Fun Stuff > CHATTER

Child Pornography or Art? Is there a line, if so where?

<< < (6/30) > >>

pwhodges:
I tend to feel that censorship of this sort tells us more about the minds of the censors than anything else.  Some years ago there was a case where a parent in the UK was taken to court for taking photos of their child in the bath - an employee at the photo lab had taken exception to them and reported them to the police.  Note that no element of public display was involved here - only the existence of the photos at all.

I have pictures of my children in the bath; playing naked in a paddling pool, wearing swimming trucks on the beach as teens (these could be cropped to be nude-from-the-waist-up pictures).

There is a form of exploitation that is clearly bad; but there is also a form of prudism which is essentially the inverse of that, and also bad in a somewhat different way.

Paul

a pack of wolves:
Paul's absolutely right. And like Anyways I'm confused about what the repercussions of a naked photograph of you as a child are as well. There's tons of me. Like a lot of small children I'd whip my clothes off all the time, particularly at the beach or somewhere like that. There's nothing sexual or exploitative about those photographs, nudity doesn't have those sexual connotations when you don't know what sex is. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out one of these pictures had been used for a piece of art at some point and the only repercussion I can think of is a slight embarrassment (and honestly I'd just think it was kind of funny). I actually find the idea of censoring an image of a naked child quite creepy, since it suggests that there's something sexual there when there isn't.

Thaes:
I find this topic rather interesting, mostly because there has been some intense discussion about the thin line between art and child pornography around here. This was mostly because the government used a gatling gun to prohibit entry into suspected child porn sites, when it should´ve been using a sniper rifle.

In any case, in my opinion (and in the opinions of some others, it seems), whether something´s child porn or not depends completely on the nature of the photo. If it merely contains a nude child in it, with nothing sexual or pornographic elements involved, then it most certainly shouldn´t be branded as child pornography. The same goes for any "photoshopped" pictures. Heck, those kind of pics might in fact lower the amount of pedophilic crimes done, since the people with such taste could relieve themselves through self stimulation, instead of having to resort to less acceptable methods.

ledhendrix:
I agree with a pack of wolves. If taking photos of nude children is really a crime then most parents around the world would have to be locked up. They are bound to show there photo's to there friends, relatives or whatever and I think that it's very unlikely that any of them are going to go and rape a prepubescent child because of it. If the picture depicts something foul happening to the child then it's probably a good idea that it doesn't get widespread. It has to be a sick and twisted mind that thinks of doing these things to children, It's not the photographers fault, or the photo's it's the person that does the damage to the child thats at fault.

 If nudity was more widely accepted in society this sort of thing wouldn't be such a big deal. People would go about there daily lives and it would be considered normal. It's only when these things are deemed unacceptable that they become desirable to some people. Suppressing something will make people want something more as they think if it's suppressed there must be something there worth having.

clockworkjames:

--- Quote from: Kid van Pervert on 23 May 2008, 17:22 ---Damn that squirrel can ski can't it.

--- End quote ---

I'm more impressed at the squirrel driving the boat.

I personally feel that children should not be photographed naked and the photographs be called art.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page