Inappropriate photos in art gallery seized by police.

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?

reply to post by jamie83


Great post, starred.

It made me rethink my post. When i said well if the child is ok with it, and the parent gives consent it's ok.....

Well re-thinking what doctor Love said about these parent's makeing Patsey Ramsey look like Mother Theresa struck a chord.

For all we know these children could be molested from birth, brainwashed, that it's ok for daddy, and/or his freinds to touch you in that "special" place ect., thier parents could be pedophiles, and happily give consent for these photos, and the children would naturally go along with it, for fear of being whipped, or beaten,so....backround checks need to be made cause how do we know the situation?

Also as you said the parents could be just out to make a buck as well.

It's a VERY, VERY fine line here.

The problem that i have is the officer here made a snap judgement from what i gathered reading the article. Unfortuanately i missed the link to the provacative photos(it's been taken down), so I can't make a well informed decision on the pictures either, I haven't even seen the ones that were deemed pornographic.

But it's odd, naked babies doesn't bother me, and "artsy" pictures of nude adults don't shock me either. It's that adolescent age, between I'd say 5-16 where there is a problem. But again, one could make a painting look exactly like those photos and that would be ok. Because it's not a real person. But then again is a photo? No it's color on paper as well.

Very tough subject here. I'm not a scholar, or a lawyer, or a judge, BUT, being an artist, I will always lean on the side of non-censorship....to a "point". These photos although I haven't seen the "bad" ones , I'd imagine are right at that "point, of mine, and perhaps, crossing it.

Even the first photo, that is still up, I don't really care for, and would rather not see it hanging it a studio, but that's my opinion, because that photo shows no nudity, but it is implying it, and the kids look to be around 13 or 14. Very close to my daughters age. So that may also have something to do with it.

I could struggle with this all day, being a parent and an artist.

Tough subject to discuss. But i hate to see censorship. But if it warrants it....then I'm for censorship no doubt. I guess it's all opinion.





[edit on 29-5-2008 by Nola213]

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..

reply to post by riley


So his work is confiscated when they don't even know if a crime was committed? That's a slippery slope.

Seems the police are so confused on whether or not this is a crime they are going to have children look at the photos to determine whether or not they are offensive.

www.news.com.au...

What kind of police work is this????

Originally posted by Nola213
reply to post by jamie83

 

Yea i was just rethinking my post. When i said well if the child is ok with it, and the parent gives consent it's ok.....

Well re-thinking what doctor Love said about these parent's makeing Patsey Ramsey look like Mother Theresa struck a chord.

You're right, it's all about perspective. I am an artist as well, but also the parent of three girls whose mother leans far more towards Patsy Ramsey than Mother Teresa.

I've had first hand experience with my ex-wife doing things that I would consider crossing the line with our children. And you're right about the kids being vulnerable because they've been brainwashed from a young age. Kids are very impressionable, and if they tend to bend over backwards to try to please a mother who is domineering and abusive.

So while I can totally see the other side in terms of artistic photos, educational photos, paintings, etc., I've had some personal experiences in which the local child services erred on the side of protecting the mother and didn't give a rat's ass about looking out for my kids. So from my perspective and experience, I'm totally inclined to be looking out for the kids first.

Maybe the world has naturally evolved to the point where we have a workable middle ground right now. Generally, people don't go around taking photos of nude children because they know there's the potential of being prosecuted, but at the same time certain artists with high standards still feel free to express their vision in tasteful and appropriate ways, knowing that if they cross the line they'll been in deep trouble.

Sorry if I came on too strong before. It's just that because of what happened with my kids I feel a bit more passionate about protecting children than I do about protecting the mother who put the girl into the photos. And to clarify, I really don't have a major problem with the specific artist in question, although the photo I saw really didn't appeal to my personal artistic tastes. My problem is more with the mother and her judgment.

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by riley

 

So his work is confiscated when they don't even know if a crime was committed? That's a slippery slope.

They are/were considering charging him with child pornography obviously. It's not unusual for police to confiscate evidence before charging someone.

The slippery slope will occur when pedophiles use the "but it's art" as a legal defence.



[edit on 29-5-2008 by riley]

reply to post by riley


Onelook dictionary:

Pornography:

noun: creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire.

I didn't see that in the picture.

reply to post by intrepid


..and I did not see any artistic value in it so that makes it subjective; we can agree to disagree.

My main point [yet again..] was that if he's alloud to show pics of underage nudes then it will be the standard legal defence for pedophiles caught with images of nude children.

[edit on 29-5-2008 by riley]

Originally posted by riley
reply to post by intrepid

 

I did not see any artistic value in it personally so that makes it subjective; we can agree to disagree.

So now we are going to charge someone on perception? Like if I hit someone in anger, another sees it and says, "I thought he was going to kill the guy." Now I'm facing murder chargers for an assault?

My main point [yet again..] was that if he's alloud to show pics of underage nudes then it will be the standard defence for predophiles.

Highly unlikely. This is a known artist. It was one picture, in this instance. You get a person with a pantload(pun intended) of kiddie porn and I hardly see the corrolation. Neither would a judge.

The best defense for pedophiles is education, teach your kids what to watch out for, what to do. What NOT to do. Fear can be a good thing but not when it's used in the manner it is on this issue. It's then counterproductive.

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]

reply to post by tezzajw


Well I, being a 15 year old, think that it is totally wrong to take naked pictures of anyone under 18. It is just...ugh! I can't describe it. You get my point right?

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]