Porn vs. Art

[TraneWreck]

No it is your argument. You are saying that pictures of kids playing can't be art and has no artistic merit.

You are not alone in asserting this about my argument. It simply isn't true. I am making no statement about artistic merit. I am clearly admitting that I cannot make that judgment.

Some of it is art, some isn't. Some nude modelling harms kids, some doesn't (notice those two things don't map onto one another perfectly).

I don't know how to distinguish them, nor does anyone else on this thread, thus we should err on the side of caution.

So nude action shots and pictures of life in a nudist colony with kids naked is ok?

Possibly, it would depend on how it occured. One could argue it was news, and certainly any potential harm in that situation wouldn't be the fault of the photographer (who didn't set up the nudist camp), but the people participating.

 

[tesscaline]

I've already linked multiple articles.

None of which provided the evidence required to actually back up your claim as stated.

This is a pure argument from ignorance. Because you cannot distinguish from abusive situations to normal situations, no one can. Again, examine the international study presented at the US Embassy in Stockholm. It deals with those issues in great detail.

I'm sorry, are you talking about your own argument? Because I never mentioned anything about my ability to distinguish abusive situations from normal situations. You, however, did talk about your own inability to distinguish between them and the inability of others that you know, and say that because YOU can't, and because THEY can't, no one can.

 

[TraneWreck]

I am reposting this. It seems to me that it bares repeating:



Now, since you are a lawyer, can you see how the first group of situations is a valid attempt to try to prevent any kind of harm to the child?

Sure, I can see how it's an attempt.

It's all operating under two massive presumptions: one, that the child can legitimately offer input. Again, we don't allow children to consent to a whole host of things for a very good reason--we do not trust their judgment. This is for their protection.

And two, you are assuming that the parent is looking out for the best interest of the child and not seeking to exploit them

Certainly that's a risk one runs at all times. It's impossible to keep a crappy parent from harming their children. But I am specifically rejecting the argument that a parent should have the ability to make such a personal decision on behalf of the child.

It's not the parent's body, it's the child's.

 

[TraneWreck]

None of which provided the evidence required to actually back up your claim as stated.

Well, if an international study on the effects of children involved in child pornography, even when physical abuse doesn't occur, isn't up to your standards, I don't know what to give you.

I'm sorry, are you talking about your own argument? Because I never mentioned anything about my ability to distinguish abusive situations from normal situations. You, however, did talk about your own inability to distinguish between them and the inability of others that you know, and say that because YOU can't, and because THEY can't, no one can.

No one has remotely offered a way to distinguish them. If you can, I'd love to see it. I've said multiple times that I'm willing to be convinced.

 

[JFrankA]

You are not alone in asserting this about my argument. It simply isn't true. I am making no statement about artistic merit. I am clearly admitting that I cannot make that judgment.

Some of it is art, some isn't. Some nude modelling harms kids, some doesn't (notice those two things don't map onto one another perfectly).

I don't know how to distinguish them, nor does anyone else on this thread, thus we should err on the side of caution.

That hasn't been your stance. In fact, there was an example of a nude child in a film, you stated that the reason the child was naked wasn't good enough for you.

Sorry, you are NOT the artist in this case. The artist and the model (and the model's parents) have the say whether it's okay or not. You don't like it, fine. But if an artist and model and model's parents are okay with the photographing of a child, then one cannot call it child porn.

Possibly, it would depend on how it occured. One could argue it was news, and certainly any potential harm in that situation wouldn't be the fault of the photographer (who didn't set up the nudist camp), but the people participating.

Potential harm is a crock. Sorry. Everything in the universe has the potential for harm and good.

I know for a fact that being an altar boy has the potential to harm child.

I know for a fact that drinking alcohol has the potential to harm a child.

I know for a fact that fatty food has the potential to harm child.

I know for a fact that watching scary movies has the potential to harm a child.

I know for a fact that owning guns has the potential to harm a child.

....shall I continue??

 

[TraneWreck]

But you ARE drawing the line.

Basically, you are saying nude children photos that are artistic is pornographic. Anyone photographing a nude child that isn't theirs for the purpose of artistic value is automatically guilty of child porn.

I am not drawing a line at all. Why is this so hard to see?

