Censorship-Jock Sturges comes to Photo.net

<p>Most books on the subject of recent photographic history will

mention <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?

user_id=2129730&include=all"><b>Jock

Sturges.</b></a> Controversial yet highly exhibited and published

(you will

find 8 of his books listed on Amazon.com) he recently joined PN.

An opportunity

for us all to share the knowledge and expertise of an

internationally renowned

artist? Not really. He lasted less than a month before being asked

to remove

his images.</p>

<p>The<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?

user_id=2129730&include=all">

thread beneath his now missing portfolio</a> makes fascinating

reading. Whilst

appreciating the difficult position Sturges's membership creates

for the administrators

I understand that in the USA he has Congressional clearance to

exhibit his works

in public and private galleries and so I am left wondering if a

mechanism cannot

be created to allow him to show his works on PN. It seems a

spectactular own

goal to lose the opportunity. A site called photo.net on which an

internationally

famous photographer is not allowed to exhibit? It's as if a

pulitzer prize winner

was turned away from a local library book club.</p>

<p>This absurdity presents an opportunity to examine the wider

issues of censorship

on PN and to get a full understanding of just what is and is not

permissable.

</p>

<p> </p>

To be quite honest I am not familar with Jock Sturges or his work. I did read Brian's email to Jock asking him to either remove the images in question or simply state that the nude models were above the age of 18. I don't see how that is an unreasonable request. Since photo . net is based in the U.S. it must adbide by U.S. law. If you have seen the news lately here in the U.S., you would know that child porn is a major issue that authorities are really cracking down on. I'm not saying that simply displaying nude images of a under age person is child porn, however, I'm sure some people do, including law makers and law enforcement. Now if a person wants to take nude photos of someone under age with the parent's permission, that's their prerogative. Once those images become public, it changes everything. Brian has a responsibility to this site and to the laws of the U.S.. I'm sure having photos from a well known photographer displayed on this site is not worth the risk of a prison sentence.

Apparently the esteemed Mr. Sturges forgot to read the website's terms of use before he posted photos <i>"In the case of images involving nudity, all the models must be over the age of eighteen at the time of the photo, including any individuals in the images who might not be nude themselves."</i></p>

<p>As to the legality of nude photos, I am no lawyer but I would not want to gamble on any differences between federal law and the fairly strict state laws of Massachusetts where Photo.net is located. http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-29a.htm</p>

<p>As a business enterprise the owners of Photo.net have a right to decide what they wish to publish. There is no issue of censorship or protected free speech.</p>

Speaking only for myself, I'd assume that photo.net does not wish to take on 1st ammendment crusades and does not want to set itself up as a target.

 

The rules concening nudity here are very clear. No models under 18.

 

I don't think any of Surges' work that I've seen (i.e. that published in books which are available in the US) is pornographic even if some of his subjects are under the age of 18. However this is the USA and you'd have to be brain damaged, have a pressing personal interest or have a very large amount of money for legal fees if you wanted to test this in court. Photo.net would not seem to qualify on any of those three grounds.

 

Jock Sturges ended up fighting federal charges for 4 years. He's shown that he's not averse to taking and pubishing images which make him the target of federal authorities. Photo.net would be crazy to get dragged into such issues.

Interesting episode. Thanks for posting it.

I found many internet articles about Barnes & Noble bookstores being indicted in several states including Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia for selling one of Jock Sturges books. That may have been in 1988.

 

Barnes and Noble is a big company with more high priced lawyers than OJ Simpson. Reasonable doubt is expensive and most of use would either be bankrupt, in jail, or both.

Lannie Kelly said it best: <i> <b> "Freedom of expression belongs to the person who exercises it, but transferring the liabilities to others is not really all that thoughtful or courageous." </i> </b>

Well I'm no lawyer either but this man's work is widely available in the public domain. As I say, there are several books available from Amazon-put out there by highly reputable publishing companies. I am not in the US so know nothing about the current climate regarding child pornography but, as far as I am aware, no one is suggesting Sturges work IS pornographic or illegal. Has anyone suggested the showing of his works on Photo.net would in any way be illegal? My understanding is that Sturges, along with Sally Mann and various other photographers who realise their works court certain dangers, have obtained legal clearances before displaying them.

