Is it child pornography if the child has become an adult?

[petemillis]

Lannie, there have been problems with police "research" into child pornography. It's the same ol' thing of what differentiates a "bona fide researcher" from someone who is just inquisitive and then differentiate each of these from someone who is a pervert? Similarly, what really differentiates people like Goldin, a "bona fide, well respected artist" from a photographer who is a "budding artist" or enthusiast - and then how are these differentiated from someone who is producing indecent images of kids for satisfying perversions?

 

The picture that has been bandied around of Klara and Edda has been airbrushed for the sake of modesty - I don't know how that would appear in the eyes of the law, but it's certainly no different from how it would be depicted in the papers.

[sitemistic]

And, in another thread in the Street photography forum here, a man taking photos in a

farmers market was told to stop taking pictures of a pumpkin the owner of the stall had for

sale. I guess the pumpkin was being exploited, had no way of giving consent, and the owner

was simply protecting its rights.

<p>The illogical conclusion of censorship.

[petemillis]

Jim, that's nothing to do with censorship - it's the pumpkin owner exercising his rights to prevent exploitation of his pumpkin, or its image thereof.

 

I think though, that the rights and welfare of a child are more important than those of a pumpkin.

 

vic?tim (vktm)

n.

1. One who is harmed or killed by another: a victim of a mugging.

2. A living creature slain and offered as a sacrifice during a religious rite.

3. One who is harmed by or made to suffer from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition: victims of war.

4. A person who suffers injury, loss, or death as a result of a voluntary undertaking: You are a victim of your own scheming.

5. A person who is tricked, swindled, or taken advantage of: the victim of a cruel hoax.

 

QUESTIONS - in photographs like "Klara and Edda Belly Dancing" are the children taken advantage of in the name of "art"? Might they suffer in any way?

 

 

Noun 1. victimisation - an act that exploits or victimizes someone (treats them unfairly); "capitalistic exploitation of the working class"; "paying Blacks less and charging them more is a form of victimization"

 

QUESTIONS - in photographs like "Klara and Edda Belly Dancing", are the children exploited or treated unfairly in the name of "art"?

 

Actually, whose children are they? Has the family been exploited in any way by the "artist"?

[mrstubbs]

It takes little more than moronic understanding to accept the child does not give consent nor could possibly be argued to have given legitimate consent in any situation regards being photographed. It is therefore up to the photographer to not take advantage of that situation. Unfortunately not all photographers come with an understanding equal under all circumstances. More unfortunately there are predators who will hide among the less than adequately understanding image takers, claiming ignorance and pretending stupidity.

 

The original posters question seems to fall in this category: "Is it child pornography if the child has become an adult?"

 

The question seems more to be based on...what can we get away with?

 

While we may still be ignorant of the result on our children of attitudes prevailing today, we have no excuse but to accept the fault in issues where we have previously learned and have erred.

 

If you are in doubt...ask yourself if you would accept your child being used in a suggested fashion...if you agree it is acceptable...then go back to your original doubt...and deal with the issue at its base. Our obligation is to our children.

 

For those who enjoy throwing in those "But If" situations...if you know the question..you probably know the answer.

[beeman458]

"Thomas, do you believe in both capital punishment and "turning the other cheek"? Just wondering."

 

I believe that every time one takes a caged life in support of the law, it takes a nick out of civilized existence. I also don't see capital punishment as a deterrent for in the simple, it's punishment. Capital punishment addresses the willful and intentional planned taking of a life, not the accidental. I see life in prison, without chance of parole, to be a far more serious punishment then any form of capital punishment. I also believe that if some dumb-ass wants to rob a bank or liquor store, killing folks in the process of acting out this overt, planned event, then being shot themselves, is a reasonable (rational response) expectation; capital punishment.

 

As to turning the other cheek, one would go mad if they didn't daily, many, many times a day, turn the other cheek.