Take photo X involving a nude child. Assume this is a world where it is now illegal to use naked children in art.

If you ask me, "Is photo X porn or art?" I will respond, "I don't know, but the law says you can't use naked kids to make art."

Now, the punishment need not be overly severe, but the whole point is to separate the law from aesthetic debate.

 

[Belz...]

When don't we? Everything we ban is banned on the grounds of potential harm. In fact, there's no other way to do it.

Oh, I don't know. How about ACTUAL harm ?

Deciding on behalf of a child to allow them to participate in the creation of art in the nude is a mental state of intent, beyond mere negligence.

Assuming there's any harm involved, sure. Is there ?

I don't know what that means.

Apparently not.

What I mean is you err not on the side of caution, but on the side of censorship. I prefer to err on the side of liberty and assume that people can decide for themselves, rather than have me decide for them.

 

[TraneWreck]

That hasn't been your stance. In fact, there was an example of a nude child in a film, you stated that the reason the child was naked wasn't good enough for you.

Huh?

Sorry, you are NOT the artist in this case. The artist and the model (and the model's parents) have the say whether it's okay or not. You don't like it, fine. But if an artist and model and model's parents are okay with the photographing of a child, then one cannot call it child porn.

Haha, did I ever argue that wasn't the current state of the law? This is such a confusing argument you're making.

Yes, the law currently says you can have naked kids in art, I've never argued against that point.

Potential harm is a crock. Sorry. Everything in the universe has the potential for harm and good.

I know for a fact that being an altar boy has the potential to harm child.

I know for a fact that drinking alcohol has the potential to harm a child.

I know for a fact that fatty food has the potential to harm child.

I know for a fact that watching scary movies has the potential to harm a child.

I know for a fact that owning guns has the potential to harm a child.

....shall I continue??

I notice every time people on this thread whine about "potential harm," they never attempt to deal with the issues raised in the US Embassy study I linked.

The potential harm, as with all abuse scenarios, is the serious destruction of a child's life.

 

[TraneWreck]

Oh, I don't know. How about ACTUAL harm ?

Assuming there's any harm involved, sure. Is there ?

If the law says, "Rape is illegal," that's to prevent rapes, POTENTIAL rapes (also to punish...etc.).

Child pornography causes serious harm even without physicl abuse. See the US Embassy study.

Apparently not.

What I mean is you err not on the side of caution, but on the side of censorship. I prefer to err on the side of liberty and assume that people can decide for themselves, rather than have me decide for them.

On almost every other issue I would agree with that.

The problem is that we're involving children who cannot responsibly make those decisions for themselves.

 

[JFrankA]

Sure, I can see how it's an attempt.

It's all operating under two massive presumptions: one, that the child can legitimately offer input. Again, we don't allow children to consent to a whole host of things for a very good reason--we do not trust their judgment. This is for their protection.

And two, you are assuming that the parent is looking out for the best interest of the child and not seeking to exploit them

But that's what courts are there to decide if it ever goes there. You are making a blanket statement, over and over, that any nude child photo is a) harmful and b) pornographic.

Again, by not drawing a line, by saying "don't do it", you are condemning all artists who want to do legitimate work to being guilty of child porn. Further, you are restricting the artists, and yes, the child's and parent's freedom to choose.

At least I am standing up and trying to draw some kind of legitimate line. Is it fool proof? No. It's a start. But at least it's an attempt to see the difference.

You are just condemning by not even trying.

Certainly that's a risk one runs at all times. It's impossible to keep a crappy parent from harming their children. But I am specifically rejecting the argument that a parent should have the ability to make such a personal decision on behalf of the child.

It's not the parent's body, it's the child's.

Again with the contradicting? A child doesn't know enough but parents can't be trusted either?

Who does know what's best for our own children, then? The government?

 

[tesscaline]

You miss the point, which is surprising, given that you go on to actually analyse the term "per se":

No, I haven't. It is interesting that you won't address an argument against yourself which has been supported by evidence -- your own evidence at that.

