Here is my point: How do we know? I mean yes, there are times when such pictures are pornographic, but going back to my question, is a picture of child in underwear a pornographic picture? If a person sees a that picture in a catalog and thinks "I'm going to buy those underwear for my son", then it's not. However, someone else can look at that picture and get aroused by it.
When does it become pornographic? Is a picture of a nude child, just standing there pornographic?
I know you like dealing with extremes but this problem is a lot more subtle. I still say that it's in the eye of the beholder, in most cases.
It simply comes down to intent JFRankA, like most laws. I'm not a fan of quoting dictionary definitions, other than to show that somebody else's doing so is sometimes flawed, but here we go:
Chambers 1998 Reprint:
pornography books, magazines, films, etc. dealing with or depicting sexual acts in a more or less explicit way, intended to arouse sexual excitement
So, a child in underwear in a catalog is clearly not pornography,
even if somebody happens to get sexually aroused by it. Hell, some people get sexually aroused at the sight of ketchup! Is a picture of a nude child "just standing there" pornographic? If it's
intended to arouse sexual excitement (posing nude being a sexual act, in this context), then yes, clearly. If not, then no, clearly.
So, it's clearly not in the eye of the beholder JFrankA, it's clearly defined. So, unless you want to cite some more obscure scenarios, or simply disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing, I think we're clear here!
This is why the line "I don't know what porn is, but I know it when I see it" bothers me.
Now, in the context of porn generally (as opposed to child porn), yes, I admit the line is a little fuzzy, as intent can be difficult to determine, and in most cases,
in context, I'd suggest the intent is clear.
Good point. But this is exactly what I'm talking about. If I create a virtual nude of a woman/girl who might look like she was 14/16 have I broken the law? I know were the line is on kiddie porn but does the law?
It's the
same line, and it's a clear one! Is your "virtual nude of a woman/girl who might look like she was 14/16" "virtually indistinguishable from a minor"? If clearly yes, then yes, you've broken the law. If you
reasonably think not but a judge
reasonably thinks so, then clearly,
by definition, it's borderline, which you (being a
reasonable person!) should have realized and backed off to a point of safety. Of course, if the issue here rests in the reasonableness or otherwise of judges that's a completely different matter, which would apply across all facets of law generally.
Part of the problem is that some people define kiddie porn as anything that might excite a pedophile.
Some people might, but the law doesn't, and that's what matters here.
What I meant is someone does possess nude photos of Brook Shields taken at around age 10. As an adult Brook tried to sue to gain possession of the photos. (she lost) At the time it was legal to take such photos and her mother signed the release. At the present most attempts to publicly display (in a museum) the pix or to display said pix in other photos or art have been blocked by local agency's / police dept on the grounds that it might excite the interests of local pedophiles.
Clearly, those grounds are suspect, unless there are other, more pedophile-specific, laws that apply. Regardless, what would be the point of publishing photos of a nude Brook Shields at age 10, if not to sexually arouse? Whichever way you cut it, it's at least on the borderline of child porn, so back off buddy, I say!
The principle of blocking or outlawing a virtual image or drawing because it might excite the interests of local pedophiles or rapists could establish a dangerous precedent.
Possibly, which is why it doesn't apply (unless it does apply!). What would happen to ketchup sales, I wonder!
BTW the pictures are not explicitly sexual.
Nude posing with intent to arouse (or the
display of nude photos with intent to arouse) is "more or less" (see above) explicitly sexual. Surely you can see that.
I have a photo of my kids in the bath. Is that pornographic?
Strawman. Please tell me you're not
seriously questioning this! Now, if you publish or distribute those photos in any less than an obviously innocent manner it might be a different story. Do you intend to do so?!
And are we really going to go down this road of trying to objectively and collectively decide what's pornographic and what's not?
I don't think that
we need to.
SW seems to be suggesting that a random selection of judges could and would.
Objectively.
Personally I think that is a rather naive and childlike vision of the judicial system, at least in the U.S.
A judge who also happened to be a fundamentalist Southern Baptist could see your childrens' bath picture and quite easily attribute connotations to it that another, less straitlaced and opinionated judge might not. Each still would 'know it when they see it'. Each could still be basing their judgment on "precedent", at least in
their 'judgment'.
I'm not as confident as SW that the results would be consistent or equitable. I don't think that the history of the judiciary and pornography cases lends itself to such an idealized expectation, either.
OK - so please point us to a case where the simple possession of regular photos of one's kids in the bath have led to an unfounded child porn accusation.
Yes, I know. Fortunately I'm not displaying the photos of my kids in the bath publicly.
This has nothing to do with "fortune". You're not displaying the photos in public for seemingly obvious reasons. And if you did decide to display them in public it would, I suspect, be for a perfectly valid (and hence acceptable), and obvious, reason (whatever that might include!).
Honestly, I think you guys are over-reacting big time. Do any of you have any real concerns over any of your own actual or intended actions regarding risking a child porn allegation, or are you just chewing the theoretical fat?
