Porn vs. Art

[ponderingturtle]

Nude modeling isn't the only sort of depiction being subject to control. For that matter, neither is child modeling in general. We're talking about the criminalization of any depiction of children which can be construed by someone as pornographic.

Hmm, there might be something too this. This will outlaw all pictures of kids, then you will never again be bothered by coworkers showing you pictures of their kids....

Might be worth it.

 

[quadraginta]

Hmm, there might be something too this. This will outlaw all pictures of kids, then you will never again be bothered by coworkers showing you pictures of their kids....

Might be worth it.

Well, there is that.

A silver lining for everything.

 

[Bob from NJ]

I have 2 horrible demonic questions:

1) Is the lingere section of the Sears Catalog porn or art? (this one's a joke but the next one's not so funny)
2) If certain people are born with a genetic disposition towards pedophilia, just as some are born to be homosexual, wouldn't that make pedophilia just as natural and healthy as homosexuality?

(the answer to question 2 is "NO!!!!" but what is the reasoning why? Please pick apart the wooly thinking behind this argument)

 

[TraneWreck]

Depends on how you look at it. Many things that are banned are banned because the thing is harmful, and not potentially harmful. Unless you are arguing that say rape is only a potential harm and not an actual harm.

As for this, having sex with kids is harmful, no potential about it. Now it gets complex when you try to define kids(see sexting teens for issues with that), so for this lets leave it at prepubescent children. So it becomes when is something sufficiently sexual for it to be unacceptable vs sufficiently non sexual for it to be OK.

Nudity in this regard is rather suspect as it can be entirely non sexual. For example you would seem to think that a nude child is inappropriate but dressing them head to toe in latex fetish gear is OK, or at least you have made no issue that I have seen about when fully clothed pictures are too much.

Well, that depends on how you're using the word "potential." THe US Embassy Report on Child Pornography lists a bunch of very serious harm to the kids, absent any physica abuse. So when it happens, it really is harmful.

I don't disagree that there is some category of nude child modeling that is both non-sexual and harmless, I just don't know how (nor has anyone remotely tried to provide a method) to distinguish between them.

For example, one of the primary damages from using children as naked models is that it hampers their ability to develop proper adult-child relationships. They come to believe that there's nothing odd about being naked around an adult who is not their relative and DRASTICALLY increses the chance that they will become an abuse victim.

If you can assure me that artwork X will cause that psychological damage, then I have no problem. But again, no one has even suggested a reliable way of doing that.

Are they abusive if the child didn't hurt themselves though? And either way this is not abuse but neglect.

Legally speaking, neglect is a subset of abuse, but I get your point. No, if the child is not hurt it's not abuse.

What age are we talking about? Teens and tweens can certainly make some decisions on what they want to do. Why shouldn't they be able to express themselves as artists?

Yes, I agree that the age of consent doesn't have to be 18, but that's a separate issue. We're dealing with whatever age an artist wants to use a nude child.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I have 2 horrible demonic questions:

1) Is the lingere section of the Sears Catalog porn or art? (this one's a joke but the next one's not so funny)

Not since the internet gave teen boys something better to masturbate to.

2) If certain people are born with a genetic disposition towards pedophilia, just as some are born to be homosexual, wouldn't that make pedophilia just as natural and healthy as homosexuality?

(the answer to question 2 is "NO!!!!" but what is the reasoning why? Please pick apart the wooly thinking behind this argument)

Well it depends on what one means by natural and healthy. It might well be perfectly natural, and I would argue that a pedophile should not be persecuted solely for their sexuality. The thing here is that pedophilia can not be expressed in a healthy adult relationship unlike homosexuality. So it might have similar causes, but the effect is in creating a sexuality that can not be ethically expressed.

I certainly feel bad for pedophiles who know that abusing children is wrong and seek out chemical castration and such to try to make it easier on them to resist their impulses to molest children.

So the sticking point is, can you call a sexuality that can not ethically be expressed healthy? Natural, sure why not, nothing about nature is makes it a good ethical guideline.

 

[TraneWreck]

Wait. Isn't it an ADULT who films/photographs a nude child? Isn't it an ADULT'S decision to do that to a child? Just like it's an ADULT'S decision to drink and potentially harm a child?

I see no difference in the logic. None. An adult drinking has the potential of harming a child just like an adult photographing a child nude has the potential of harming a child.

You may be shocked to learn this, but in child custody situations alcohol consumption is closely monitored. When it has been an issue in the past, a parent can have their kids taken from them for falling off the wagon. That basically illegalizes alcohol for that person.

But, of course, you will argue that we wait until the child is harmed, then monitor alcohol. Ok, that doesn't mean we have to adopt the same procedure with nude child models.

People are trying to make this some vast moral issue about free expression. Let me reiterate that all I am advocating is not using nude child models in the production of art. I don't care if someone draws a naked kid from an existing photo, or uses someone of age who looks much younger.

No one has tried to explain why it's necessary to the artworld to be able to use naked kids. Just that they don't have the burden, so they don't have to defend the activity on its merits.