Yes, yes, yes, yes and no, and the only reason for the "no" is simply because there are many people on Earth who are so dim-witted they wouldn't acknowledge art if it slapped them in the face, and then there are those like you, who elect to define art in such a way that it becomes meaningless, or who see something bizarrely esoteric about somebody sitting in a field with a canvas and some oils. What sensible, intelligent person (excluding those like you) would not categorize Constable's "The Haywain", for example, as simply "art". Is it the intrinsic nature of the canvas, oils or frame, or the "mysteriousness(?)" of Constable's psyche (or some combination of them) that's putting you off the trail do you think?!

First of all -- I have not defined art. I have questioned your definitions of art. You have no basis to comment on how I define art -- I would appreciate it if you would keep to commenting on the things that have actually been said in this thread, and avoid personalizing the argument. I'm simply not willing to put up with personal attacks from you.

Since you insist that things that are art are intrinsically art, please define the essential characteristics necessary for those things to be art, explain how those things do not change over time or require any subjective judgement from any viewer in order for them to be so.

And still you miss the point.

You'll need to demonstrate exactly how I've "missed the point" before anyone will agree with you. As things stand, you have said that "clearly, porn is not art per se". This would imply that the definitions of the two things are mutually exclusive. However, the definitions you supplied for those two things (porn and art) are not mutually exclusive. Please explain why porn and art, based upon the definitions you supplied, are mutually exclusive.

 

[Belz...]

I am not drawing a line at all. Why is this so hard to see?

Take photo X involving a nude child. Assume this is a world where it is now illegal to use naked children in art.

If you ask me, "Is photo X porn or art?" I will respond, "I don't know, but the law says you can't use naked kids to make art."

That's odd. A few posts ago it was about "potential" harm, whatever the hell that meant (how do you harm a child by taking a picture of them ?). I'm glad to see you've upgraded to following the law blindly.

 

[JFrankA]

If the law says, "Rape is illegal," that's to prevent rapes, POTENTIAL rapes (also to punish...etc.).

Funny. Rape is illegal. Potential rape is not.

Child pornography causes serious harm even without physicl abuse. See the US Embassy study.

And again, by not drawing a line between someone trying to make legitimate art and molesting/abusing/exploiting a child and photographing it, you are making all legitimate nude child art porn.

On almost every other issue I would agree with that.

The problem is that we're involving children who cannot responsibly make those decisions for themselves.

Again with the child can't make the decision but the parents (any parents) can't be trusted.

The government knows best?

 

[Belz...]

If the law says, "Rape is illegal," that's to prevent rapes, POTENTIAL rapes (also to punish...etc.).

Nice try. But since I'm not a complete dupe, that doesn't work.

We KNOW child abuse is bad. Taking pictures of nude children causes no foreseeable harm. However, you added "potential" harm, basically saying that it causes no foreseeable harm but MAY at some point do so, and should therefore be banned. It is in no way analogous to rape, because rape DOES cause foreseeable harm, even if we're talking about hypothetical cases.

Child pornography causes serious harm even without physicl abuse. See the US Embassy study.

Taking a picture of a nude child is not automatically child porn, Trane.

 

[Belz...]

The problem is that we're involving children who cannot responsibly make those decisions for themselves.

Still, you can't ban everything that isn't shown to have a benefit, or ban anything that has "potential" harm just because you don't like it. You have to demonstrate that it does real harm.

 

[tesscaline]

Well, if an international study on the effects of children involved in child pornography, even when physical abuse doesn't occur, isn't up to your standards, I don't know what to give you.

Please go back and read your own argument, and then read my reply to your argument. I clearly outlined exactly what you need to provide to support your argument. If you can't provide said evidence, then we all get to blow off your assertion.

No one has remotely offered a way to distinguish them. If you can, I'd love to see it. I've said multiple times that I'm willing to be convinced.

It is not my job to convince you that your argument is wrong. It is your job to convince me (and the others in this thread) that your argument is right.

So far, your argument is "I can't tell the difference between X and Y, and X is bad, therefore Y is bad too, and we should ban Y" -- You are arguing from ignorance, using insufficient sample sizes, comparing apples to oranges, applying slippery slopes where they don't belong, using genetic fallacies, appealing to emotion, and then on top of all that failing to meet your own burden of proof.