<i> "as far as I am aware, no one is suggesting Sturges work IS pornographic or illegal." </i>

<br>

<br>

I would beg to differ. I will not make a judgement considering I have never seen his work, however, if you simply google his name, more often than not, you will read about his controversial photos regarded as child porn. One article even mentions a FBI investigation. <i> "Not surprisingly, Sturges has faced legal threats throughout his career. In April 1990, FBI agents raided his studio, confiscated his equipment and work, and charged him with child pornography." </i> <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/guide-to-links-on-photonet.html" >http://www.dazereader.com/jocksturges.htm</a>

On Friday, I asked Jock to remove the images in his portfolio that involved nude models under the age of eighteen. These are not allowed under the Terms of Use of the site. Jock said in an email to me that he understood the need of the site for its rules, but that he didn't wish to "censor himself". Accordingly, he has decided to remove all images in his portfolio except one. I respect his decision and I regret that photo.net cannot host his portfolio.

 

Jock Sturges is a photographer of considerable reputation. His images are featured in many books, as well as museum and gallery collections. Through his books and exhibitions, Jock has been able to remind some people that nude images of children must not automatically be classified as pornography. In the United States, that is a very difficult thing to do. I think he has done so with delicacy and restraint, although not without some considerable cost to himself.

 

But on a public web site where anyone can upload images without prior review, there are too many who would claim to be pulling up next to Jock Sturges, but who would actually be charging past Jock, past any boundary of decency, and into the territory of child pornography. The site cannot permit that to happen, or to create even a hint of allowing it or condoning it. If all the portfolios on photo.net were curated onto the site, I might risk it (I'm not sure), but not when anyone can upload anything and we have to find it in order to remove it. I shudder to think of photo.net becoming a destination for people with a sick interest in these type of images.

 

We have already seen what might unfold by looking at what happens on the site with images of adult nudes. There are many impressive portfolios of artistic nudes on this site. But we also must regularly delete pornographic images. Some people can't tell the difference. Others think that because photo.net permits images of nudes, that it must be a porn site. Others realize that the site doesn't permit pornography but upload it anyway because they are trolls trying to make trouble or trying to make a point about "censorship". And in between the images that most of our audience would agree are artistic and those that almost everyone would agree are pornography, there is a long slippery slope where there is perpetual disagreement. For the site, the issue is basically a no-win. There are many images in the boundary zone, where we will be criticized if we delete them, and criticized if we don't. In any case, the decision was made long ago that images of adult nudes are an artistic and photographic tradition and that photo.net would be open to them and that we would live with the consequences of having nudes on the site. Even so, it creates a lot of work and it remains an area of constant dispute.

 

But we are not going to step anywhere near a similar slippery slope with images of child nudity, and there is not going to be any exploration on this site as to where the boundaries are with images of child nudes. This is an American site, and there are too many people in the United States for whom any nude image of a child is beyond the pale for us to be open in any way to child nudity. Some of those people are prepared to back up their views with subpoenas, federal indictments, felony convictions and prison terms. A debate where some of the participants are basically anonymous people on the Internet typing on their computers at home decrying censorship, and some of the people in the debate might end up going to jail if they misstep or misjudge -- that is not a debate we are going to have.

 

That is why we have in the photo.net Terms of Use the requirement that the subjects in images involving nudity must be over the age of eighteen. Any image involving nudity where the subjects are between 4 years and 18 years old is simply not allowed on the site. When we find such images they will be removed, without any further consideration of whether they are pornographic, or artistic.

 

I think Jock's portfolio was wonderful. I am more relieved than I can say that he has removed it.

While I agree with the thrust of what you are saying, Darrell, the whims and caprices of prosecutors who play to the lowest common denominator must be taken into consideration. They are dangerous people, and these are dangerous times. I am a virtual absolutist on First Amendment questions, and I believe that the time of danger is exactly the time to show that one means what one says. Indeed, I have gotten into a lot of trouble over what I have said and written over the last few decades.

 

One thing that I never do, however, is to ask others to take the hit for me when I decide to go out on a limb. If I say it and it gets me into trouble, then I am indeed the one who has chosen to take that risk. I do not believe in laying a guilt trip on those who do not share my passion or cause of the moment. They have their own battles to fight.

 

--Lannie

Assuming, as some have said up there, that his work is widely available via other sources, would seem to make it much less of an issue if it was also on photo.net.