 

"Lots of people do, in any case. The human capacity for rationalization amazes me, although I don't why it should after so many years."

 

Smiling as I read your above; unbeknownst to you, this amazement you're experiencing, is a two-way street. ;-)

[pnital]

Pete, thanks for the definition of victimisation.

 

There are some more questions to be asked. Is the parents concent, to use their child as a model for nude photography is valid and moral?

 

I don't think so! as it is not a father's right to rape his daughter or parents to abuse their children.I think that the role of parents is to protect their children till they can do it thenmselves and decide for themselves.

 

NG did a lot of money selling that photo, I'm sure not only to Elton.What happens if the child photographed in that pose, as a thinking adult, does not want to be a public "art model" of this kind, what can she do? sue NG? ,that will have all the money resources to defend herself, with the best of lawyers and plead that the law of obsolete is valid...?

[sitemistic]

"I think that the role of parents is to protect their children till they can do it thenmselves

and decide for themselves."

 

<p>Ah, but there's the rub. In most states it is legal for parents to sign papers to allow

their teenage children to marry. Anyone of the opposite sex of any age. In effect, the

parent has given legal consent for the teen to have sex with, perhaps, an adult (if they are

marrying an adult). If a parent giving consent for a photographer to take photos of their

children naked is grevious, isn't giving consent to what would otherwise be statutory rape

even more grievous?

<p>Parents also have the right to make life and death medical decisions for their kids,

decisions that, in many cases, will effect the rest of the child's life.

<p>I guess, then, that we need more laws dealing with each specific situation in which a

parent might find themselves so we can be certain social values are maintained?

[petemillis]

What kind of parent would sign a paper giving consent for their 14 year old daughter to marry? I know it goes on - arranged marriages and all that, parents in certain US states signing papers so their 14 year old daughter can marry some 40 year old bloke - but is that right? Of course not. Is it any more grievous than consenting for the child to appear in "indecent"? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, maybe they are both equally grievous - I personally think they're both the lowest of the low when it comes to the welfare of children, and clearly not in the best interests of the child. Is it not parental responsibility to act in the best interests of their children? And is it not the children's right to expect their parents to be acting in their best interests? Children need to be able to trust that their parents will act in their best interest, and clearly giving consent for certain things as have been discussed here, is breaching that trust.

 

Jim, you mention life and death medical decisions that may effect the rest of the child's life - straw man - is it not the case such decisions are USUALLY made in the best interests of the child? Maybe something goes wrong and things don't turn out right, but that's a risk of any life and death medical decision. The fact is, that such decisions are generally made in the best interests of the child.

 

Maybe the parents of "Klara and Edda" thought that by allowing Goldin to publish this picture that they were acting in the best interests of their young kids.....hmmm....

[petemillis]

Jim: "I guess, then, that we need more laws dealing with each specific situation in which a parent might find themselves so we can be certain social values are maintained?"

 

No I don't think so. I'm not sure of the situation in the US, but here in the UK I think a parent giving consent for an underage child to appear in a photo like Goldin's would likely be considered as "neglect". There are already reasonable laws in place concerning parental responsibility. And I think it is quite clear that making an informed medical decision and giving consent for an operation that is believed to be in the best interest of the child is far far removed from consenting to what has been discussed here.

 

Emre - back to your initial question....I believe you are asking would this Goldin picture, for example, be acceptable if it were published at a time when the naked girl had reached the age of 18 (age of consent) and given her consent for it to be published? I don't believe it would be. For the simple reason that the image is a depiction of a naked child that could be considered as "indecent". The fact that the girl when she reaches 18 might give consent for it to be published does not change what the image is - it is still an "indecent" image of a naked child. The only thing that would change that would be if, at the time the girl reaches 18, the law has become so unprotective of children that it no longer considers such photos to be indecent or inappropriate.

[emre]

Or maybe they thought it was harmless.

