# Extremely delicate question but need an honest answer.



## jwbryson1 (Dec 21, 2012)

I am going to ask this question and hope for some serious answers.  I understand it's delicate and I hope the Mod's don't shut this thread unnecessarily provided we stay on topic.  I hope we can have a serious discussion about this and don't get childish unhelpful answers.  So, I proceed with caution and open ears...

I have a friend who is facing federal child pornography charges.  It seems he stupidly purchased a subscription to an online service that claimed to offer "legal" images.  Well, the feds somehow came across his name or email address and showed up at his doorstep.  He could be facing 10+ years in federal prison.  This is no joke.

There was a long extremely heated thread on TPF about 18 months ago about some "famous" photographer that photographed nude children.  Primarily girls below the age of 10.  Some argued it was pornography and others said it was not for a variety of reasons including "art" arguments.  I don't know what type of images my friend purchased because I have not seen them, and I am setting aside all judgment for the moment, but it's my understanding that these were not **graphic** but rather just individuals posing by themselves.  Let's move forward on that assumption.

So, the question is--when do nude photographs of children cross over from "art" to "pornography" that is punishable by law?  Is it possible to make the argument that this is "art" and not "pornography" so that is a defense?  I'm sure some of you are thinking you know pornography "when you see it," but that does nothing to further this discussion, so please avoid that line of response if you don't mind.

P.S.  I'm NOT looking for legal advice--just a photographic discussion.  Thanks.

My ears and eyes are wide open...


----------



## KmH (Dec 21, 2012)

Frankly, the discussion needs no reference to your friend's legal problems.

From a legal perspective, what I or any other individual consider as the boundary between art and pornography would have zero bearing on your friend's situation.

So, it would seem the issue has little to do with art.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Dec 21, 2012)

KmH said:


> Frankly, the discussion needs no reference to your friend's legal problems.




I don't disagree but trying to offer some context so people understand why the question is being asked in the first place.  It really doesn't make a difference though, does it?


----------



## baturn (Dec 21, 2012)

Seems to me, that nude photography of minors is exploitation no matter what you call it.


----------



## terri (Dec 21, 2012)

We can allow the thread, but it needs to stay strictly on topic.      Thanks.

I personally can't imagine the appeal of nude children's photos outside of my immediate family.  I can't imagine what possible interest would be in them to others outside the pedophile aspect of it.  In that regard, I would have to wonder what your friend's intentions were with this "subscription".   I'm sorry to not be much help, but for me it seems a pretty cut and dry issue.   Whether we like it or not, we "are" that society that covers kids up after toddler age.   Is that helpful at all?


----------



## Mully (Dec 21, 2012)

Remember the government will only look with blinders on ..... what is printed in the manual is what is what they do.  Franlly I do not see a reason to take nude photos of children, maybe babies but why else?


----------



## kathyt (Dec 21, 2012)

terri said:


> We can allow the thread, but it needs to stay strictly on topic.      Thanks.
> 
> I personally can't imagine the appeal of nude children's photos outside of my immediate family.  I can't imagine what possible interest would be in them to others outside the pedophile aspect of it.  In that regard, I would have to wonder what your friend's intentions were with this "subscription".   I'm sorry to not be much help, but for me it seems a pretty cut and dry issue.   Whether we like it or not, we "are" that society that covers kids up after toddler age.   Is that helpful at all?



I would have to agree with this. There would be no reason at all for children to be photographed nude in my opinion. Even for the purpose of art. So, I guess it depends if this subscription is ONLY minors. That could make a difference.


----------



## nycphotography (Dec 21, 2012)

baturn said:


> Seems to me, that nude photography of minors is exploitation no matter what you call it.



Does that include naked baby butts?


----------



## jwbryson1 (Dec 21, 2012)

terri said:


> I would have to wonder what your friend's intentions were with this "subscription".




I'm going to avoid this because I think Keith makes a good point -- I probably should have posted this in a "vacuum" without reference to my buddy.  I also think his intentions are not dispositive of the issue, so I will avoid speculation.

But, the fact is that photographs ARE taken of kids and freely published without prosecution, so there has to be a point that the law says this is no longer "art" but has become illegal images of kids.  Where does it cross the line?  I don't know but it could be helpful if there was a bright line.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Dec 21, 2012)

kathythorson said:


> terri said:
> 
> 
> > We can allow the thread, but it needs to stay strictly on topic.      Thanks.
> ...




