Originally posted by AGENT_T
Tricky decision here for any judge and jury.
If they were 'sexual' in nature there wouldn't be an argument..

You raise a good point: What's sexual?

Certainly a sexual position and/or intercourse is sexual in nature and could be considered pornography. But, if the images themselves are not representative and blatently sexual - and there was consent on all sides (included parental), all charges should be dismissed.

I'm sorry, but if the police chief (or whomever) gets aroused by these photos enough to think of them as pornography, maybe he should be the one in question.

Originally posted by Nola213

I mean really, any sick pedophile can find a plethora of sources to get their rocks off. They don't need to look at half naked, darkly lit, children who they and thier parents consented to these "art photos", to be taken.

Society is governed by the rule of law. Without laws, there would be anarchy.

Laws are determined by values. There is a law against stealing because as a society we value the concept of personal property. People who violate this concept by stealing another's personal property a punished based on the law.

Children are one of the most vulnerable members of our society. As a society, we value the concept of protecting children from harm. If parents fail to protect a child from harm, the law dictates that the parents can be punished.

So now that brings us to the nude photos.

Clearly, there are potential problems in having two adults, a parent and a photographer, encourage children to disrobe so that the adults can make a financial profit. As a society we need laws to protect against children being used by adults, sexually or otherwise, to make a profit for themselves.

While there may be some circumstances in which artistic or educational photos of naked children are created, in general, this type of "art" is potentially very damaging and abusive to the children who might not have the emotional maturity or capacity to refuse stripping naked for the camera.

Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that society must err on the side of protecting the children, even if it is at the expense of the marginal artistic "rights" of the photographer.

Originally posted by tyranny22
I'm sorry, but if the police chief (or whomever) gets aroused by these photos enough to think of them as pornography, maybe he should be the one in question.

C'mon guys.. enough with the "if you think it's deviant you must be a one" bs. The cop saw photographs of naked children.. he would've been negligent in his duties if he ignored a possible crime. What.. do you want artists to be exempt from following laws?

Originally posted by riley
What.. do you want artists to be exempt from following laws?

What law is this photographer breaking?

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by riley
What.. do you want artists to be exempt from following laws?

What law is this photographer breaking?

indeed thats what is being investigated..

When I heard about this I knew it would show up here with some kind of conpiracy attached, but I never thought so many people would be in favour of the one that supports this man's "artisic freedom".

Articles that spawn replies that step on toes on ATS usually invoke a lot of appologist replies, I'm guilty of it too but I feel pretty strongly about this so I make none here.

What this guy is trying to portray as art is wrong, more than wrong, arguably criminal.

Some responses here took me back a second, seriously, art? Come on, theres smart people, are we really going to bring this issue down to the level of an argument over definition?

They weren't pressured into it? Gimme a break. I used to "borrow" my parents car when I was 15 to take my bestfriend to her modeling deal shoots all the time. There was no nakedness but a constant push to gradually get there in time. The camera man would ask to raise her skirt another 1/2 inch or an inch, bribing her with compliments, or having her yank down the front of her shirt a bit more. But it was black and white 'artsy' stuff, so obviously the intent was art, not money... I can definetly see how these kids could have been talked into it, no problem at all, they're kids you could have them do it without even knowing they've been talked into it.

No one here was at all impressionable in junior high?!
Go find a 12 year old and tell them how awesome it is to steal things or hurt people, you don't think if you reinforce it again and again and again, as an adult, they won't start to believe you? They won't at least try it once to see if you're right even if inside they know it's probably not?

Catholic church, prime example!! Someone you trust, an adult who "who knows better" by 12 year old eyes, does something you know for a fact isn't right but at the time things looked different somehow and you just let it happen. My point there is that minors are protected for a reason, they haven't evolved the judgement or experiance to make the decision that acts involving things such as this aren't in their best interest. It doesn't matter if they say there was no pressure or its ok, they aren't competant enough in that respect to say so and therefore the startment is void. If they are capable of such a decision, doesn't the church deserve some money back from these "consenting minors"? The parents aren't off the hook either, you can't give permission to a minor to do something that violates their right to this kind of protection as a minor, just like a priest can't be given the ok and a 50 year old man can't marry a 9 year old girl no matter how much she claims she wants to.

Claiming that renaissance art dipicting naked children is anywhere near the same is frankly, ignorant, and I make no appologies for that, its rediculous. 1. It's a cartoonish painting not a photo. 2. Times were very different - would those Christians with us be offended if someone took naked pictures of children in the context of the paintings and claimed religous freedom? Some Jesus look-alike surrounded by a naked elementary school field trip maybe? But in an artistic way, of course.

For those with 12-13 year old kids, take a second and try to imagine an intelligent, well informed, well delivered arguement from your kid to have some guy take naked pictures of him/her with the opposite sex, regardless of the context. Try, hard. "Pleeeease Dad! Pleeeease! But I'll be in a gallary, Daaaaaad! Just one time Dad, he won't even be doing anything with me"? Something like that?

