The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-01-2005, 06:16 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Would this be considered child porn?

I was reading a thread at Fametracker about the Michael Jackson case, and someone linked to a site that contained pictures from the book "The Boy: A Photographic Essay," which Jackson had in his home. Now, I closed the link after the one picture loaded, but now I'm terrified I could be considered to have child porn on my computer! (It wasn't porn exactly, just some 12 year old naked from behind-ew! but it still squicks me out).

Should I be worried? Clean out my cache and all that?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 02-01-2005, 06:53 PM
Tripler Tripler is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: JSOTF SDMB, OL-ABQ
Posts: 6,794
Well, a tag-along to Guin's post. . .

Couldn't someone construe some of Anne Geddes' photos as child porn?

Tripler
Where does one draw the line between artistic and. . . sick?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-01-2005, 07:01 PM
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Springfield, IL
Posts: 17,951
As I understand it—though I am not a lawyer or anything like that—there has to be more than just nudity for it to be considered porn. It has to be sexual or appeal to prurient interests or something like that (sexual activity, sexually suggestive poses, etc.). So pictures of naked native children in National Geographic, for example, are not child porn.

Is the book in question legal to own? If so, I can't imagine how you could get in trouble over having one of the pictures from the book accidentally stored on your hard drive. Are they charging Jackson with owning the book, or merely using it as evidence that he has an inappropriate interest in young boys?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-01-2005, 07:08 PM
even sven even sven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
They are looking for people with a couple thousand pictures on their computers and a house full of photos. Nobody is going to do anything about one photo from a published book accidently dowloaded.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-01-2005, 07:12 PM
bob_loblaw bob_loblaw is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
nudity alone does not equal pornography. otherwise, my mom's in some deep trouble over a bunch of 25yr old bathtub photos...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-01-2005, 07:22 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Thanks. I figured that I was being paranoid, but the whole thing just squicks me out.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-01-2005, 07:31 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 14,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia
I was reading a thread at Fametracker about the Michael Jackson case, and someone linked to a site that contained pictures from the book "The Boy: A Photographic Essay," which Jackson had in his home. Now, I closed the link after the one picture loaded, but now I'm terrified I could be considered to have child porn on my computer! (It wasn't porn exactly, just some 12 year old naked from behind-ew! but it still squicks me out).

Should I be worried? Clean out my cache and all that?

According to many related posts on this topic posted on this board, the mere picture of a naked child isn't child porn under american law. Of course, I couldn't vouch for the accuracy of this statement, but it has been mentionned many times here. I'm postiong this answer only in order to allievate your fears until someone more qualified pops in with a more detailled answer (I believe the kid's genitals must be displayed in an obscene way, or he must be engaged in a sexual activity for the picture to be considered kid porn, if memory serves).


Think about how many people could be arrested for child pornography if it were the case : professionnal photographers, parents taking a picture of their naked children, postcards editors (naked babies), naturist publications, ethnology/travel magazines, and so on...


I visited one of the site displaying pictures from this book (no..I wasn't affraid. I know there are tons of books by famous photographers with pictures of naked minors out there. Actual child porn would be busted and wouldn't be so easy to find). The picture you saw is apparently the book's cover (a naked boy seen from behind at a distance, along a seashore). And though I do not doubt many would probably be appealing for a pedophile, none of the pictures appeared remotely pornographic to me.


To allievate further your fears, I noticed that according to this site, the book appears on the library of Congress catalog. I doubt they would have a "kiddie porn" section.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-01-2005, 07:39 PM
rjung rjung is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Just as a sidebar, I hear that some big-chain photo development places (Target, Wal-Green's, etc.) refuse to develop any photos with child nudity on them, just to avoid any bruhaha over "kiddie porn" accusations.
__________________
--R.J.
Electric Escape -- Information superhighway rest area #10,186
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-01-2005, 07:40 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 14,043
As an aside, something I found weird, in an online article about Jackson's case and this book :

Quote:
Both Dr. Farrell and Investigator Gelfand call the discovery of mostly heterosexual pornographic magazines significant, because many molesters of young boys use such material to excite and stimulate their prey.


It seems to me quite a stretch to use the ownership of heterosexual adult pornography as further evidence that Jackson's preyed on little boys
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-01-2005, 07:48 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 14,043
I also found this definition (I couldn't tell if it's still in force, how it is interpreted by US courts, etc.., of course) :


Quote:
Child pornography, according to the US Comprehensive Crime Act, is the visual depiction of persons under 18 engaging in sexually explicit conduct, real or simulated, including lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic areas
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-01-2005, 07:55 PM
rfgdxm rfgdxm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjung
Just as a sidebar, I hear that some big-chain photo development places (Target, Wal-Green's, etc.) refuse to develop any photos with child nudity on them, just to avoid any bruhaha over "kiddie porn" accusations.
How could this be done without making an evaluation of the images? I know several Internet sysadamins who refuse to even look at what is posted through their servers. If I e-mail them about alleged kiddie porn through their servers, they'd just e-mail back "tell the FBI". Legally, they can't even look at such.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-01-2005, 08:37 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Question-who wrote such a book? From what I hear, it's definitely got erotic undertones.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-01-2005, 09:01 PM
Primaflora Primaflora is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Germaine Greer. If it is the one I think it has to be.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-01-2005, 09:22 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 14,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia
Question-who wrote such a book? From what I hear, it's definitely got erotic undertones.