Again, "art" is in the eye of the beholder.  What may have no artistic value to you could be seen by another as something with value, so that cant' be the distinction between "art" and illegal.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Dec 21, 2012)

baturn said:


> Seems to me, that nude photography of minors is exploitation no matter what you call it.



I don't necessarily disagree.


----------



## Mully (Dec 21, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > terri said:
> ...




That being said ...there is no pornography just art..... because all the publisher has to do is claim it is art


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 21, 2012)

The only opinions that will count here will be those of the jury and the judge.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Dec 21, 2012)

480sparky said:


> The only opinions that will count here will be those of the jury and the judge.



Unfortunately, that is true.  But, it would be nice to be able to show other images that are published without prosecution to maybe buttress his case.  I dunno.

This just sucks and I need to vent.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 21, 2012)

kathythorson said:


> ...... There would be no reason at all for children to be photographed nude in my opinion........



What about medical purposes?


----------



## jwbryson1 (Dec 21, 2012)

I think the photographer I am referring to is Sally Mann.  You can Google her work to see what I am talking about.


----------



## nycphotography (Dec 21, 2012)

Seems to me far more of us could go to federal prison than what we'd like to admit.  I for one have this album on my shelf.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_2TUNPR2JK...hipled_zeppelin_-_house_of_the_holy-front.jpg


The problem with this distinction is that it is a SUBJECTIVE one, but the people applying it to others always think they're doing so OBJECTIVELY.

We could discuss the particular materials involved and the politics around the application of the law...

*But to try to draw the line between art and pornography is just plain impossible.*  Why?  Because no matter where you draw the line, art will immediately start intentionally crossing it again and again just to prove a point.  

Move the line, and you move the target of the art, and its still largely irrelevant.  That is, after all, how provocative art works, no?  Art will still be violating your norms.  It probably wouldn't be good art (in its genre) if it didn't.

Thankfully, the last 3 or 4 decades have seen us finally starting to back away from the thought police... pornography is what it is, drug use is what it is, music is what it is... the last bastion of irrational response seems to be "protection from the cold cruel world."

Laws against child pornography are reasonable.... but only if the definition pornography is very narrowly construed to that which almost everyone can agree is pornography.  2 standard deviations, or 97% of everyone at least.  When you lose that narrow constraint, the law (and application of the laws) becomes subjective, and subjective laws always become oppressive when enforced by unreasonable people.

As your friend is being prosecuted, I'd like to hope that it's due to narrowly defined materials that leave no doubt as to what went in to producing them.  

But if that's not the case, then the prosecution is abusing its power.

Maybe he should consider taking his case public, facing the embarassment of buying pornography, and expose the law enforcement and prosecution for abusing their discretion.

*Another recent news blurb...  Jeffrey Mitchell of Miramar Beach, Fla., Displays 'Sex Offender' Sign in His Front Yard | AOL Real Estate*


----------



## terri (Dec 21, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > terri said:
> ...


Well, from your statement it would appear you have answered your own question.   You are wondering when art "crosses the line" into something else, yet you also hold that it is in the eye of the beholder and should remain subjective.    So, there you are.   

Sally Mann upset a lot of people for publishing her "Immediate Family" body of work.   Not all the images were of the kids naked, and they were raised to feel okay to be nude.   It is the societal backlash that forces one to look at the pictures now through that lens, sadly.  The images themselves are excellent.   But they were her own kids, hanging around the farm, being kids.


----------



## Mully (Dec 21, 2012)

The House of the Holy album was published before many laws of this nature were in effect


----------



## nycphotography (Dec 21, 2012)

So?

Was the album pornography then, with 20/20 hindsight?

Or is it pornography now?

Or it is still art now, even though there is never a good reason to take pictures of naked kids?


----------



## tirediron (Dec 21, 2012)

"I can't tell you what pornography is, but I know it when I see it!"  (or words to that effect)


----------



## paigew (Dec 21, 2012)

I pretty much primarily photograph my kids. Kids love to be naked, I love to document life. Therefore I have naked photos of my kids. I would never put those photos online however because they are meant to be family snapshots. I think the line is crossed when children are posed i.e. pretty much anything other than documentary type photos. Obviously this excludes babies because who doesn't love a good baby booty 

As for your friend, seems pretty shady to me. I don't know a man (or woman) who would pay for photos of kids that are not their own, especially naked ones...from a shady looking site. I know he is your friend but you never really know people kwim. We need to protect our babies.