Sturges' images may be hosted on servers which are located outside the United States; being able to see the images other places on the internet is not relevant to photo.net's potential legal risks for having them hosted here.

A website treading close to the line would have to depend on acontributor's good judgement in the case of the uploading of images which are not screened by the website before they are posted.

 

This link - http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2002-04-03/arts_visualarts.html - might suggest that in this case it's far better to err on the side of caution if a website wants to avoid problems.

Does anyone have actual proof that the person claiming to be "Jock Sturges" actually is, in the real world, who he or she claimed to be? I'm gonna try to contact him tomorrow and find out.

 

It just seems highly unlikely to me that as busy as the real Jock Sturges is that he'd have time to spend here.

I respect Sturges' work, but I will repeat here what I said elsewhere: DON'T EXPECT OR DEMAND THAT BRIAN SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOR JOCK.

 

When one speaks out or otherwise expresses oneself, then one incurs certain risks. It is far better to accept those risks than to tell others that they should take those risks along with oneself. Photo.net is not an abstract legal fiction. It is actual persons making decisions for which they could be legally accountable.

 

Speaking out and publishing unpopular ideas are wonderful things. Sturges has published his books. He has that right. He has fought battles. I support him in those battles, but he has no right to expect Photo.net and its staff to fight his particular battles for him.

 

One cannot fight every battle, and one certainly cannot fight all of everyone else's battles. Sturges has chosen his path. I affirm and respect his courage and his tenacity, but I stop short of condemning those who have their own battles to fight.

 

--Lannie

Darrell M.

 

Thank you for posting this item and starting this thread.

 

John (Crosley)

Maybe old Jock can just deposit some CD notes, his title to his car and house, to Photo.net in case Photo.net gets sued for underage porn. It is real easy to ask the other chap to be the fall guy. This is like asking a copy shop to do illegal work, folks dont have the balls to put part of their own hide on the line if caught, because they are weak or fools. Whine all you want, a business has the right to protect itself from reckless dumb immature folks. WHINING was once considered foolish and childish, a sign of lack of maturity. Jeepers the poor chap has some images removed that might have been illegal. How is this pouting "knowledge and expertise"; it seams more like a 2 year olds whine.

It is wise of Photo.net's censors to ask for the proof of age of nude adolescent looking subjects; especially to somebody who was sort of charged by the FBI of child pornography in 1990. The case was thrown out. The porn sites ask for ages. Barnes & Noble got in hot water over the kiddie porn issue of his work too.

Ellis, I believe it was Jock Sturges and not an imposter. He paid for a subscription with a credit card issued to that name.

I think a lot of people are missing the point. The issue isn't really whether photo.net should support Jock Sturges and how risky that would be.

 

The issue is that photo.net has a rule prohibiting the uploading of images involving child nudity, a rule which was contravened by some of the images in Jock's portfolio, apparently. We informed him of the rule and asked him to remove the images that violated it, and he decided to remove all the images except one. Should we have this rule or should we make an exception for Jock Sturges or other famous photographers?

 

I don't think we should make exceptions to our rules for photographers who are famous. Most people will not read our Terms of Use; they will form their idea of what is acceptable on the site by what they see on the site. I don't think we can practically have one set of rules for "famous" photographers and a different set of rules for everybody else. If we tried it, we would constantly be having to explain to people that they aren't allowed to upload certain types of content even though they see that type of content in the portfolios of famous photographers on the site. Besides, people wouldn't think that it was fair for there to be one set of rules for famous photogaphers and another set of rules for them. They would be right. So if we have a rule about acceptable content, it should apply to everybody, celebrated photographer or beginner.

 

As for whether we should have the rule against child nudity at all, I recognize that not all child nudity is pornography. One only has to look at Jock's works to see this. But the United States is a country where the majority of people seem to think that all images involving child nudity are beyond the pale. There is no convincing most Americans that there is such a thing as an "artistic" child nude.

 

So it is very risky for us to allow people to upload images of child nudity. As Jock has experienced, we might very well find ourselves in expensive litigation, or even facing criminal charges. And I don't think things have calmed down in America since Jock faced the charges against him. On the contrary, fear of child pornography and pedophiles on the internet seems to have increased in America, and I think that makes people even less likely to countenance images involving child nudity than they were in the 1990's.