[petemillis]

Emre, true - maybe they thought it was harmless. I don't know what the law is where you are, but over here I'm not sure how well "ignorance of the law" works as a defence. I don't think it works that well.

[mike dixon]

Pete, throughout your responses, I see you defining "moral" and "immoral," "right" and "wrong" based on your own personal views which are based on what you consider the appropriate social norms. Problem is, your social norms aren't the norms everywhere, and what you consider immoral or harmful to a child's welfare might not raise an eyebrow in other cultures.

 

Here in Korea, public bathhouses are quite popular. While the sexes are segregated, if young children are coming with only one parent of the opposite sex, then the kids go with that parent into the bathhouse. It's not terribly unusual to see girls the age of the kids in Goldin's photo in the men's side of the bathhouse (or, conversely, young boys that age in the women's side). No one is shocked or offended; the kids aren't traumatized. It's also quite common to see naked kids changing clothes at the beach. Or to have boys (grade school to high school) eager to share the open shower room with their adult teachers. The paranoia about pedophilia simply isn't common here.

 

I showed the Goldin image to my (Korean) girlfriend, without a prior explanation about the controversy, and asked what she thought of it. She didn't see anything shocking about it. When I explained that it had been seized from a British art gallery for potentially being child pornography, then she was shocked.

 

There are plenty of people in this world who would find the debate in this thread about such images being pornography or exploiting or damaging the children as rather odd.

[pnital]

I don't know the laws in the States, and if it is acceptable that parents give concent to that kind of marriage, is it for the best interest of a 14 years old child to marry a 40 years old man? of course not.

 

In my country there is a law against that kind of marriage, till the age of 18. There is also a concel of professionals ,for the welfare of the child, that deals (between other subjects) with execptions, and the welfare of the child is the leading decision taken.

 

Life and death or other medical grave problems are done with physicians, psychologists, and even with the court, and the welfare of the child is again the leading decision. Parents that abuse their children , the children are taken out in order to save their life.

 

This kind of NG photo published in the papers, as an art work, was not passing as such, and was thought of as abuse and the right measures for the child were than taken .

[petemillis]

Mike, it is the same here in the UK with changing facilities at swimming pools and health clubs. I often have son and daughter with me in mens changing room if I'm in charge, and my wife does if she's in charge. No problem with that at all. But the health club we went to has some stupid rule now where kids over 7 have to go into the changing room for their sex, accompnaied by a "chaperone" supplied by the club if necessary! Bizarre!!

[Norma Desmond]

Precisely the point, Pete. One man's "Bizarre!!" is another man's protecting the children.

[beauh44]

<I>last night married up with some imported wine...Things I can't do today, cheat on my taxes, make porn, do drugs,</i><P>

 

Alcohol is a drug - one that was prohibited and quite illegal in the US at one time and is still illegal in many societies. The Boston Tea Party was a tax revolt and beyond simple "cheating", yet we in the US hold those who did it in high esteem. (They were considered "terrorists" by the British Crown at the time) Almost any nude image will be considered "porn" by someone, somewhere.<P>

 

If someone <I>paints</i> realistic "pornographic" images of a child... is that a crime?<P>

 

Many of these issues discussed are relevent to the society and the times. There are no absolutes in some cases.

[beeman458]

"There are no absolutes in some cases."

 

Has nothing to do with "absolutes" as it has to do with what a society at large wants; codification of morality.

 

If one doesn't like it, as a mature thinking individual, they'll find that there are four choices; live with it, contact their representative (the democratic way) and have the law changed, move to another country that allows for a certain behavior and embrace their way of life or kill themselves; choices.

 

Adult behavior deals with it, children whine and complain how they don't like something, stomp their feet and cry about how unfair life is.

[Norma Desmond]

Thomas--

 

Of course, it has to do with absolutes.

 

When John Wilson said "That harming a child in any way is evil is a universally held belief,"

I responded by saying that that belief, like the commandment not to kill, was not absolute.