----------



## amolitor (Dec 21, 2012)

There are legal standards, but they're generally very vague.

There are also tons of picture of naked kids that are, to all but a very small minority of people, perfectly innocent. No sexual content implied or explicit, nothing but kids being kids. Sally Mann falls under that head.

If your friend subscribed to a service which provided "legal" photos of nude children, it sounds like it was catering to pedophiles. Why else call out that they're legal? If it's just innocent naked kids, you're selling art, simple. Was your friend buying supposedly legal images as pornography? Was this for sexual satisfaction? These are rhetorical questions, I'm not looking for answers. Answering, and even arguably asking, is pushing this thread out of acceptable territory for TPF, so please do NOT answer. I do hope that if these guesses are on target, though, that your friends gets the help he needs instead of jail time.


----------



## Mully (Dec 21, 2012)

nycphotography said:


> So?
> 
> Was the album pornography then, with 20/20 hindsight?
> 
> ...



I do not see this as pornography, granted it is a photo but was made to look more like a drawing/painting and there is nothing sexual about it.  Look at the image for Free Bird ....the 1960 and early 1970 had a number of so called racy images for albums


----------



## terri (Dec 21, 2012)

nycphotography said:


> So?
> 
> Was the album pornography then, with 20/20 hindsight?
> 
> ...


I have the album, too, but I didn't buy it for the art.  Who knows what the AD had in mind for this particular cover, or why it was chosen.  In this particular instance, it's children climbing a hill.   I can't say it caused any controversy at the time, or whether it would if it came out on an album cover now.  This image is benign enough, I agree.    I'm sure there have always been pedophiles who may react differently to such an image.   This is a topic that gets painted with a pretty broad brush.  The world is different and images are transmitted differently, too, than when this record came out with this cover.


----------



## SCraig (Dec 21, 2012)

I think the answer to your question is as abstract as the question itself is.  The answer, in my personal opinion, is that it is art and not pornography as long as the children are part of the background and not part of the main subject.  When they become the subject and the viewer starts looking at them, then at that point, again in my personal opinion, it starts to become pornography.  Maybe I'm wrong and just need to think about it more, but I think this is how I feel about it.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 21, 2012)

tirediron said:


> "I can't tell you what pornography is, but I know it when I see it!"  (or words to that effect)



_I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I  understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing  so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that._
..........................Justice Potter Stewart, referring to _Jacobellis v. Ohio_.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Dec 21, 2012)

I think there is another part of this...Buyer beware? If you purchase a service, or subscribe to it, and the site claims legal age models, is it your friends fault, or is the sites fault?

If the site was deceptive, is that an entirely seperate case?


----------



## jwbryson1 (Dec 21, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> I think there is another part of this...Buyer beware? If you purchase a service, or subscribe to it, and the site claims legal age models, is it your friends fault, or is the sites fault?
> 
> If the site was deceptive, is that an entirely seperate case?



I think you pose a good question.  Even if it was advertised as a "legal" site, I don't think that would serve as a defense in a criminal case, but perhaps if he does end up in prison he could sue for civil damages for fraud/deception.  I dunno.  

The key difference between this website and Sally Mann, I think, is the intent of the user.  In this case, the fact that he purchased a subscription to a website that displays these types of images is pretty damning evidence.  We are not talking about it here, but I think it is probably understood what the purpose was for buying the images.

Very sad indeed.


----------



## Mr_Mac (Dec 21, 2012)

While still subjective, to say the least, pornography is defined as;



			
				Merriam-Webster said:
			
		

> 1*:* the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
> 
> 2*:* material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
> 
> 3*:* the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the _pornography_ of violence>


Anyone can say that even these definitions are subjective where "eye of the beholder" is concerned.  Somewhere there is an artist who took a photograph of a beautiful man or woman nude and called it art only to have someone else look upon that same photograph and became sexually aroused!  The very same thing can be said for photographs of fully clothed men and women!  There would almost certainly have to be a general consensus that what is viewed does/doesn't elicit such a response then it can be called art/pornography.  The next question is who can be nonobjective in making the final determination?  I suppose, in this case anyway, a judge or jury.