Anyone considered their futures? No one thinks once they grow up they'll realise the consiquenses and regret it for the rest of their lives? I mean this won't go away for them, especially the girl, no one can imagine a situation in todays society where this would be detrimental to her character, future opportunities and/or self esteem/respect?

The slippery slope and throwing the baby out with the bathwater in context with the photographer and art. Are you kidding me? Yes, art is by definition in the eye of the beholder, thats exactly why there are child protection laws, it creates a line where there otherwise is none. There is no debate here, you can't get visibly naked on camera till you're 18 for reasons I already explained and to 99.999^10% of people, that's just fine and completely uninfringing. I would argue if this is restricting your creativity, you have a very narrow view of what is creative and perhaps there are other reasons for the preference. Personally I've never seen an artsy photo of an 18 year old naked couple and thought to myself, "Now if they were just 8 years younger, you'd have art."

While doing a bit of research I came across this...

***nudism website*** material that we sell are legal in every city, every state and every county inside the United States. They are protected by the First Amendment and are not subject to local obscenity laws or ordinances. The depiction of adults and children nude in the visual media has enjoyed constitutional protection in the United States since 1958, when the Supreme Court vacated a Court of Appeals finding that Sunshine & Health magazine could be obscene (Sunshine Book Co. v. Summerfield, Postmaster General, 355 U.S. 372). The right to depict adults and children in innocent nude poses has been upheld without a pause for 41 years. In case after case, the Supreme Court and lower courts have always upheld the constitutionality of "nudity without more," specifically referring to the nudist depiction as a fully constitutional form of expression.

So whats the problem here?... If this goes against him, then they will have to shut down every website that has pictures of nudism events and such because in my opinion they are much more revealing then this guys artistic work could ever be. This is a very thin line, yes, but there is nothing sexual at all about the picture and none ever intended. In my opinion it a beautiful picture - I have nothing against the human body.

If this picture was taken without consent, forcefully, or without the parents permission then i'd like to see him crucified and picked at by the carrion birds. But this, no, i'm sorry - its art.

Edit: So let me get this straight... People can have thousands of pictures of naked children and it's ok because its a nudism website, yet this guy takes one photo for the sake of art - with permission from all parties - and is being charged with a crime? Hmmmm...

[edit on 29-5-2008 by deadline527]

Originally posted by deadline527This is a very thin line, yes, but there is nothing sexual at all about the picture and none ever intended. In my opinion it a beautiful picture - I have nothing against the human body.

I guess I'll keep posting this point until every pedophile apologist gets it...

The issue is NOT what is shown in the photos, or whether they are sexual in nature. The issue is that FACT that a 13-year old minor child was encouraged to strip naked in front of a photographer and have nude photos taken.

13-year old girls are not of legal age to give consent to be nude models in most jurisdictions. In fact, I'm guessing that there are probably statutes that REQUIRE photographers to see photo ID proving their subjects are over 18.

Don't you get this???

What the girl was put through is what's in question here, not the artistic merits of the photo.

Why does the title only say girls, when there are boys too?


[edit on 29-5-2008 by _Phoenix_]

I do know about art - and this is absolutely puerile- please tear Leonardo Da Vinci's Madonna on the Rocks from the walls of the Louvre - absolutely disgusting that art is being debased by moronic fools seeking to impose their ignorant moral grandstanding on us all - this is Andres Serrano "Piss Christ" all over again.
Australia is truly embarrassing- as much as I lambaste the Americans on thsi sight I must acknowledge my own countries backwardness.

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by deadline527This is a very thin line, yes, but there is nothing sexual at all about the picture and none ever intended. In my opinion it a beautiful picture - I have nothing against the human body.

I guess I'll keep posting this point until every pedophile apologist gets it...

The issue is NOT what is shown in the photos, or whether they are sexual in nature. The issue is that FACT that a 13-year old minor child was encouraged to strip naked in front of a photographer and have nude photos taken.

13-year old girls are not of legal age to give consent to be nude models in most jurisdictions. In fact, I'm guessing that there are probably statutes that REQUIRE photographers to see photo ID proving their subjects are over 18.

Don't you get this???

What the girl was put through is what's in question here, not the artistic merits of the photo.

Again, like many others said, she was NOT "stripped" naked. You are trying to make it sound like she was forced to remove her clothes, which from my understanding cannot be further from the truth. And in my point of view, if anyone should be getting in trouble it should be the PARENTS who gave consent.

Also, apparently its ok to have pictures of 9, 10, 11, etc.. year old girls naked as long as they say the website represents nudism?

This is a very sharp double edged sword that I dont really see a reasonable outcome for this.

I guess you are one of the people who would support a clause to genetically modify children to be born with clothes on because of societies stigma against the human body.

If she was in a sexual position even remotely, I would have a different view on this, but there is nothing sexual about the picture at all.

[edit on 29-5-2008 by deadline527]