You responded by suggesting viewing the commandment in a certain context, implying

that the commandment was, in fact, absolute.

 

The important thing, though, is how that relates to this discussion.

 

"Codification of morality" is done not only by writing laws but by enforcing them. The law

this country follows is not set in stone. The law is fluid and, to be enforced, is dependent

on prosecutors' and judges' interpretations and actions and jury's verdicts.

 

There is no specific law that says Nan Goldin, for example, may not photograph children in

such and such a position in such and such a state of undress. The law has to be applied. It

has to be applied by a society whose morality will vary depending on context, place, time,

and many other things.

 

Whether a prosecutor will CHOOSE to take up a case, whether a jury will CHOOSE to

convict someone like Nan Goldin will all be relative to the prevailing morality of the time

and place.

 

Beau is right and it's a key element in most moral and legal reasoning. There are no

absolutes. American society, particular under the current simple-minded administration, is

being led through fear into assuming that there are absolute rights and wrongs, that the

world boils down to black and white, us versus them. It doesn't.

 

Codification of morality and what a society at large wants are all well and good terms but

they are, of course, misleading if read as knowable quantities.

 

Your four choices are too simple and too limited. The law doesn't always need to be

changed if it's not working. Society's understanding of the law and the issues involved may

need changing. Child pornography laws may stand, but a discerning populace will

hopefully be able to understand the difference between what shocks them and what

should be banned, what they don't like and what harms someone.

 

The matter at hand is child pornography. Changing laws, contacting representatives,

moving to other countries, and killing oneself will not have much effect on the matter.

Educating society, doing some research into the actual causal relationship between porn

and crimes, getting society over its repressive approach to nudity, understanding that

crimes against children need to be dealt with in a deep and meaningful fashion instead of

with knee-jerk and quick moral pronouncements will make the difference here.

 

Capital punishment is a red herring because dealing effectively with heinous criminals is

so difficult and complicated and true crime prevention is so evasive but it's easy for those

in charge and for all of us to avoid all the hard work and make the public debate to hang

or not to hang. Focusing on child pornography and any absolutes about it is a similar red

herring. It does little to serve our children. It just soothes our collective guilt at often

being impotent to protect them.

[mvisionphotography]

Mike, I lived in Japan for three years. I have been in those bath houses. I lived in fact in Japan when I was litte.

 

I know exactly what you are talking about. BUT those images are not permanent, walking around naked. It is natural. We are talking about living breathing naked kids sitting next to us not pictures of them staring at us in our hands.

 

Because my daughter babysits the next door neighbors kids and gives them baths and see's them naked does not make me worry.

 

IT would make me worry for her to see that PICTURE. Do you understand that difference.

 

My daughter has been in a BATHHOUSE with other NAKED girls her age. That did not bug me. BUT, you didn't see me there with a camera.

 

Let me explain this in simple terms. Crotch shot like a penthouse magazine on a little girl less than six years old so some man or woman can lust after it in some perverted way is not MORAL (my opinion). NOT art! AND a bad picture too! Too much yellow in it. arghhhh

 

Ok, is that simple enough for you guys! I don't think that we need a picture like that out there for ANYONE to see.

 

So, guys lets not get into the cultural thing. It was in bad taste and YES I think she did it for a bit of a "can I get away with it" move. See how far she can go.

 

Ok, sorry, I can get a little mad if you compare it to walking around naked with people and then putting naked young girls up in a pose like that. A picture is worth a THOUSAND words. What words do you hear that picture speak? (sigh)

 

Just my thoughts. ~ micki

[Norma Desmond]

Micki, Micki, Micki--

<p><p>

<i>". . . so some man or woman can lust after it in some perverted way is not

MORAL."</i>

<p><p>

In my mind, you're confusing two things. There's what Nan Goldin has done. And then

there's what MAY BE some reactions by some sick people. The pervs are reacting, using

Nan's photo in a certain way. Nan's photo didn't CAUSE their reactions. Second, luckily,

lusting is not an action and is not a crime. Harming is. Even Jimmy Carter recognized the

difference.