No, you need to provide evidence that the majority of children who have posed nude became damaged later in life.

What you are asking of us is to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you.

What? How is asking you to distinguish between situations that harm children from those that don't a request to prove a negative? It's a request to develop some way of ensuring that children aren't harmed.

I do find it interesting that you think the burden is on me. THere's possibly a Constitutional argument you could make, but no one has tried that. I would say the burden is on the artist to prove that their use of nude children will not harm those children.

I've listed a start of how to distinguish the difference. Have you missed that post?

No, I saw it. You made a list to distingusih PORN from ART, not a list that distinguishes situations that harm children from those that don't.

But again, in a child posing nude for art, wouldn't the adults BE involved in order to do it? Wouldn't the parents either okay it or not? Wouldn't the photographer keep the well being of the child in mind throughout?

For a producer of any media the model's safety, consent and comfort are first. Adult or child.

At this point we're just talking in circles. I understand your point, and disagree, I will cheritably assume the opposite.

I am arguing that this should not be a decision a parent makes for a child. It should be up to the child. Because a child cannot legally consent, it should simply be avoided until the individual is of a legal age. Parents cannot force their children into labor, nor should they have the ability to use their children's body as a commodity.

 

[TraneWreck]

Nude modeling isn't the only sort of depiction being subject to control. For that matter, neither is child modeling in general. We're talking about the criminalization of any depiction of children which can be construed by someone as pornographic.

And as I've said before, the statute in the OP is stupid. We have no disagreement there.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, that depends on how you're using the word "potential." THe US Embassy Report on Child Pornography lists a bunch of very serious harm to the kids, absent any physica abuse. So when it happens, it really is harmful.

And what did they class as child pornography? If children are raise were it is normal of them to swim nude why is it abuse to take a picture of them swimming? If anything this whole idea that they can't have any photos of themselves playing seems more warping than the photos would be.

For example, one of the primary damages from using children as naked models is that it hampers their ability to develop proper adult-child relationships. They come to believe that there's nothing odd about being naked around an adult who is not their relative and DRASTICALLY increses the chance that they will become an abuse victim.

So the whole nudist colonies are full of child molesters arguments.

Legally speaking, neglect is a subset of abuse, but I get your point. No, if the child is not hurt it's not abuse.

So how if no harm comes from the pictures why are they harmful?

 

[ponderingturtle]

You may be shocked to learn this, but in child custody situations alcohol consumption is closely monitored. When it has been an issue in the past, a parent can have their kids taken from them for falling off the wagon. That basically illegalizes alcohol for that person.

In child custody cases church attendance might be monitored by a judge, it all depends on what judge you get.

 

[TraneWreck]

And what did they class as child pornography? If children are raise were it is normal of them to swim nude why is it abuse to take a picture of them swimming? If anything this whole idea that they can't have any photos of themselves playing seems more warping than the photos would be.

That would be a problem with the proposed statute, not my argument.

It's fairly easy to distinguish parents taking photos of their children from atrists using nude child models.

As the parents move down the line of publicizing those photos, they move closer to dangerous territory. Like every other issue in this country, that line would eventually be drawn by court decisions.

So the whole nudist colonies are full of child molesters arguments.

Have you seen any studies on children who grow up in nudist colonies? I haven't. My opinion towards those institutions would depend on those results.

But conceptually I agree with you. There are lots of cultures that have few concerns about nudity. More power to them.

I am only concerned with protecting children, thus all that matters is the subjective response of the kids in question.

If anyone could show me a reliable way of ensuring that kids modelling nude for artists would not harm those kids I would gladly allow it. It's not the nudity that bothers me.

So how if no harm comes from the pictures why are they harmful?

If no harm comes, they're obviously not harmful. I am merely arguing that it's impossible to determine which situations are harmful and which aren't.

If you read that study, horrible things happen to children involved in pornography, even if they aren't physically abused. That's one extreme.

The other would be a happy nudist colony or culture that didn't particularly care.

Somewhere in the middle lies the point at which nude children aren't harmed and the point at which they are.

No one has even really tried to define that line. I am acknowledging that I cannot. The price for a misdrawn line is so high that the prudent choice is to remain cautious. Especially since the benefit, art with naked kids in it, isn't particularly important. Art will go on without the participation of naked kids.

 

[TraneWreck]

In child custody cases church attendance might be monitored by a judge, it all depends on what judge you get.

Well, speaking as a lawyer who spends a fair percentage of his practice dealing with divorce and custody issues, one happens much more frequently than the other.

Alcohol is almost always an issue.

 

[BenBurch]

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.

Remember that John Ashcroft put curtains over the statues of Justice in the DOJ because their naked breasts could be seen.

 

[quadraginta]

That would be a problem with the proposed statute, not my argument.

It's fairly easy to distinguish parents taking photos of their children from atrists using nude child models.

As the parents move down the line of publicizing those photos, they move closer to dangerous territory. Like every other issue in this country, that line would eventually be drawn by court decisions.



Have you seen any studies on children who grow up in nudist colonies? I haven't. My opinion towards those institutions would depend on those results.

