Not again, this time a police raid was involved

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is the Australian Government's Position (the LAW...)

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi279t.html

(it's only one page - NOT legalese...)

And it is a clear 'definition' of what constitutes child pornography

No matter what one person - or 10,000 people THINK - this is what you can be arrested for...

The SA position seems to hinge on the word "merit"... so now we have to define "merit"...

Jedo
 
I don't think the pictures are intrinsically wrong or anything. There not super distasteful, but they are a little weirdly posed.

Having a little girl and seeing amber alerts the last 3 times I was on the freeway in the last 2 weeks It just gives me a bad feeling in my stomach.
Im sure there is a artistic reason for the pictures, some of them are interesting, but personally they don't do anything for me, I would go out of my way completely to avoid them , but Im not gonna call someone else a perv cause they see artistic beauty in them.

I'd rather take pictures of kids in normal social situations; you dont need to flash skin to show awkwardness or innocence. Part of me thinks there is some shock factor to it, should we put any food on the table to tempt these ped's that are out there ?

Did the photographic world NEED this kind of publicity right now, were fighting for our rights to just take cameras in public property.

On the other hand, if you don't exercise your rights you lose them right ?
 
Jedo: I completely missed your post. But did you even read the page? What part of the definition which includes "offend a reasonable adult" is clear? Offend what adult? The pope? The prime minister who has shown he has no idea what art is? How about the judges who were done for being paedophiles themselves a few years ago? These two pages right here show that a reasonable adult from European background thinks differently from a reasonable Australian adult. A reasonable adult from 1997 may not think the same as a reasonable adult from 2008. Should a photo from back then suddenly become offensive, is this law retrospective? What if the photo was taken in Europe and the artist flies to Australia? This is clear as mud, throw in actual lawyers to play with this definition and the mud becomes thicker still.


Well it's not a case of right now. He's been making these photos for many years apparently, and it's always been controversial. You can't exactly stop a career because it's not the right time for it.
 
Let me point out ahead of time, my opinion on this has nothing to do with what is or is not, porn, abuse, pedophilia, art, not art or any of the misconceptions of what nude photography is or is not about.

When involving children, who are below what is considered the legal independent age for your country, state, etc., that fact is they are children who do not have the mental capacity, knowledge, or mature position to make that decision for themselves if it is the right or wrong thing for them to participate in, especially if there is no legal or parental relationship between the photographer and the child. If that relationship exists, I have an understanding of the motivations as a photographer and parent. There has been some wonderful nude work done by photographers of their children.

Otherwise, frankly, 9 times out of 10 the photographer is too self-absorbed in their own ego and ideas not to see they are the ones making the decisions for the child for their own selfish goals. Being motivated by ego and idea is never a good thing for a photographer.

-
 
I'm not as liberal as you all in your view of art, I personally don't like the pictures and think they are messed up. Naked people in front of a camera of any age is not art to me. When I saw those pictures I was like " What the heck, Weird"
 
Last edited:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23743217-2,00.html

Skip over the usual crap, some dodgy child protection group says "OMG there's a kid with no cloths on, PORN PORN PORN ALARM ouch ulcer."

But what gets me and the topic I want to discuss (since we debated the porn topic quite to death on the vanity fair thread), is the comments by the prime minister and the state premier.

So rather than ask what is porn, think of what is art?

Well this topic for me is DEEEEPLY political and leads to places that seem bizarre and impossible. When mentioned off the cuff without the proper supporting links to all of the actual crimes and evidence people mostly just pass it off as paranoid and delusional. Any kind of honest investigation shows very clearly however, that it's very real and very wide spread - especially in "western" cultures.

I'll just blurt out a few of the basics here and people can call me crazy or investigate it or agree if they already have investigated or whatever.

Your prime minister and the state premier are just making the case in support of the elites (criminally psychopathic control freaks) who have taken power by war and murder and wish to further secure and continue their domineering by undermining healthy societies and the nuclear family unit by promoting wicked evil men like those who run the child protection "agencies" and alike government funded social services most successfully structured and implemented by the Nazis and who are in actuality, the real pedophiles, kidnappers, and black marketeers of what they believe is and refer to as human chattel in very clear legal terms.

It all comes out rather controversial looking on the news though if you don't know your history and many unknowing individuals are led to believe that it might just be for the protection of our loved children rather than to fuel and fund the rape-pits and keep the marketeers dealing in human flesh, neatly supplied.

As to the question what is art. It is simply "expression". Most commonly it is the expression of any feeling/emotion, thought/imagination, or creative|destructive skill/ability produced in a third medium. The first medium is that thing, environment, or circumstance which caused, lead to, or enabled the perception or skill. The second medium is the perception itself ("it's all in your head" fits here well) as held by one or more sentient beings - usually but not limited to Homo Sapein - Sapein. The third medium is that used to express or communicate the second. It can be gesture, a performance, or the arrangement/creation of an objects and materials such as a painting, photograph, sculpture, and etc. It can even be an action such as caring for others (best IMO!) or creating chaos. It's how the verb/adverb form came into use I suppose. He/She artfully _________.