<p><p>

More importantly though. You know I love your work and style and I actually think if you

looked carefully at Nan's work, you'd see similarities to your own, in style (which you're

now criticizing), not content. I'm not sure you're seeing terribly clearly if you can make a

statement like . . .

<p><p>

"NOT art! AND a bad picture too! Too much yellow in it. arghhhh"

<p><p>

. . . given that you have created some unusually color-influenced photos of your own . . .

<p><p>

for instance, <a href=" http://www.photo.net/photo/6247144">THIS</a>

and <a href=" http://www.photo.net/photo/5642311">THIS</a>.

[mike dixon]

Micki, stating your views in the most-patronizing tone you can muster doesn't actually make your viewpoint the <b>correct</b> one. Why should I believe that your perspective is more valid than my girlfriend's perspective? Or my perspective?<P>

 

As for what I "hear that picture speak," I see two kids, entirely unashamed, engrossed in their play. To me, the photo is very-specifically about innocence. Your inability to see anything beyond a Penthouse-style crotch shot doesn't mean that everyone else shares that limited view.

[beeman458]

"You responded by suggesting viewing the commandment in a certain context, implying that the commandment was, in fact, absolute."

 

Never did what you suggest in your above as I corrected the misunderstanding of what folks "think" the commandment is about. It's very clear, the Commandment refers to the "unlawful" taking of life but many like to twist this Commandment to suit their agenda.

 

"It doesn't."

 

In the final, it does.

 

"Your four choices are too simple and too limited."

 

Intentionally so as life is real simple but many, for their benefit, like to obfuscate as this obfuscation serves their purposes.

 

"Child pornography laws may stand, but a discerning populace will hopefully be able to understand the difference between what shocks them and what should be banned, what they don't like and what harms someone."

 

Considering what's being displayed, daily, on the news, pretty much right up there with zero of that happening.

 

"Educating society, doing some research into the actual causal relationship between porn and crimes, getting society over its repressive approach to nudity, understanding that crimes against children need to be dealt with in a deep and meaningful fashion instead of with knee-jerk and quick moral pronouncements will make the difference here."

 

Educating society? To what, your POV?

 

"...need to be dealt with in a deep and meaningful fashion instead of with knee-jerk and quick moral pronouncements..."

 

Yeah! More talk. The poor misunderstood perv. Got it. LOL

 

"Capital punishment is a red herring because dealing effectively with heinous criminals is so difficult and complicated and true crime prevention is so evasive..."

 

Where's capital punishment come into the conversation? There's nothing difficult about dealing with heinous criminals, nor is it complicated. "...true crime prevention..."? As opposed to what, just sitting around and talking about it or providing therapy for the whack jobs so they can feel good about themselves?

 

"It just soothes our collective guilt at often being impotent to protect them."

 

Society (do good, feel good courts) won't allow us to protect our children because the bad person's just a misunderstood victim also. There's no guilt; anger yes, guilt no.

[mvisionphotography]

Fred, exactly room for opinon, my opion on how I feel about the picture the color and the why the picture makes me feel got your attention didn't it. Why did THAT get your attention more than anything else I have said? hmmm

 

Why can't I have THAT opinion? I personally still thnk the picture is WAY wrong and still think again in my opinion the picture is bad, ut I put in the feeling that the picture is way over what her norm is too, not that I really have studied her work, but truthfully not even worthy of 3's here on pn if the little girl had her underwear on.

 

Once I make a statement like that people take notice (not that I'm an expert, so again it is my opinion). OHHH she said something bad about the picture (not the picture and the naked girl) but the picture itself. oh no. Sorry Fred, not being condesending it is just that we are forgetting that the picture is MADE to look like it is kind of "trailor trashy" ok. I'm calling a spade a spade here now. I am have decided to stop playing around the bush a bit.