But conceptually I agree with you. There are lots of cultures that have few concerns about nudity. More power to them.

I am only concerned with protecting children, thus all that matters is the subjective response of the kids in question.

If anyone could show me a reliable way of ensuring that kids modelling nude for artists would not harm those kids I would gladly allow it. It's not the nudity that bothers me.




If no harm comes, they're obviously not harmful. I am merely arguing that it's impossible to determine which situations are harmful and which aren't.

If you read that study, horrible things happen to children involved in pornography, even if they aren't physically abused. That's one extreme.

The other would be a happy nudist colony or culture that didn't particularly care.

Somewhere in the middle lies the point at which nude children aren't harmed and the point at which they are.

No one has even really tried to define that line. I am acknowledging that I cannot. The price for a misdrawn line is so high that the prudent choice is to remain cautious. Especially since the benefit, art with naked kids in it, isn't particularly important. Art will go on without the participation of naked kids.

I understand what you're saying here. I'm curious as to where the same application of logic should stop.

If I take your sentence,

"... horrible things happen to children involved in pornography, even if they aren't physically abused."
​

and change it to,

"... horrible things happen to children involved in filmography, even if they aren't physically abused."
​

it is no less true. This suggests we should ban all participation of children in the movie industry.

Yet apparently some sort of socially acceptable accommodation has been achieved. If that is possible why must the approach to nude modelling of children be so unequivocal?

 

[quadraginta]

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.

Remember that John Ashcroft put curtains over the statues of Justice in the DOJ because their naked breasts could be seen.

Too late.

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

This has already happened in the UK and Australia, and efforts to achieve it in the U.S. are unrelenting.

and this definition will be allowed to slowly expand without bound.

This , too. Representations which involve no humans at all of any age, but suggest children, are illegal in the same places and also under constant challenge in the States.

Eventually the female breast will be criminalized because children suckle there and this by indirection brings children into the picture.

Way too late for this one.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That would be a problem with the proposed statute, not my argument.

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

It's fairly easy to distinguish parents taking photos of their children from atrists using nude child models.

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

 

[not daSkeptic]

They come to believe that there's nothing odd about being naked around an adult who is not their relative and DRASTICALLY increses the chance that they will become an abuse victim.

I'm curious, what exactly is the mechanism that leads from A to B?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Remember that John Ashcroft put curtains over the statues of Justice in the DOJ because their naked breasts could be seen.

Everyone knows breasts are evil though. That is why small kids are such bastards.

 

[ponderingturtle]

it is no less true. This suggests we should ban all participation of children in the movie industry.

True in light of the death of Corey Haim we need to ban all child actors.

 

[JFrankA]

That would be a problem with the proposed statute, not my argument.

It's fairly easy to distinguish parents taking photos of their children from atrists using nude child models.

As the parents move down the line of publicizing those photos, they move closer to dangerous territory. Like every other issue in this country, that line would eventually be drawn by court decisions.



Have you seen any studies on children who grow up in nudist colonies? I haven't. My opinion towards those institutions would depend on those results.

But conceptually I agree with you. There are lots of cultures that have few concerns about nudity. More power to them.

I am only concerned with protecting children, thus all that matters is the subjective response of the kids in question.

If anyone could show me a reliable way of ensuring that kids modelling nude for artists would not harm those kids I would gladly allow it. It's not the nudity that bothers me.




If no harm comes, they're obviously not harmful. I am merely arguing that it's impossible to determine which situations are harmful and which aren't.

If you read that study, horrible things happen to children involved in pornography, even if they aren't physically abused. That's one extreme.

The other would be a happy nudist colony or culture that didn't particularly care.

Somewhere in the middle lies the point at which nude children aren't harmed and the point at which they are.

No one has even really tried to define that line. I am acknowledging that I cannot. The price for a misdrawn line is so high that the prudent choice is to remain cautious. Especially since the benefit, art with naked kids in it, isn't particularly important. Art will go on without the participation of naked kids.

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.

 

[JFrankA]

No, I saw it. You made a list to distingusih PORN from ART, not a list that distinguishes situations that harm children from those that don't.

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

Perhaps, and this is just me throwing this out here, something for discussion, the difference between artistic child nudity and child porn is this: the way it was photographed.

For example there's a clear difference between photographing a child:

with approval from the child
with the parents there
with the explanation of the shoot to both the child and the parents
with the child and the parents keeping the right to not have the shot done
with a release form explaining what the shoot contains
with concern to the child's physical and psychological well being
with the intent that the photographs clearly placed on display for the public to see.
{Adding also: the child and parents are paid or at least it's voluntary on the part of both child and parents to be the subject of the project.}

and

just shooting the child without anyone knowing
without caring what the child's concerns are
without any cares to the child's physical and psychological well-being
keeping the photographs secret or within a secret circle of people
no legal papers
without any consent from parents or the child

Now I realize that this isn't fool proof but it's a much better start. What I've outlined above, I feel, is a much clearer and less "it's my opinion" way of determining whether it's art or illegal rather than looking at a picture and just making a judgment.

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?