Fun Stuff > CHATTER
Child Pornography or Art? Is there a line, if so where?
MadassAlex:
I feel that exploiting children is wrong, but I don't think child pornography is necessarily wrong, because it can be created artificially.
This has the potential to become heated really badly so let me put this in really really simple terms to make sure no-one misunderstands me:
- Photographs of naked children = exploitation in a pornographic context
- Drawn or otherwise fabricated images of naked children = A-OK, because no children are harmed or expoited
If you want to debate the logistics and practicalities of this, fine, but I'm not going to touch anyone else's opinions on a moral basis and in return I would appreciate it if no-one tried to shove their personal moral code down my throat.
Ozymandias:
I was considering that myself. I mean, one aspect of censorship is "is the picture depicting a crime?" Take the following:
Case A:
A photograph of a man having sex with a naked 11 year old girl.
That's clearly a crime in progress. It's generally accepted that it should not exist because the act itself is illegal.
Case B:
A picture of a naked 11 year old girl with a man photoshopped in to be having sex with her.
The picture itself is depicting a criminal act, but no criminal act ever took place. The man is not having sex with the girl and last time I checked being a naked 11 year girl was not criminal. Under common decency, though, it is accepted as child pornography because even though the nothing illegal happened in reality, the photo, I guess, creates its own reality where it did happen and because of:
Case C:
A picture of a naked 11 year old girl.
Which is where we are here. Again, there is no crime here being committed in reality, but the idea behind censorship here is the intent of the viewer. You cannot guarantee that the viewer simply sees an 11 year old girl who happens to be naked. The viewer could commit a crime in thought, in the reality of his own mind, where he is having sex with her. Is this the level of censorship we're comfortable with? Thought crimes?
Furthermore, why is sexulaity and nudity so heavily censored in the first place? You can create an equal scenario for each case related to violence and, in fact, at most Case A (picture of reality) will be censored, if that.
BrittanyMarie:
Well, yes in other cases the news media pretty much barrage us with the after-effects of the crime, bloody floors and whatnot.
I'm not entirely sure yet where I stand on this issue, but I just wanted to point out that the majority of the photos were from the waist up, which changes this particular case quite a bit in my eyes.
michaelicious:
Are the adolescents in the pictures put in a sexual context, or are they simply nude photos?
Nudity in photography and nude photography aren't the same thing.
Link is NSFW.
Edit: After thinking about it a bit more, I definitely agree with ephemere's concern about whether or not these young people are able to understand being a part of Henson's exhibition. Even though nude photography is not meant to be sexual it is pretty difficult for it to not carry some sort of sexual connotation and it doesn't really seem likely that too many young people would fully understand the implications of that.
Tom:
--- Quote from: BrittanyMarie on 23 May 2008, 19:08 ---I'm not entirely sure yet where I stand on this issue, but I just wanted to point out that the majority of the photos were from the waist up, which changes this particular case quite a bit in my eyes.
--- End quote ---
In fact, only one image partially showed a prepubescent vagina without any major emphasis on the fact that there is vagina present.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version