2008)

*Blame parents*. 
How many parents let their kids run nude on the beach? 
The moment you take a pic of the waves breaking, a little naked bastard runs in front of the camera, you get arrested for child pornography. 

But then again in Africa it is not funny to attend a function where you have 12/13 year old girls dancing without tops and then it is all good.

edd


----------



## Freebird (Jun 24, 2008)

Maestro said:


> Taking a shot of a nude minor is child porn and should be threated as such.
> 
> 
> And if you want to know the difference between art and porn, it's rather easy... A nude girl is art. A nude girl with something in her ass or p*ssy is porn.




Huh?
You are making two opposite arguments here!

Is it A.)



Maestro said:


> *Taking a shot of a nude minor is child porn *



Or B.)



Maestro said:


> *A nude girl is art.*



And what is your definition of "minor" or "child"? 16? 17? 18? 

Is it the age of consent of the girl in her home country or state? The state where the picture was taken? The home state of the photographer?

If you took pictures of your 19 yr old wife nude in Tunisia should you be charged with child porn? {age of consent is 20 there}

Is it Ok to take "art pictures" of a nude 13 yr old girl in Mexico if she agrees? {age of consent is 12 in Mexico}

Should a 18 yr old be charged with child porn if he has nude pics of his 16 yr old girlfriend on vacation in California? {age of consent = 18}

What if they are both from South Carolina? {age of consent = 14}

Just playing devil's advocate here.

* I'm asking where do you draw the line*, I've met "mature" 16 yr old girls capable of making decisions about their own sexuality and 25 yr old mental "basket cases" who are not.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 24, 2008)

*When does 'art' become porn?*

I think every time I look at "art"

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Freebird (Jun 24, 2008)

Kruska said:


> *When does 'art' become porn?*
> 
> I think every time I look at "art"
> 
> ...



Lots of "art" on the breaking news thread!


----------



## evangilder (Jun 24, 2008)

Maestro said:


> Talking of Miley Cyrus, I just found that article... Now the real question : Do you believe it ? I don't. If that had happened to my daughter, I would have took an apointment with her publicist and showed up wit a MEB in my back pocket.
> 
> The Associated Press: Cyrus says he was surprised by Vanity Fair photo



Sorry, but trusting your child to a publicist?!? What a friggin' moron. He, of all people ought to know that the one who will know best is one the PARENTS. His quote says it all...
"_So I was surprised when I saw it, you know, but ... stuff happens_"

Stuff happens?!?! He should be furious.


----------



## Maestro (Jun 24, 2008)

freebird said:


> Huh?
> You are making two opposite arguments here!



I think you only forgot to read a tiny word in my post...



Maestro said:


> Taking a shot of a nude *minor* is child porn and should be threated as such.



Now, if your an adult (18 or over) the second sentence you quoted apply. You can pose nude or you can do porn.


----------



## Maestro (Jun 24, 2008)

evangilder said:


> Stuff happens?!?! He should be furious.



Right on. You know, the fact that somebody is famous doesn't automatically makes him/her smarter. Just look at Jane Fonda !


----------



## Freebird (Jun 24, 2008)

Maestro said:


> I think you only forgot to read a tiny word in my post...
> 
> Now, if your an adult (18 or over) the second sentence you quoted apply. You can pose nude or you can do porn.



Ok. Sorry, I think perhaps in your post you should have put "woman" {ie over 18} as I understood "girl" to be under 18.



Maestro said:


> A nude girl is art.






evangilder said:


> Sorry, but trusting your child to a publicist?!? What a friggin' moron. He, of all people ought to know that the one who will know best is one the PARENTS. His quote says it all...
> "_So I was surprised when I saw it, you know, but ... stuff happens_"
> 
> Stuff happens?!?! He should be furious.



Eric, from what I understand *he was at the photo shoot* and had no objections to it at the time, he even saw the proofs of that shot. The only one to blame for failing in his duty is *him.* When the photographer at the shoot says "Ok, now I need your 15 yr old daughter to take her clothes off" *that* would be the time for a responsible parent to step in, not crying about it later when the scandal breaks!


----------



## Maestro (Jun 24, 2008)

freebird said:


> Ok. Sorry, I think perhaps in your post you should have put "woman" {ie over 18} as I understood "girl" to be under 18.



Hmmm... I think you're right. My bad.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 24, 2008)

But getting back to the original post, I think there should be a distinction between the pervert that violates a small child to make porn, and the foolish 15-16 yr old girl who willingly sends nude pictures of herself to her boyfriend. I think she has to take some responsibility in this.

Of course the guy was a creep to post them on the internet, but in the bigger picture I think the message to other young girs shouldn't be "see the bad man is in jail now", but the message too young girls should be:

"if you send nude pics to anyone {even your loving boyfriend} *they can end up on the net*, with only yourself to blame" 

Maybe they would think twice about sending them...


----------



## Maestro (Jun 24, 2008)

Isn't it already the case ? I mean, what do you propose ? We can't send her to jail.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 25, 2008)

Maestro said:


> Isn't it already the case ? I mean, what do you propose ? We can't send her to jail.



I think what I am saying is that they are sending the wrong message to young girls by excessive prosecution {IMO} I don't think the guy deserves major jail time for child porn for pics that *she sent him*. He should get a misdemeanor something pay a fine. The "child porn" will get thrown out anyways, as nudity is legal {even for a 15 yr old} unless there is some sexual content 

By blowing this up into a big deal, it tells girls that they are the "victim", when really the stupid t**ts are responsible for their own embarassment.


----------



## Maestro (Jun 28, 2008)

Hah ! Louisiana made a good move...

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal Signs Sex Offender Chemical Castration Bill - DigitalJournal.com: The Power of Citizen Journalism


----------



## Maestro (Jul 31, 2008)

Sorry for bumping this old thread, but guess what showed up in my browser when I was loging-on to Hotmail...

Safe Sex with Hannah Montana? : Dramarama : CelebEdge : Sympatico / MSN

So now they want to make her sell condoms ? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for teaching the "mysteries of sexuality and safe sex" to teenagers, but I think the message just won't pass.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't she supposed to still be a virgin and "keeping it for marriage" ? I guess it's all the opposite of selling condoms ! I think they would have better luck with a well known slut like Jenna Jameson.


----------



## RabidAlien (Jul 31, 2008)

....or Britney Spears. Didn't I hear somewhere that her mom made the decision to "market" her daughter as a sex-icon, instead of a "dang, she's a good singer"? The second method works slower, yes, and runs the risk of failure if nobody likes the music. The first is faster, and only sacrifices your daughter's self-esteem and self-respect and sanity.


----------



## Maestro (Aug 2, 2008)

Yep... But it's almost the same case that Cyrus... Spears was "claiming" to be keeping it for marriage... Even if we all suspect she...

...Nevermind.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 2, 2008)

Maestro said:


> Yep... But it's almost the same case that Cyrus... Spears was "claiming" to be keeping it for marriage... Even if we all suspect she sucked some dicks to get a record contract.
> 
> Did I just think that out loud ? Woohoops...



Hey chill out! You do not have to be so graphic in your posting! Don't write something like that again! Do you understand??


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 2, 2008)

yeah man that was a bit over the top.


----------



## Maestro (Aug 2, 2008)

Aussie1001 said:


> yeah man that was a bit over the top.



Okay, okay... I was saying it more like a joke, but oh, well. Sorry if I offended anyone.


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 3, 2008)

I guess that some "under the table dealings" must have been done...cr*p music!


----------