A sticky wicket, for sure.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Dec 21, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > I think there is another part of this...Buyer beware? If you purchase a service, or subscribe to it, and the site claims legal age models, is it your friends fault, or is the sites fault?
> ...



Yeah, but thats the thing! Even though it's porn, is there no protection for the consumer? I know that sounds odd, but still!
But the flipside is as you said, if he was seeking out "barely legal"...is he crossing the line anyway, and deserving what's coming?

Interesting situation.

Any body familiar with "The Cucumber Incident" or, what was it, "Saving the Friedmans"? (both movies discussing suposedely wrongly accused sex offenders.)


----------



## runnah (Dec 21, 2012)

I will put it to you this way. I have been looking at porn on the net since forever, and in all my years I've never accidentally come across anything like that. You don't just stumble upon crap like that, you actively have to search it out. Thus I say he knew what he was getting into and guilty as charged.


----------



## nycphotography (Dec 21, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> I think there is another part of this...Buyer beware? If you purchase a service, or subscribe to it, and the site claims legal age models, is it your friends fault, or is the sites fault?
> 
> If the site was deceptive, is that an entirely seperate case?




If I sell you a "legal stolen car"... do you think either of us could claim innocence?


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 21, 2012)

runnah said:
			
		

> I will put it to you this way. I have been looking at porn on the net since forever, and in all my years I've never accidentally come across anything like that. You don't just stumble upon crap like that, you actively have to search it out. Thus I say he knew what he was getting into and guilty as charged.



Not necessarily. There was a video game a few years back called The Guy Game that featured a naked underage girl. And the game was mass produced an then later recalled. So basically anyone who owns the video game owns illegal underage pornography. It's censored pornography but still...

You'd think that this kind of stuff is hidden in some sort of dirty Internet back room but not always...


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Dec 21, 2012)

WTF is a legal stolen car?


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 21, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:
			
		

> WTF is a legal stolen car?



I was about to ask the same thing. XD


----------



## jaomul (Dec 21, 2012)

There is also the fact that different countries have different laws about age. I can stand to be corrected but I believe age of consent in spain is 14. Does that mean an image of a 15 year old from spain is considered legal, I dont know, but the only proper solution may be to select an age internationally and no image of a person below this age unclothed can be legally shown on the net. Proper secure channels to be set up for medical or educational purposes


----------



## nycphotography (Dec 21, 2012)

runnah said:


> I will put it to you this way. I have been looking at porn on the net since forever, and in all my years I've never accidentally come across anything like that. You don't just stumble upon crap like that, you actively have to search it out. Thus I say he knew what he was getting into and guilty as charged.



To the extent that it was delivered via the paid subscription, yes.

But EVERYONE should be aware that there are trojan horse exploits SPECIFICALLY intended for storing illegal files on other people's computers.  Just because a file is on someone's computer does not guaranteed mean they put it there.  More information is required before any reasonable guess can be made as to ownership / intent.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Dec 21, 2012)

I think I get what he's asking. I can relate it to pawning stolen jewelery. Pawn shops have to be careful of that. 
I believe they keep in touch with the police for stolen jewelery. So I think I get his point.


----------



## nycphotography (Dec 21, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> WTF is a legal stolen car?



I would hazard to guess it's about the same thing as legal images of a certain nature.

In other words, it's not just a lie, but a lie that even the buyer doesn't believe.


----------



## SCraig (Dec 21, 2012)

jaomul said:


> There is also the fact that different countries have different laws about age. I can stand to be corrected but I believe age of consent in spain is 14. Does that mean an image of a 15 year old from spain is considered legal, I dont know, but the only proper solution may be to select an age internationally and no image of a person below this age unclothed can be legally shown on the net. Proper secure channels to be set up for medical or educational purposes


Won't work.  The internet is truly world-wide and there are a lot of countries that don't subscribe to some international laws.  North Korea, for example, doesn't really give a damn what the laws in the rest of the world are.  That's how spammers circumvent the spam laws, they bounce their spam messages off of servers in countries that don't subscribe to to the CAN-SPAM act.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Dec 21, 2012)

OP...it is all bull****. In the old days none of this was an issue. (Non sexual nudes of teens / kids.) Now if your talking kids and teens having sex in the photo. Then that is a different story. 

Once the legal system says its porn, it is up to you to prove otherwise. If the legal system has a hard-on for you, your screwed unless you got deep pockets and a good lawyer...oh and happen to be in the right or at least close to it.