I can't give you a link (the next page includes pictures), but it's apparently a compiling of pictures by a large number of photographers (maybe twenty or thirty) from various countries, published during the 60's.

It's on sale on e-bay and by antique book sellers and is apparently a collector worth hundreds of dollars.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-01-2005, 09:32 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 14,043
And concerning erotic undertones, some pictures are of naked boys, some of undressed ones, some of fully clothed ones.

The two first categories are certainly erotic for a pedophile, but in the same way a picture of a naked or nearly naked woman is erotic for an heteroseual male. I could see only a couple samples of them, so maybe others are more suggestive, but they don't appear particularily erotic to me apart, once again, from the fact that naked boys are depicted on some of them. Others depict for instance a face-shot of a kid "listening" to a seashell, or another a boy smiling at rabbits.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-01-2005, 10:49 PM
caphis caphis is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 818
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfgdxm
How could this be done without making an evaluation of the images? I know several Internet sysadamins who refuse to even look at what is posted through their servers. If I e-mail them about alleged kiddie porn through their servers, they'd just e-mail back "tell the FBI". Legally, they can't even look at such.
Uh... don't they do this anyway? As in, sometimes when I pick up my one hour prints, the envelope is clearly labeled to charge me for 19 or 20 instead of 24, since they don't charge for prints that didn't come out, were overexposed, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-02-2005, 03:34 AM
Primaflora Primaflora is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
I'm wrong -- Greer did have a book published called The Boy but there is another one which looks a lot more erotic.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-02-2005, 04:45 AM
Charlie Tan Charlie Tan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
I seem to remember a ruling where it isn't considered child pornograhpy if the model is over 18, no matter how young s/he looks, or how the situation is portrayed. In essence, a girl, over 18, who hasn't got a very developed body, and posing as a schoolgirl with a lolly, is not child pornography, whereas the very (bodily) mature Traci Lords, who were 15 at the time and didn't appeal to prurient interests from pedophiles, is child pronography. I fully understand the protection of minors, but shouldn't the intent of the consumer acvcount for something in these cases?
Or to turn it around, owning a film with Traci could get me sent to the slammer for possesion, but subscribing to "HornyJuniorHighCatholiticSchoolgirlSluts.com all models are over 18" is kosher. I find it a bit ... strange.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-02-2005, 04:58 AM
Rune Rune is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Why? No harm has been done.

The same question arises in the case of cartoons and paintings depicting underage girls engaged in sexual acts as well as computer generated animations and literature, etc. It may affront the sentiments but no one is hurt. I suppose the intention of the laws is to protect the minors not to police public morality.

Wasn’t there a case of some man being imprisoned for having written sexual fantasies involving children in his own diary? Sounds like thought-crime to me, if right.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-02-2005, 06:28 AM
Cartooniverse Cartooniverse is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Betwixt My Ears
Posts: 11,194
My local drug store that develops my photos never pulled a print. I only have one or two shots of the kids that could be even vaguely objectionable, but no fuss was ever made. Then again, that was roughly 11-14 years ago, long before John Ashcroft decided that Lady Justice was obscene and pornographic.

Guin, I understand your fears- I too linked to a site a few months ago and was freaked out. It was an "artists gallery" much like my own gallery online, but it had ( amongst many other non-nudes ) a few distant or full-body shots of toddlers. At the beach. Still, I got scared...... what a world.

Cartooniverse
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-02-2005, 09:12 AM
Martiju Martiju is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gaspode
I seem to remember a ruling where it isn't considered child pornograhpy if the model is over 18, no matter how young s/he looks, or how the situation is portrayed. In essence, a girl, over 18, who hasn't got a very developed body, and posing as a schoolgirl with a lolly, is not child pornography, whereas the very (bodily) mature Traci Lords, who were 15 at the time and didn't appeal to prurient interests from pedophiles, is child pronography. I fully understand the protection of minors, but shouldn't the intent of the consumer acvcount for something in these cases?
I can see it both ways, but officially you can't be convicted on your intentions - which is a good job, given that prosecutors can assign you whatever fits their agenda at any particular time. How do you prove that someone had deleterious motives; or that they did not?