Good art or bad art is determined by how well others relate to or understand the expression communication/skill/action/etc. being created or preformed, is expressed. It's discerned on several levels but most commonly group and individually/personally. It's said to be "good art" if the world accepts it as such even though the one saying so may not relate to it at all and thinks that it's trash. The individual can say on a personal level to himself "that's awesome art" without knowing or caring how others might relate to it or perceive it.

And the final qualifying factor for art is that it indeed needs to be perceived. It a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to witness it... etc.

Are images of bare-chested youngsters art? Of course they are! Are they good art? That's open to individual and group interpretation of the specific works but if history can be the judge of whether images of bare chested youngsters can be considered fine-art / good-art then the answer is a resounding yes.

OK, who's still reading this far down... anyone? :D
 
Last edited:
Art is dependent on viewer's interpretation

Sounds like the photographer is very well known? This does not excuse him if this were considered "child pornography".

I'm assuming there were some kind of "model release"? And these being teenagers (or younger?), their parents will have to sign release - this is assuming Australia have similar laws to US?

Personally, I would find this type of "art" disturbing, BUT the artist has the right to express himself/herself ESPECIALLY when a release was signed.

What I find more disturbing then this type of "art", is the type of irresponsible parent who will let their child pose. If I were the "law", I would go after the idiotic parents instead of the "artist" who is just expressing his views (pornographic or not).
 
If you think Aussie land is bad, those photos would have put someone in jail for YEARS in America. Our rules are a lot more clear-cut, but still stricter.
Our rules are clear cut, so you believe. They're being grossly misused.


The law is pretty clear cut, right?
http://www.californiacriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2008/06/child_pornography_apparently_n.html

"a man in Sacramento, CA, has been charged with felony possession of child pornography for videotaping clothed cheerleaders at a high school competition in February. The tape focused on the buttocks and other parts of the cheerleaders. He was also charged with misdemeanor invasion of privacy. He recently pleaded no contest to the charges in court, and the felony charge will be dropped against him if he completes probation on the misdemeanor."

Misuse
http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter...racy-photos/2100-1030_3-6157857.html?hhTest=1

"Teenagers taking risque photos of themselves are prosecuted for violating child pornography laws."

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0521081myspace1.html

"The Wisconsin teenager is facing felony child pornography charges for allegedly posting naked photos of his 16-year-old ex-girlfriend on his MySpace page....The cell phone camera photos had been taken by the girl, who provided them to Phillips....Along with the child porn count, Phillips was charged with defamation and sexual exploitation of a child."
 
I'm an extremely conservative and law abiding individual. I didn't drink till I was legal, I didn't have sex till (both) of me and my partner were legal. I don't speed, I drive like a 60 year old woman in a toyota yaris.

But one thing I don't understand is how the **** fine art museums can get away with PAINTINGS of nude children or portrayal of nudity in kids (angels, cupid, that kinda thing) and that parents can have portraits of their kids in their family albums who aren't wearing any clothes... but as soon as an actual photographer takes a photo ? SNAP CLANG. OFF WITH HIS HEAD HE'S A PERV!

Seriously, we have sex to live.. what are people so afraid of? It's not sexuality that people are afraid of - it's lust and desire. Love and sexuality are totally different from lust and desire. Lust and desire can be painful, animal, primal, powerful and damaging if abused. People have their definitions confused. Love and sex are good. Lust and desire are bad.

This brings me to my point; when you take a photograph of something out of love; such as your kids in a bathtub playing for your family album. There is nothing wrong with that, legally it would be forgiven because the law assumes you wouldn't feel any lustful, *hurtful* desire for your own kids, right?

However when someone else does it, it's a bad thing because the law assumes that naturally, a total stranger cannot feel the same attatchment and feelings for someone else's kids that their parents would. Complications arise when the kids and being sexually abused by their parents...of course...that's another story.

My point is that people fear lust and desire - they do not fear sexuality. They're just lazy and accomodate love with lust and desire with sexuality as being equal in meaning.

I think everyone needs to loosen the **** up and forget about prayer in public schools, too. I wonder how free our society would have to be, mindfully, for sex to be allowed in public schools. I'm not sure really where I'm going with this, just spewing thoughts.
 
but as soon as an actual photographer takes a photo ? SNAP CLANG. OFF WITH HIS HEAD HE'S A PERV!

But in another thread you had this post:

It's funny you should mention this incident; [...]

The case in question with me is I called this guy a pedophile who had favorited a picture of my little sister who was about 14 at the time. He had NOTHING but pictures of - get this - underaged girls in provocative positions and literal pages and pages of nudes/porn.
[...]
It disturbs me and sickens me how we share the world with such filthy people.