You've provided 0 evidence to actually support your claim that the mere action of a child being nude in a picture, or a painting, or a movie, when that artistic media is NOT pornographic, is harmful to that child. 0. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Instead, you've offered up studies that have no relevance to that, as they are about child pornography, not "situations with good intentions".

So, do you actually have some evidence to back up your claims, or not? If you do, post it. If not, let me know now, so I can ignore you already. Thanks.

 

[TraneWreck]

But that's what courts are there to decide if it ever goes there. You are making a blanket statement, over and over, that any nude child photo is a) harmful and b) pornographic.

Look, I'm enjoying this discussion for the most part, but now that roughly 5 people have tried to falsely describe my argument like that, I'm starting to get a little annoyed.

I am in NO WAY saying that ANY nude child photo is harmful or pornographic. I'm saying that there are some that are and some that aren't, but I (and seemingly everyone else--only you have even tried) cannot make that distinction with enough consistent accuracy to justify the risk to the children involved.

How can I say that any more clearly?

Again, by not drawing a line, by saying "don't do it", you are condemning all artists who want to do legitimate work to being guilty of child porn. Further, you are restricting the artists, and yes, the child's and parent's freedom to choose.

Yes, I fully recognize that. My argument is that the loss experienced by artists because they cannot use living, naked kids in their art (they can still draw pictures of naked kids, make sculptures...whatever, just no actual kids used in the production) is insignificant compared to protecting children.

But show your math here: Let's say you draw that line EXCEPTIONALLY well and 90% of kids who model nude aren't harmed, 7% are mildly harmed, and 3% are seriously harmed. Are you alright with that?

I don't mean this flippantly, this is the basis of my argument. Is the art product so important to accept that level of abuse? And that's if we can do it at a success rate that far exceeds almost all endeavors of mankind.

At least I am standing up and trying to draw some kind of legitimate line. Is it fool proof? No. It's a start. But at least it's an attempt to see the difference.

You are just condemning by not even trying.


Again with the contradicting? A child doesn't know enough but parents can't be trusted either?

Who does know what's best for our own children, then? The government?

There are certain things we allow a parent to do, certain things we don't.

For example, a parent cannot make their child work in a factory. I'm arguing that they should not be allowed to make a decision about a child displaying their nude body in public on behalf of the child.

You may disagree, but again, it is a concept with much legal history.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Let us also state the obvious. This is a thin-wedge issue.

If we let those who are against freedom of expression get away with this, it will extend to images involving adults. First by saying that adults in artwork who look enough like children or who are perceived as dressing like children are in fact children for purposes of the law, and this definition will be allowed to slowly expand without bound. Eventually the female breast will be criminalized because children suckle there and this by indirection brings children into the picture.

Thank you very much for bringing that subject because actually, that has already begun happening

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Oh, I don't know. How about ACTUAL harm ?

If the law says, "Rape is illegal," that's to prevent rapes, POTENTIAL rapes (also to punish...etc.).

Falso analogy: Rape causes ACTUAL harm. That's why it's illegal. There's no doubt that rapes causes both physical and psychological harm to the victim every single time it has taken place. There's no degree of uncertainty or cases where there has been an exception to this.

Child pornography causes serious harm even without physicl abuse. See the US Embassy study.

We're not talking about child pornography. We're talking about photographing nude children. There is no evidence that simply photographing or using illustrations of nude children causes ACTUAL harm. Do not move the goalposts in the discussion.

 

[TraneWreck]

Nice try. But since I'm not a complete dupe, that doesn't work.

We KNOW child abuse is bad. Taking pictures of nude children causes no foreseeable harm. However, you added "potential" harm, basically saying that it causes no foreseeable harm but MAY at some point do so, and should therefore be banned. It is in no way analogous to rape, because rape DOES cause foreseeable harm, even if we're talking about hypothetical cases.

What is your evidence that it causes no foreseeable harm?

This isn't a demand to produce a negative. One can study the effects of children who have been photographed nude.

Now the practical problem is that there's no control group. The victims studied tend to also have been abused.

But you're making a positive claim when you assert no one is harmed. You should be able to substantiate that.

Taking a picture of a nude child is not automatically child porn, Trane.

And back around the circle we go...

I've never remotely argued otherwise.