What do you think about this?
First I am fully repulsed by child porn and fully support measures to deal with it, for example like USC 2257. But, in an effort to crack down on child porn, are some just getting a bit too puritanical? Here's an example from Canada. What do you all think?
Toronto Star article on nude photo labelled as child porn
Same thing happened in Raleigh a year or so ago. Different culture, same type of picture. Couple went to court to prevail. Sad thing that we cannot be more tolerant of other cultures.
I would imagine that among the APUG membership there might be a few baby on a bearskin pictures made by the local photographer from some time in the 1950's. Something else that can't be done today.
It is awfully hard to make an informed comment without actually seeing the photos. The family's intent seems to be decent. The Canadian authorities seem to be trying to protect children.
A well intentioned photo taken by the parents that shows no more than simple nudity would, I imagine, be quite stimulating to a pervert if it got into the perverts possession and could result in an injury to another child
Given what seems to me to be the lack of ability to guarantee the behavior of someone who hurts children I would, with appropriate safeguards, not find myself getting upset..but I would be concerned..with capital punishment for serious deviant behaviour that causes serious injury to the child.
Claire (Ms Anne Thrope is in the darkroom)
There has been a similar case like that in Canada (again!). IIRC a woman had taken some photos of her kids playing around in Adam's tunic in the garden, and then I can't recall the details but either she was a photograph and exposed the shots, or she kept them in her wallet and got in trouble for that.
Like most people, I have in my family album photos of myself as a kid naked in all sorts of funny situations, but it's insane to think that if I were to carry such photos of myself, I could be arrested as a pedophile! Against myself!
Using film since before it was hip.
"One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal
, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11
My APUG Portfolio
There needs to be an "intent" factor in the laws. As I've stated before that I have no doubt that Sally Mann and Jock Sturges photographs are in the possession of most pedophiles. What is the difference between these pictures and ones taken for the express use of pedophiles. INTENT.
So the people that make these legal decisions have to have the wisdom to be able to tell the difference, between cute baby pictures and child porn, and go after the real offenders.
When we were kids we used National Geographic Africa pictures for.... whatever. I doubt that the photographers of National Geographic had that intent in mind. Generations before me used the Sears Catalog underwear pictures.
Why is it that people's lives and reputations have to be ruined because of zealots who are afraid of nudity and see perversion lurking everywhere.
If they really wanted to solve the problem why don't they just ban children, and be done with it.
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
This is the kind of thing that makes me go ballistic...Certainly intend has everything to do with it!
What drives me nuts is the blind interpretation of laws by petty bureaucrats....it all hinges on the word 'might'. Someone sick 'might' get hold of the photo...hey stop publishing ANY photo of ANY person or thing...someone sick 'might' use it to do something BAD!
Hey you! Stop photographing that building, a terrorist 'might' use it to help them blow up the building! You must BE a terrorist because you are taking pictures, after all MOST people don't take pictures of buildings, therefore you must be up to no good.
So basically we have gone from the assumption that the majority of people are NOT evil to the assumption that they are evil. How convenient for the government when all it's citizens are criminals...it makes them much easier to deal with.
"All my best thoughts I keep to myself"
Well said, Rocky.
Originally Posted by Rocky
I, personally am NOT ashamed, repulsed or offended by ANYTHING the Great Creator (whatever your name for him/her might be) has done. Check Christian "lore"; THe "Big Guy" was alerted to Adam and Eve's transgression because... they had become ashamed (of her/ his creations) and they wove aprons of fig leaves ...
ALL obsessions are potentially dangerous. By definition, obsessions are beyond the control of the individual, and many times - I'll go so far as to say, USUALLY, will result in damage, either physically or to the "soul", of the individual. Sexual obsessions are no exception, but it must be kept in mind that either polar extreme is equally harmful, BOTH positive and negative.
One great danger I see is the dominance of NEGATIVE sexual obsession in the hierarchy of our society. We are in real danger of losing our balance, and that is not a good thing... History has recorded such an imbalance in the Witch "Trails" (persecutions) of the middle ages.
There is NO question in my mind that we MUST protect (is there any difference between "protection" and "nurturing"?) our children. None whatever - not even a little bit... but we must make intelligent decisions of the balance of what we are doing. We should protect our children from the rain, but we cannot encase them in plastic, denying them oxygen, when we do so.
Positive sexual obsession is harmful .. I tend to believe that NEGATIVE sexual obsession is even MORE harmful, simply because it is more prevalent, and more reinforced by the "powers that be".
Ed Sukach, FFP.
Oh no, I took photos of my youngest daughter being born. I mean the whole messy thing!