Extremely delicate question but need an honest answer.

[KmH]

Anyone here actually with legal background to give a legal advice? .

Yep, there is. The thread starter is an attorney (tax).

 

[KenC]

Another photographer who did nudes of children is Jock Sturges. He worked with people in nudist colonies for whom this was just not an issue and he had their permission to publish the photographs. Nevertheless, the FBI raided his apartment about 20 years ago and confiscated all of his equipment and work. At least according to his account, they destroyed some of it in the process through careless handling. Finally, when the authorities had all the facts, he was not even indicted.

 

[The_Traveler]

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.

I think saying that art and pornography exist on the same dimension is not correct.

There is art and some of it uses the attraction and tension of sexual desires to produce feelings in the viewer. The more uncomfortably close these feelings get to the 'edge' for that viewer, the more successful the art is seen to be at arousing emotion and pushing boundaries.
And there is pornography which is aimed only at exciting the sexual interest of the viewer - and the art in it is not the primary intent but is useful to make the pornography more enjoyable by diffusing some of the less visually attractive aspects of what is being seen.

It is where these two arcs intersect that is arguable.

When there is something that is damaging to the individuals involved, then the state has a compelling interest in drawing a line..

When the individuals involved are too young or are otherwise incapable to chose to be involved or not, then the state has a duty to protect them and must draw a line that may be aimed at pornography but also intersects that of art because the duty of care is to the subject and not the intent of the artist.

So. while an adult can chose to be branded for art's sake, you can't torture either rabbits or children and call it art because the state has a duty of care to both.

In the case of child porn or art, the damage is so important that the mere fact of possessing these materials encourages the creation and the damage.
This is a similar concept to the banning of the sale and export of ivory and the ownership of protected exotic species.

In regards to one's personal feelings.
In the movie, 'the African Queen', Humphrey Bogart attempts to explain away a vice by saying that it is only human nature. Katherine Hepburn replies, "'Human nature is something we were put on Earth to rise above."

 

[dewey]

I agree that from the criminal aspect of this it's all about intent. I personally think the damning part is where he purchased a subscription. I'm sorry but in my opinion that's pretty awful if the subscription was for nude images of children. The argument over legality of nude children being photographed is something, but the subscription part makes it a crime in my opinion.

Now on the other hand was it a site that offered 98% legal images and it just happened to have a section with children? That might be a plausible situation someone could end up in, but I can't imagine the feds showing up unless they had evidence that ip x downloaded x and did it x number of times.

 

[skieur]

I would venture to say that the line for most juries would be this: The average shot of a naked child running through a sprinkler, playing in the bath tub, riding on a toy rocking horse would probably not be a legal problem. A studio shot with even the "suggestion" "symbolism" etc. in pose or background of anything sexual would be considered pornography. This would probably be considered reasonable "community standards" as in law.

skieur

 

[KmH]

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.

I think saying that art and pornography exist on the same dimension is not correct.

Who said, "art and pornography exist on the same dimension"?

I sure didn't. Which is why I wonder why it is you posted that quote from my earlier post?

 

[The_Traveler]

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.

I think saying that art and pornography exist on the same dimension is not correct.

Who said , "art and pornography exist on the same dimension"?

The implication of your saying there is a boundary between art and pornography is that they fall along some common plane and can thus be separated by a boundary, so it would be you who said that.

 

[Buckster]

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.

I think saying that art and pornography exist on the same dimension is not correct.

Who said, "art and pornography exist on the same dimension"?

I sure didn't. Which is why I wonder why it is you posted that quote from my earlier post?

Larry Flynt?

 

[Mully]

^^^^^^^ Very funny!