I got nothing against nudes of teens. Natural as nudes of an old ancient man or woman and a damn site prettier. But I don't run the legal system. Some parents have been hauled in for taking nude pix of their kids in the bathtub. Lots of crazy stuff in this area to catch you on. 

The whole pitfall of this topic is; there IS no black or white. Every state is different with the laws. Bottom line is, it is subjective and subject to the doctrine of 'might makes right' of the judge that is looking down his or her nose at you. I say it is art...judge says it is porn...who wins?

You know, there are many people that classify Playboy as porn. If they were the judge, your SOL.

Best advice is to stay legal and not screw around in that direction at all. As I said...if 'they' (TPTB) have a hard-on for you...your screwed.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Dec 21, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> I think the photographer I am referring to is Sally Mann.  You can Google her work to see what I am talking about.



Sally made her name with shooting her nude kids. She wants to think otherwise. But whenever her name comes up most people think of her nude kiddie pix.


----------



## EIngerson (Dec 21, 2012)

I don't think I'd do any photos of naked children. Tasteful or otherwise. My personal thought is, it doesn't fall into any art category. My biggest concern is that no matter what intent it was photographed under, it can be viewed with perverse and inappropriate intent. It's different when it's a consenting adult in front of the lens. Just my opinion.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Dec 21, 2012)

EIngerson said:


> I don't think I'd do any photos of naked children. Tasteful or otherwise. My personal thought is, it doesn't fall into any art category. My biggest concern is that no matter what intent it was photographed under, it can be viewed with perverse and inappropriate intent. It's different when it's a consenting adult in front of the lens. Just my opinion.



Good safe stance. You wont have any worries.


----------



## manicmike (Dec 21, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> WTF is a legal stolen car?



A stolen car that the owner leaves the title in and the thieves forge a signature to sign it over to them.


Or something.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 21, 2012)

I have seen art that involved nude children, that invoked a sense of innocence that was wonderful. The human body (in general) can be very beautiful, and I don't find tasteful (artsy) images objectionable (male, female, or child)....  although I strongly object to child porn (death sentence sounds good!), and don't even care for most porn of any sort (why get hot and bothered over something you will never have?). 

There is a difference between child porn, and art. Unfortunately... from a legal standpoint, what is porn is up to the discretion of the judge, or a jury. Most nudity laws on record date back to extremely restrictive, religiously based thought... and are really ridiculous in my opinion. We do need laws to protect the innocent from that segment of society that would take advantage of them... But there has to be a logical line somewhere. The trouble is many feelings and thoughts on this subject are not based on logic!

If your friend even signed up for a service that provides supposedly legal images of nude children... that is frightening. Personally I can't imagine a "legitimate" service like that! If the images are art, rather than porn... then I hope he gets an intelligent, unbiased judge... that doesn't go biblical on him.

Would I shoot naked kids? No.. probably not.


----------



## EIngerson (Dec 21, 2012)

nycphotography said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > I will put it to you this way. I have been looking at porn on the net since forever, and in all my years I've never accidentally come across anything like that. You don't just stumble upon crap like that, you actively have to search it out. Thus I say he knew what he was getting into and guilty as charged.
> ...



But, a trojan horse doesn't trip search engine triggers to govt watch logs. The trojans and bots aren't innitiated by the user and do not make you liable.


----------



## BobSaget (Dec 21, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> I think the photographer I am referring to is Sally Mann.  You can Google her work to see what I am talking about.



Def. Sally Mann.  Watched a documentary on her and found out it was her children she was photographing nude.  I'm not a father yet, but have trouble understanding why she published and put these pictures on exposition. I do believe her work is art,  but she had to realize, though I'm sure unintended, where some of her work would wind up and what it would be used for. I hate to make this accusation, but after watching the film, I felt that there was an element of shock value in it.  
If you haven't viewed her landscape work "Deep South" I really recommend you do.  She uses old large format camera's with broken lenses. very interesting.


----------



## nycphotography (Dec 21, 2012)

EIngerson said:


> But, a trojan horse doesn't trip search engine triggers to govt watch logs. The trojans and bots aren't innitiated by the user and do not make you liable.



Right.  That would be the "more information" part.


