I worked at a photography book store in NYC.
David Hamilton was one of the best sellers.
So were Sally Mann, Jock Sturges, Nan Goldin and Larry Clark. All who have made images of nude children in the USA.
That has nothing to do with it being legal or not as far as I know.
I think Playboy has published David Hamilton images.
If age has nothing to do with it, then why don't minors pose nude in Playboy?
This came up in another thread, but I felt it warrants it's own discussion.
The scenario is a minor, takes naked/sexual pictures of themselves, and posts it on the internet. Now my question is, are they distributing child pornography, and if so, should they be prosecuted like any other child pornographer?
Thoughts?
I don't see what that has to do with the topic...
I doubt Playboy wants the headache.
Look at the flak French Vogue is getting right now.
You wrote "they are often times too young and naive to realize the risks involved in those decisions." and this is what concerned parents who are opposed to letting teen girls have the right to decide on abortions for themselves also believe. I was just curious on how you came down on the issue.
Other people fantasizing about them? WTF.. you could use that argument if were discussing explicit images of sexual abuse too. The minor isn't literally being abused every time you look at an imagine of them being abused... Those images are just a for fantasy purposes.
What's wrong with peeping toms? What's wrong with hidden cameras in your bedroom? There is no law against pervs having a right to get off. They need their fantasies too... it's not hurting you.
There is nothing illegal about being a peeping tom. Installing a hidden camera in your bedroom is illegal because involves breaking and entering. Spying on ladies at the nude beach is perfectly legal. The state has no compelling interest if creepy guys want to get off or not. The only interest in child pornography is protecting children, which is why it is ridiculous to use it to charge them with crimes.
Talking about abortion in the thread would divert the topic... the abortion issue always does that.
I think the difference is that your examples are not supposed to be sexually arousing or explicit... Playboy and Penthouse are about sex and it's intended to sexually arouse.
I still don't think if Penthouse or Playboy published Sally Mann the images would become suddenly illegal though.
Pretty sure there are laws against peeping toms, and you don't have to break and enter to install a camera in the bedroom. I have heard about landlords doing that very thing. And some celebrity built a hotel and installed cameras in the women's bathroom. I remember hearing about that. He apparently had a toilet fetish.
This came up in another thread, but I felt it warrants it's own discussion.
The scenario is a minor, takes naked/sexual pictures of themselves, and posts it on the internet. Now my question is, are they distributing child pornography, and if so, should they be prosecuted like any other child pornographer?
Thoughts?
A person who attempts suicide (usually) has serious mental problems that need to be addressed by a psychologist to prevent them from harming themselves. A dumb teenager who takes nude pictures of themselves is just being a dumb teenager. What kind of "help" do you think the government can offer them to change that reality?
So, because they don't understand the outcomes of uploading nudie pictures of themselves, what we should do is arrest them, charge them with producing child pornography and place them on the sex offenders list for life. That'll sure learn 'em, good.
I have an additional question to add to yours:
What if the underaged is distributing naked photos of themselves to another underaged person?
Actually perhaps the law enforcement first should find out whether the child was coerced, conned, and or forced from off the camera, if so then yes prosecute.
Although if this isn't the case making a child into a felon is counter productive and will be for the child and society for many years to come, so how would this be helpful in correcting the child behavior. There is a reason why this child would do such a thing, many children engage in actions due to some other motivations or mimicking some else's actions...just IMO of course.
Installing camera's in bathroom is illegal because it violates the expectation of privacy, not because voyeurism is illegal.
It doesn't matter whether or not the owner plans to whack it to the footage or not. The state has no reason to care what people get off on, only on protecting the rights of its citizens. A minor posting their own naked picture may be foolish, but they are not infringing upon anyone's else rights.
This is a very good point as to why someone does need to get involved.
Again though, it's extremely rare that we charge a minor with a felony and the only cases I can think of is with murder. Even those who said it should be CP said they wouldn't support it following them into adulthood.
Then what is the point of CP then? The child won't know any different but what will happen is that the child will have a label and to what purpose will this serve. Perhaps grounding the child for 1 month or more(depending on age) will do more to serve in correcting the behavior than any CP, not to mention we don't have to expose a child to criminal proceedings and tying up our family and or criminal courts.Even those who said it should be CP said they wouldn't support it following them into adulthood.
This came up in another thread, but I felt it warrants it's own discussion.
The scenario is a minor, takes naked/sexual pictures of themselves, and posts it on the internet. Now my question is, are they distributing child pornography, and if so, should they be prosecuted like any other child pornographer?
Thoughts?
Why do people do this? I disagree with charging them with CP also but there is no need for the hypoerbole. Except for very rare cases a minors record does not follow them into adulthood.
Fair enough. Do you recall if you've ever given your opinion on parental consent issues for abortion. If so, would you direct me to the thread. I'm curious to see whether you, and others, believe that young girls are mature enough to have control over medical/surgical decisions for their bodies but not mature enough to take naked pictures of themselves.
Ithink the images she did in Penthouse were sex. I caught a glimpse of them on a oogle search (cropped versions).
So I was wrong.
But it lead to a good convo I hope.
I still don't think if Penthouse or Playboy published Sally Mann the images would become suddenly illegal though.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?