 

We would face a substantial risk even if we could guarantee that every image involving child nudity was as restrained, as sensitive -- as artistic -- as Jock Sturges' images. But we can't even do that. photo.net is a site where anybody can upload anything without prior review. There is no telling what people would upload, but if our experience with adult nudes is any guide, it would run the gamut from sublime to disgusting, with a long slippery slope in between. If having "artistic" child nudes on the site wasn't risky enough, it would be a hundred times riskier situation for child pornography to be found on the site that had been uploaded without our knowledge, and it seemed to the authorities that we had invited the images and that we condoned them.

 

Leaving aside the risk, I shudder at opening the door to some of what would be uploaded if people got the idea that photo.net was an "anything goes" place regarding child nudity, and I don't want anything to do with it. As much as I respect what I think Jock Sturges is trying to do, I would rather the site be inhospitable to Jock than leave a shred of doubt as to whether photo.net is hospitable to images that exploit children.

 

So this isn't a rule that we are going to change, and there aren't going to be any exceptions.

 

(Re-posted from discussion on Jock Sturges portfolio)

Alexis Neel AKA Patrick Henry AKA John Adams AKA John Hancock, I think it is you that missed the point. When I referenced the FBI investigation, I was merely responding to Darrell's statement: <i> "as far as I am aware, no one is suggesting Sturges work IS pornographic or illegal." </i>

<br>

<br>

Well, we know that at least some including the FBI thought his work was crossing the line. Again, I'm not going to make that judgement, but the fact of the matter is many other people have made that judgement. You have to admit that the topic of child nudity is a very controversial and heated issue. Lannie makes an excellent point. By Jock posting his images on this site, he makes this site and the owners and operators of this site liable. It would be a different issue if Jock posted his images on his own web site, but the fact is this is someone else's house and we all have to follow the house rules. I didn't read any complaints about the Terms of Use before Jock violated them so why complain now. Just because a <i> famous </i> photographer is asked to comply? Give me a break! We all have to play by the rules.

Well, this looks awful dumb after Alexis AKA John Hancock's comments are deleted.

Dear "John Hancock," no one here has convicted Jock Sturges. We all respect and admire his courage and tenacity. No one here believes that his nudes represent kiddy porn.

 

Photo.net's resources are not as great as some persons think. If it manages to steer clear of litigation, it does well.

 

Again an analogy is being drawn between a cybersite and books, on the one hand, and between real versus virtual galleries, on the other. Publishing in books and real galleries is one thing, but there are some unique problems with an open cybersite that arise by virtue of the fact that the site is an open site, that anyone can stumble into the critique forum.

 

Unless the legal ramifications of that fact are kept firmly in mind, then this whole issue is not going to make a lot of sense.

 

I think that some of the harshest and most strident critics of this decision have not even thought about the legal possibilities that could arise.

 

Jock Sturges is a wealthy man. He can create is own site and publish there. He can form his own publishing company. Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one. He could own several.

 

What he does not own is Photo.net. He didn't want to delete a very few photos and picked up his ball and left the playground.

 

Don't forget: NO ONE MADE THE MAN LEAVE. That was his choice.

 

--Lannie

I have carefully read the arguments made by the Administration and by its various critics who claim that somehow First Amendment Rights have been 'violated' in the process of its having asked Mr. Sturges to remove his images unless he vouches that his models are 'over 18' which they clearly were not. As a result, he removed them; they were in violation of the terms of service of Photo.net which every member agrees to.

 

This is NOT a constitutional case.

 

This is a matter of 'freedom' but freedoms can easily be proscribed; one can give up their maximum permissible freedoms simply by signing a paper or entering into any sort of agreement otherwise. The terms of service of PN constitute such an agreement. Mr. Sturges has violated them, was told of that, and removed all but one of his images.

 

In the process, even the Administrator, Mottersfield, of Photo.net noted that Sturges's images were artistic and were not in any way pornographic.

 

However, there is a climate of hysteria in the United States regarding the Internet and the exposition of images of nudity of those under 18 (even though sex with those as young as 16 is allowed in some states, according to a United Nations organization -- AVERT -- Nevada being one -- and somehow 18 has become a 'magic' age, denoting an age of 'majority' for revealing oneself and engaging in maximum legal sexual freedom).