 

And for the record on my pictures they are painted and saturated. Done in photoshop some. I expect them to be overdone. Yes, on purpose and yes, my style. True, not far off from here in ways. But not photograhy.

 

And as far as you Mike I told you straight up. My opinion. Didn't say I was right. Never once have I said I was right. Just stating my viewpoint and backing up that I have been there and maybe sat in your shoes too. I actually agree with you on everything you said except for the actual picture.

 

I also don't know how to fix this, make it better, or even start a support group to even help those that have been hurt by those that have fallen into a trap or been trapped by the "fallen people of the FORUM that will never end".

 

Mike, any conversation here is welcome. I actually welcomed what you had to say and have been lightly trying to say what I have been saying. I just finally said what I said in plain english. Sorry it looked like it was at your expense.

 

I just have also been where you have been.

 

I can't justify what anyone will feel nor know how they will feel when they will look at any nude or any piece of fruit or tree or silly animals out in the wild doing who knows what. No clue what goes on in any mans/womans mind.

 

What one commercial can do to one person one piece of art does nothing to. Again, I have no clue?

 

I just don't think THAT picture is approriate and NO I don't think when she turns 18 she should be able to pass it around going look here you can have it and show it on tv either. It would still be child pornography. The answer to the forum question still.

 

~ micki

[johnw436]

SIDEBAR

 

This might be the longest thread I have ever seen. I also want to thank everyone for maintaining a thoughtful, even if sometimes heated, debate.

 

I know perfectly well how I feel about things based on many years of coming to those conclusions. It is a good thing to be challenged on those views from time to time. Whether or not I change my mind or simply become reinforced in my current opinions, it is only in having my opinions challenged that they stand up to the test or not. To steal a line from a song, "You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything."

 

Good arguments all around. Great thread.

[johnw436]

Fred, I wanted to address something you asked me. Your question was a very good one.

 

"What about the toddlers who were mere collateral damage in the Iraq war bombings?"

 

Caveat: The Iraq war is without a doubt the most precision war ever carried out. Every attempt possible has been made to eliminate unnecessary loss of life. Effectively, the US and Great Britain have carried out this war in velvet gloves with both hands tied behind their backs. At no other time in history has any force taken so much care in avoiding needless death and destruction by limiting themselves to the point of dancing with self-inflicted failure rather than bringing all available force to bear. I would argue against this kind of limited warfare. It has given too many people the insane idea that war is antiseptic and manageble. It has reduced the meaning of war to police action. Conversely, war as all out devastation where civilizations are alterred gives any rational person pause when considering war as a viable solution to the problem at hand. Therefore, horrible wars breed less wars. I apologize for the cruelty of that statement, but I stand behind it.

 

Back to your question to me: What about the children in Iraq? Have they been killed as collateral damage?

 

You are correct, of course. My answer may cause some people more grief than I already have, and may cause others to think me daft, but here goes:

 

War is evil in every way. War is awful and terrible and should be avoided whenever possible. That does not mean that war is unnecessary.

 

General Robert E. Lee, for those following this thread who are not Americans, was the commanding General of the Confederate States (the South) during the American Civil War. While watching the thousands upon thousands of men maneuvering and dying in the valley below, he turned to his second in command and said, "It is a good thing war is so terrible - lest we grow too fond of it."

 

Nobody who has ever seen war wants to be a part of another one. That is the point General Lee was making. On a personal level, no good comes from the dying and devastation. Yes, innocents, children among them, get killed in horrible ways. In the heat of insanity that is war, a soldier must be good at killing without becoming a wanton killer. No small feat.

 

Is the death of innocent civilians, children among them, evil? Yes. In every way. Once war is committed to, victory is the goal. It is too late then to worry about the evil that will be caused. That is the debate which should be won before war has been accepted as the solution.

 

It is a good thing war is so terrible, lest we become too fond of it.