----------



## jhodges10 (Dec 21, 2012)

Mr_Mac said:


> While still subjective, to say the least, pornography is defined as;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The problem with this is that most of us wouldn't be aroused by a photo of a naked child the only people that would are pedophiles. That being said if most men saw a nude photo of a 15 year old girl who had physically matured early but not knowing her age probably would be aroused even though shes not of legal age. I'd think the important part to note here is that if this was a subscription porn site then the intent of the nude children was specifically sexual arousal and therefor illegal. Personally if I saw naked kids on a porn site I'd report it to the authorities. Maybe this guy had the pics accidentally but I'd find that very hard to believe and if he was suspicious of the photos he should have reported them.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Dec 21, 2012)

RE: Sally Mann...forgot to mention.

1) she was shooting nudes of her own kids. If you or I got the neighbor kids next door and shot the *exact same nudes o*f them...we would be sex offenders in prison.

2) Sally's hubby is a lawyer. (From what I was told.) She would get free, in house legal defense if anything did come of it in court. If it was your or me, we could be out hundreds of thousands $$ in legal expenses and could still end up in prison. 

3)...stay away from underage nude pix!


----------



## Ilovemycam (Dec 21, 2012)

jhodges10 said:


> Mr_Mac said:
> 
> 
> > While still subjective, to say the least, pornography is defined as;
> ...



Well, in times gone by, you could marry a thirteen year old. I saw a girl on a dive boat with huge, luscious breasts and a beautiful body. I asked her is she was married, thinking she was maybe 22.  She said she was 15. I thought WOW! 

Yes, nature and laws sometimes cross paths that can lead to big problems.


----------



## steven_ (Dec 21, 2012)

There are two topics in this thread, one being the "pornography v art" thing and the other being "my friend is in strife and could be sent away for a long time" thing.   

I'll concentrate on your friend.   You refer to him as your friend, having said that, do you really know him?   From my experience you have to ask yourself what hasn't he told you?   Why did he tell you anything in the first place?   You mention you haven't seen the images and yet I detect from your tone you're hoping that his predicament will improve.   I believe what naturally follows is that you also have doubt as to his culpability.

Why haven't you viewed the images, there're art, right?   

Subscribing to a site that provides images of naked children, was this kept secret from his wife/girlfirend/partner etc.

I'm assuming the authorities now have his computer.   The images downloaded, where precisely were they located in his computer?    Did he have a secret place to store them, away from where his normal images are stored, if this the case, well you get the idea (knowledge and intent).

Just my two cents worth.


----------



## amolitor (Dec 21, 2012)

For reference, pedophiles are NOT people who are sexually attracted to underage kids. They are people sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children who are at least 5 years younger then they themselves.

It's perfectly possible to be sexually aroused primarily by what is legally kiddie porn without being a pedophile. It's not legal to posses a bunch of photographs of naked 15 year olds in sexual poses, in most jurisdictions. Such a collection would be of no interest to a pedophile, however. There are other words which correctly describe sexual interest in older children, and in general these syndromes are not viewed as a disorder. They're just damn inconvenient, and if indulged can lead to illegal behavior.

Put another way, having sex with a 15 year old is wrong and illegal in many jursidictions, for excellent reasons, but it's not _sick_ in a technical sense.

It's unfortunate that we have lumped all this stuff together in common usage, since there's a huge amount of air between the two groups of syndromes.


----------



## usayit (Dec 21, 2012)

Its all in the intent.  

Unfortunately, its often left in the eyes of a judge or jury.

Anyone here actually with legal background to give a legal advice?  If not, its best to leave it until so.


Need I remind everyone that legalities have nothing to do with morality.  That was part of the problem with that hread on the TPF... and some hint of it here.   That concept is hard for some to grasp.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 21, 2012)

usayit said:


> ........Anyone here actually with legal background to give a legal advice?  If not, its best to leave it until so..........



Even if there is, it's probably best not to.


----------



## Mr_Mac (Dec 21, 2012)

usayit said:


> Its all in the intent.
> 
> Unfortunately, its often left in the eyes of a judge or jury.
> 
> ...



It is very interesting that you offer both of those points in a single post.  All to often legal and moral are polar opposites to the layperson and that is who is sitting in the jury box.  Mind you, I'm not saying that you're at all wrong, fact is, I tend to agree.  That said, the discussion we've read here could quite well be the same conversation heard in a deliberation room by people who feel very strongly about this topic as we do should it get that far.