The problem, on the other hand, is that motives are sometimes pretty obvious. The fact is though, that the law is there for protection, and if no minors have been involved, no law has been broken.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-02-2005, 09:38 AM
Walloon Walloon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: America's Dairyland
Posts: 12,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rune
Wasn’t there a case of some man being imprisoned for having written sexual fantasies involving children in his own diary?
Brian Dalton. An Ohio appeals court overturned his conviction, and the case was sent back to trial for the First Amendment issues. Charges against Dalton were later dismissed.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-02-2005, 12:57 PM
Charlie Tan Charlie Tan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
I d understand the protection of minors angle. But the OP was concerned about pics found on the hard drive. And then it's not intent, it's fact. And I can't wrap my head around the fact that it's illegal to have a pic of Lords, while legal to have a pic of a nude (18 y.o.) who looks like 12. Looking just at what is portrayed, I'd say that Lords is not child pornography, even though she was 15 at the time, while the girl who's of age, and looks like 12, is child pornography. That those kind of pics are circulating, legally, on the net feeds the habit of the pedophiles, IMO.
Anyway, this might be more suited for GD.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-02-2005, 05:09 PM
bupkis bupkis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjung
Just as a sidebar, I hear that some big-chain photo development places (Target, Wal-Green's, etc.) refuse to develop any photos with child nudity on them, just to avoid any bruhaha over "kiddie porn" accusations.
(hijack)

Actually, Wal-Mart will not develop photos with any nudity in them. Someone I know took some nude self portraits for an intro photography class assignment and Wal-Mart refused to give him prints of the shots with visible naughty bits. He didn't know until he opened the envelope at home - they left a boilerplate note. Humorously, they did develop prints of him standing sideways, wearing a glove (not on his hand). I can imagine a Wal-Mart employee flipping through the prints, "Hmm, towel hanging from penis... acceptable. Naked bottom... unacceptable."
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-02-2005, 07:39 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 14,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gaspode
I d understand the protection of minors angle. But the OP was concerned about pics found on the hard drive. And then it's not intent, it's fact.
Precisely. You're punished for your actions, not for mere intent. And rightly so. Anything else would be thought police.

Besides, the law exist to protect kids. Not to punish people who have ideas you don't like. Even highly unpopular ideas.


Quote:
And I can't wrap my head around the fact that it's illegal to have a pic of Lords, while legal to have a pic of a nude (18 y.o.) who looks like 12.
First, I understand that Lords starred in porn movies, so I assume that it went well beyond mere nude pictures.


Honestly, I'm not sure why you're confused. The laws against child pornography, once again, are intended to protect minors. Lords was legally a child, the 18 yo is legally an adult and doesn't need protection. The motivation of the person looking at both pictures is completely irrelevant.


Think about it : watching a porn movie involving a well formed minor, you're watching at an *actual* teen, who might be mature, or might have the mindset of your 13 yo daughter, despite her appearance, engaged in various weird sex acts with a bunch of men to satisfy your prurient interest. What matters isn't your attraction to kids or lack thereof, nor the physical appearance of the child, but the fact that *she is* a child, mentally (or at least is legally assumed to be so).


So, you're actually enjoying seeing a young immature teen who is, say, giving blowjobs to half a dozen adult men, and funding the industry providing you with this "entertainment". Remove the large breasts that she happens to have developed early, and it's just another 15 or 14 yo. Do you now see why this is much more wrong (even from a purely moral, not legal, point of view) than a pedophile enjoying watching an adult who just happens to look younger?





Quote:
Looking just at what is portrayed, I'd say that Lords is not child pornography, even though she was 15 at the time, while the girl who's of age, and looks like 12, is child pornography.
It might be intended to appeal to the prurient interest of pedophile, but its' not child porn as long as no child is involved.

Let's push it a little further. If we assume that owning a picture of said adult girl who looks like a 12 yo is should be punished in the same way owning actual child porn is, then having sex with this girl should also be punished as harshly as having sex with a minor. Do you see the problem, here? Similarily, having sex with a well endowed 12 yo shouldn't be punished. See the problem, again?

The law, once again, is intended to punish people preying on kids. Not to punish people who have fantasies you dislike and who don't harm anybody.


Quote:
That those kind of pics are circulating, legally, on the net feeds the habit of the pedophiles, IMO.
Anyway, this might be more suited for GD.
Most definitely. And anyway, there has been a number of threads on this topic in GD.

However, what would you want to ban/punish exactly? Once again : parents taking pictures of their naked kids? Sex-ed books? Art photography? Documentaries about some amazonian tribe? Naturist resort ads? Medical books?

And where do you stop? We can assume a picture of a *nearly* naked kid would also "feed the habbit" of pedophiles. So, should pictures of children in swinmsuit be banned to? Of children wearing shorts? Teenagers wearing a short skirt?Eventually, should all pictures of children be banned if they aren't wearing a burqa?
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.