 

This site has stepped on no one's First Amendment rights. They are intact. They just cannot be exercised to the maximum on this site. This is a private site, open to many member of the public, so long as they follow the rules, which are pretty darned liberal. In fact many members complain periodically about that liberality.

 

I recently parked my car across a major road, pointed my telephoto at two young girls walking and talking and snapped three of four very nice photos of them - their mothers far behind -- and with tall weeds on the background.

 

Their mothers, seeing this, were absolutely certain I was a 'child molester' though nothing could be further from the truth. Sheriffs' were called and later I was stopped; embarrassed deputies pulled me over,asked for ID, and apologized for the 'inconvenience' after I told them I 'knew why they stopped me' having seen mommas with cell phones in their hands before I drove off slowly and even called out my name and purpose to them.

 

Mine is a liberal, educated and knowledgeable community, and I have many pages of listings on Google.com and am well-known through my Photo.net work, and could refer the deputies to that (and their dispatcher may indeed have referred to that work), so the 'stop' was short and there were smiles all around, as deputies apologized for the inconvience (but there was also a 'watch commander' there, pulled in just behind the two sheriff patrol vehicles).

 

This is an era of 'Amber Alerts' and hyperawareness of child molestation -- something that always has taken place, but needlessly was concealed from the public until recently. A (long-ago) high school woman friend who 'knew all' told me of all her girlfriends who had been 'molested' and I was aghast. Nothing ever happened to the molester in any of those cases.

 

These days something does happen, and that's a good thing.

 

But sometimes events swing like a pendulum -- too far in one or another direction and this pendulum of pandemonium over 'protecting' children is also sweeping in innocent photographers -- in part because those who 'molest' children also seem to have in many cases a pathology to photograph what they do, and also to view images of such molestation.

 

So there we are, caught in the middle.

 

We are common (or uncommon in the case of Jock Sturges) photographers who have an interest in developing or even perfecting our crafts, and what we do with regard to nudity and even sexuality is easily misunderstood.

 

Few understand the high cost of litigation.

 

I met a woman the other day who practiced law 20 years ago for a Los Angeles 'silk stocking' law firm and asked her the hourly rate at the time and was told $450.00 per hour. It's probably two or three times that now.

 

Defending a criminal claim of child pornography through to the Supreme Court can eat up years and as many as ten thousand of more hours of legal time. Multiply that by up to or more than $1,000 an hour for skillfull, 'silk stocking' lawyers, capable and experienced in arguing such a case before a jury and before appeals courts -- and an appeal likely would precede a jury trial since there would be motions to dismiss which would turn on points of law that would be appealable over years as high as the U.S. Supreme Court even before a jury trial).

 

Even huge organizations buckle under such costs.

 

Photo.net is more a shoestring organization from all appearances.

 

And it is a wonderful resource for all of us.

 

While a part of me wants it to be a crusader -- to get on a white charger and defend all our rights against the hysterical who confuse us with the pedofiles and child pornographers, the realist in me recognizes that it takes an almost unlimited pocketbook to do that.

 

The decision of Photo.net in the end was a relatively easy one and done with great grace.

 

Mr. Sturges was complimented, informed of the Terms of Service, and asked to comply. He did not or could not and removed his images, perhaps as he expected. He is no stranger, it appears to controversy.

 

The Photo.net site is a stranger to controversy.

 

The huge expenses of litigation, absent some sponsor with very 'deep pockets' (who appears to be missing in this case) probably would financially sink Photo.net and deprive all us users of this great site.

 

This action of the Administration is an action that is well within its rights, and it almost is demanded under the circumstances.

 

It was the right decision under the circumstances -- no matter how much I wish it had the will and the resources to fight.

 

I endorse Mr. Mottershead's grace and his good judgment in coming to a reasoned decision in this matter, and in his explaining his decision in a reasoned way.

 

(I am unaware of previous 'banning' etc., and won't be drawn into previous discussions, arguments, etc. I DO post nude, semi-nude photos from time to time and have for a long time, although they are not the main focus of my work, and I value this site as a place for posting ALL of my work.)

 

These are perilous times for 'freedoms' of many sorts, but I believe soon the 'pendulum' may begin to turn -- another U.S. election is forthcoming, and there may well be a sea change in 'power' as well as collective official 'reason'.

 

Have patience.

 

Time can be a great rewarder.

 

John (Crosley)