Like I said...a sticky wicket, indeed!


----------



## steven_ (Dec 21, 2012)

usayit said:


> ...snip....
> 
> Anyone here actually with legal background to give a legal advice?  If not, its best to leave it until so.



I don't agree, lets talk about it, so what if there's no solicitors present.   If they are present I'd welcome their input.



usayit said:


> Need I remind everyone that legalities have nothing to do with morality.    ....snip....   That concept is hard for some to grasp.



Agree


----------



## usayit (Dec 22, 2012)

It seems these days... thinking like a prude is the better part of staying out of trouble.


----------



## KmH (Dec 22, 2012)

usayit said:


> Anyone here actually with legal background to give a legal advice? .


Yep, there is. The thread starter is an attorney (tax).


----------



## KenC (Dec 22, 2012)

Another photographer who did nudes of children is Jock Sturges.  He worked with people in nudist colonies for whom this was just not an issue and he had their permission to publish the photographs.  Nevertheless, the FBI raided his apartment about 20 years ago and confiscated all of his equipment and work.  At least according to his account, they destroyed some of it in the process through careless handling.  Finally, when the authorities had all the facts, he was not even indicted.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 22, 2012)

KmH said:


> From a legal perspective, what I or any other individual consider as the boundary between art and pornography would have zero bearing on your friend's situation.



I think saying that art and pornography exist on the same dimension is not correct.

There is art and some of it uses the attraction and tension of sexual desires to produce feelings in the viewer.  The more uncomfortably close these feelings get to the 'edge' for that viewer, the more successful the art is seen to be at arousing emotion and pushing boundaries.
And there is pornography which is aimed only at exciting the sexual interest of the viewer - and the art in it is not the primary intent but is useful to make the pornography more enjoyable by diffusing some of the less visually attractive aspects of what is being seen.  

It is where these two arcs intersect that is arguable.

When there is something that is damaging to the individuals involved, then the state has a compelling interest in drawing a line..

When the individuals involved are too young or are otherwise incapable to chose to be involved or not, then the state has a duty to protect them and must draw a line that may be aimed at pornography but also intersects that of art because the duty of care is to the subject and not the intent of the artist. 

So. while an adult can chose to be branded for art's sake, you can't torture either rabbits or children and call it art because the state has a duty of care to both.

In the case of child porn or art, the damage is so important that the mere fact of possessing these materials encourages the creation and the damage. 
This is a similar concept to the banning of the sale and export of ivory and the ownership of protected exotic species.

In regards to one's personal feelings.
In the movie, 'the African Queen', Humphrey Bogart attempts to explain away a vice by saying that it is only human nature.  Katherine Hepburn replies, "'Human nature is something we were put on Earth to rise above."


----------



## dewey (Dec 22, 2012)

I agree that from the criminal aspect of this it's all about intent.  I personally think the damning part is where he purchased a subscription.  I'm sorry but in my opinion that's pretty awful if the subscription was for nude images of children.  The argument over legality of nude children being photographed is something, but the subscription part makes it a crime in my opinion.

Now on the other hand was it a site that offered 98% legal images and it just happened to have a section with children?  That _might_ be a plausible situation someone could end up in, but I can't imagine the feds showing up unless they had evidence that ip x downloaded x and did it x number of times.


----------



## skieur (Dec 24, 2012)

I would venture to say that the line for most juries would be this:  The average shot of a naked child running through a sprinkler, playing in the bath tub, riding on a toy rocking horse would probably not be a legal problem.  A studio shot with even the "suggestion" "symbolism" etc. in pose or background of anything sexual would be considered pornography.  This would probably be considered reasonable "community standards" as  in law.

skieur


----------



## KmH (Dec 24, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > From a legal perspective, what I or any other individual consider as the boundary between art and pornography would have zero bearing on your friend's situation.
> ...


Who said, "art and pornography exist on the same dimension"?

I sure didn't. Which is why I wonder why it is you posted that quote from my earlier post?


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 24, 2012)

KmH said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...




The implication of your saying there is a boundary between art and pornography is that they fall along some common plane and can thus be separated by a boundary, so it would be you who said that.


----------



## Buckster (Dec 24, 2012)

KmH said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...


Larry Flynt?


----------



## Mully (Dec 24, 2012)

^^^^^^^ Very funny!


----------