So which one is more okay? Taking a naked photo of a kid or putting one that IS NOT NUDE on a favorites list?
 
First off, I didn't read the whole thread - but I know what it's about.

I don't see what the big deal is...

So what, who cares...? Someone took some provocative pictures of a girl younger than 18. The photos I saw were not anywhere near what I would consider "porn".

Even if someone actually gets off on this kind of stuff, who cares...? Jerking off in your basement and kidnapping a child are two COMPLETELY different offenses, and entirely different types of people. The former (while they may be a perv), is mostly law abiding - the later should spend the rest of their lives in prison.

BUT - Even though there are bad people out there, why should we censor ourselves? "Bad People" (whatever branch of the 'crime tree' they may occupy) will always get the fix they need. Banning it is not the answer.
 
Last edited:
Jerking off in your basement is an offense? I had no idea! Glad I never do such a thing!

--
Anyone recommend any good lawyers or know where I might find very thick curtains? :D
 
But in another thread you had this post:




So which one is more okay? Taking a naked photo of a kid or putting one that IS NOT NUDE on a favorites list?

Well thanks for quoting something absolutely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Also, thanks for misreading what I said in that irrelevant topic. Obviously if you knew a first thing about the law you were trying to defend you'd know that it is illegal to store a collection of an underaged person in a favorites list of - to quote myself:
"He had NOTHING but pictures of - get this - underaged girls in provocative positions and literal pages and pages of nudes/porn."
Key words; underaged girls in provocative positions...nudes/porn...

So.. I would go to say he was in the wrong.. in that context. That said I don't see anything of how that links to my opinion that schools (and people of our society educated in general; clearly a caste you do not belong to since you can't read:lmao:) should be more liberal and less tightwad conservative towards such a normal topic like sex.

Oh and one more thing; I wasn't stating that a photographer is a perv, I was being sarcastic in the comment I made in the first thing you quoted (misread, i mean).

but back on topic:

Are we that fearful of people having sex that we have to run around clanking each other in chains because we fear someone is doing something sexual?
"OH NO HE DREW/TOOK A PICTURE...of people...WHO VOLUNTEERED THEIR KIDS TO WORK WITH HIM (I assume, anyway, he didn't just pull them off the street and start taking photos of them, right?"

On the topic of sex in general...Seriously, where the hell do people think they come from? God? Storks? Public fear of everything sexual, be it homosexuality or free-thinking when it comes to normal body functions is wayyy back in the dark ages. My true opinion of anything is that if nobody gets hurt then there's nothing really wrong; because that's why these laws are in place - to protect people. Technically speaking anal/oral/any-position-but-catholic-missionary sex is illegal in Texas..but does anyone care?...
 
Last edited:
Jedo: I completely missed your post. But did you even read the page? What part of the definition which includes "offend a reasonable adult" is clear? Offend what adult? The pope? The prime minister who has shown he has no idea what art is? How about the judges who were done for being paedophiles themselves a few years ago? These two pages right here show that a reasonable adult from European background thinks differently from a reasonable Australian adult. A reasonable adult from 1997 may not think the same as a reasonable adult from 2008. Should a photo from back then suddenly become offensive, is this law retrospective? What if the photo was taken in Europe and the artist flies to Australia? This is clear as mud, throw in actual lawyers to play with this definition and the mud becomes thicker still. quote]

Mr Garbz...
Yes - I read the whole page - and other's like it before submitting this for the perusal of the forum...
As to your further questions: I did not write the law. Nor did I write this interpretation of it. You could ask your sister, who you state is a lawyer, to provide you with a definition of "a reasonable adult".
I myself am not a lawyer, but I would reasonably exclude "judges who were done for being paedophiles" as these individuals have been convicted of sexual offences against minors: "The pope" as a religious leader with global influence: "The prime minister" - who you say has shown he has no idea what art is - and perhaps you are correct, (but he is entitled to voice his personal opinion in our "free" country...)
As for your comparative tirade about the "thinking differences" between adults from European backgrounds vs Australian adults: It may have escaped your attention that Australia is populated by people from European (and global) origins and (Indigenous people apart) we ALL have either a European (or global) "background"...
I accept your comments regarding retrospective mores... However, (and you should consult your lawyer sister for further clarification) an indecent (pornographic) image of a child taken 10, 20, 50, 100 years ago remains offensive to the law as it pertains TODAY...
Quote [What if the photo was taken in Europe and the artist flies to Australia?] Again - not a lawyer: but if an individual attempts to enter Australia with (say) images on a laptop that contravene Australian law then that individual is subject to AUSTRALIAN law...

In posting that link - my purpose was to exemplify the interpretation of Australian Law... The LAW, Mr Garbz... Not what we think... or want... Not our personal opinion... Not OUR interpretation... THE LAW...

I re-iterate...
I did not write the law...
Jedo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top