Extremely delicate question but need an honest answer.

[jwbryson1]

I am going to ask this question and hope for some serious answers. I understand it's delicate and I hope the Mod's don't shut this thread unnecessarily provided we stay on topic. I hope we can have a serious discussion about this and don't get childish unhelpful answers. So, I proceed with caution and open ears...

I have a friend who is facing federal child pornography charges. It seems he stupidly purchased a subscription to an online service that claimed to offer "legal" images. Well, the feds somehow came across his name or email address and showed up at his doorstep. He could be facing 10+ years in federal prison. This is no joke.

There was a long extremely heated thread on TPF about 18 months ago about some "famous" photographer that photographed nude children. Primarily girls below the age of 10. Some argued it was pornography and others said it was not for a variety of reasons including "art" arguments. I don't know what type of images my friend purchased because I have not seen them, and I am setting aside all judgment for the moment, but it's my understanding that these were not **graphic** but rather just individuals posing by themselves. Let's move forward on that assumption.

So, the question is--when do nude photographs of children cross over from "art" to "pornography" that is punishable by law? Is it possible to make the argument that this is "art" and not "pornography" so that is a defense? I'm sure some of you are thinking you know pornography "when you see it," but that does nothing to further this discussion, so please avoid that line of response if you don't mind.

P.S. I'm NOT looking for legal advice--just a photographic discussion. Thanks.

My ears and eyes are wide open...

 

[KmH]

Frankly, the discussion needs no reference to your friend's legal problems.

From a legal perspective, what I or any other individual consider as the boundary between art and pornography would have zero bearing on your friend's situation.

So, it would seem the issue has little to do with art.

 

[jwbryson1]

Frankly, the discussion needs no reference to your friend's legal problems.

I don't disagree but trying to offer some context so people understand why the question is being asked in the first place. It really doesn't make a difference though, does it?

 

[baturn]

Seems to me, that nude photography of minors is exploitation no matter what you call it.

 

[terri]

We can allow the thread, but it needs to stay strictly on topic. Thanks.

I personally can't imagine the appeal of nude children's photos outside of my immediate family. I can't imagine what possible interest would be in them to others outside the pedophile aspect of it. In that regard, I would have to wonder what your friend's intentions were with this "subscription". I'm sorry to not be much help, but for me it seems a pretty cut and dry issue. Whether we like it or not, we "are" that society that covers kids up after toddler age. Is that helpful at all?

 

[Mully]

Remember the government will only look with blinders on ..... what is printed in the manual is what is what they do. Franlly I do not see a reason to take nude photos of children, maybe babies but why else?

 

[kathyt]

We can allow the thread, but it needs to stay strictly on topic. Thanks.

I personally can't imagine the appeal of nude children's photos outside of my immediate family. I can't imagine what possible interest would be in them to others outside the pedophile aspect of it. In that regard, I would have to wonder what your friend's intentions were with this "subscription". I'm sorry to not be much help, but for me it seems a pretty cut and dry issue. Whether we like it or not, we "are" that society that covers kids up after toddler age. Is that helpful at all?

I would have to agree with this. There would be no reason at all for children to be photographed nude in my opinion. Even for the purpose of art. So, I guess it depends if this subscription is ONLY minors. That could make a difference.

 

[nycphotography]

Seems to me, that nude photography of minors is exploitation no matter what you call it.

Does that include naked baby butts?

 

[jwbryson1]

I would have to wonder what your friend's intentions were with this "subscription".

I'm going to avoid this because I think Keith makes a good point -- I probably should have posted this in a "vacuum" without reference to my buddy. I also think his intentions are not dispositive of the issue, so I will avoid speculation.

But, the fact is that photographs ARE taken of kids and freely published without prosecution, so there has to be a point that the law says this is no longer "art" but has become illegal images of kids. Where does it cross the line? I don't know but it could be helpful if there was a bright line.

 

[jwbryson1]

We can allow the thread, but it needs to stay strictly on topic. Thanks.

I personally can't imagine the appeal of nude children's photos outside of my immediate family. I can't imagine what possible interest would be in them to others outside the pedophile aspect of it. In that regard, I would have to wonder what your friend's intentions were with this "subscription". I'm sorry to not be much help, but for me it seems a pretty cut and dry issue. Whether we like it or not, we "are" that society that covers kids up after toddler age. Is that helpful at all?

I would have to agree with this. There would be no reason at all for children to be photographed nude in my opinion. Even for the purpose of art. So, I guess it depends if this subscription is ONLY minors. That could make a difference.

Again, "art" is in the eye of the beholder. What may have no artistic value to you could be seen by another as something with value, so that cant' be the distinction between "art" and illegal.

 

[jwbryson1]

Seems to me, that nude photography of minors is exploitation no matter what you call it.

I don't necessarily disagree.

 

[Mully]

We can allow the thread, but it needs to stay strictly on topic. Thanks.

I personally can't imagine the appeal of nude children's photos outside of my immediate family. I can't imagine what possible interest would be in them to others outside the pedophile aspect of it. In that regard, I would have to wonder what your friend's intentions were with this "subscription". I'm sorry to not be much help, but for me it seems a pretty cut and dry issue. Whether we like it or not, we "are" that society that covers kids up after toddler age. Is that helpful at all?

I would have to agree with this. There would be no reason at all for children to be photographed nude in my opinion. Even for the purpose of art. So, I guess it depends if this subscription is ONLY minors. That could make a difference.

Again, "art" is in the eye of the beholder. What may have no artistic value to you could be seen by another as something with value, so that cant' be the distinction between "art" and illegal.

That being said ...there is no pornography just art..... because all the publisher has to do is claim it is art

 

[480sparky]

The only opinions that will count here will be those of the jury and the judge.

 

[jwbryson1]

The only opinions that will count here will be those of the jury and the judge.

Unfortunately, that is true. But, it would be nice to be able to show other images that are published without prosecution to maybe buttress his case. I dunno.

This just sucks and I need to vent.

 

[480sparky]

...... There would be no reason at all for children to be photographed nude in my opinion........

What about medical purposes?