I want to learn some something about photography so I was browsing that section at Borders today. I found quite a few books by pro photographers and leafed through a few of them. I was shocked to find one that was full of nude pics of pre-pubecent boys and girls ranging in age of 4 or 5 on up. These were posed pictures, and while not “erotic” they certainly were not photos one would find in a run of the mill national geographic article. Now I’m all for free artistic expression and so forth, but isn’t there laws against this kind of thing? I’m always hearing about someone busted for having kiddie porn on thier computer. Where is the line drawn? It seems to me that this book could fuel some pedophilia fantisies and might encourage bad behavior, which is what I presumed the laws were in place to prevent. Any ideas? I didn’t jot down the name of the book or the author, but I could find out if it would help answer the question. Thanks.
Its all based on context and purpose.
And the mind of the beholder.
Why should pedophiles be the ones to determine what books should be published? Because that’s what you’re ultimately advocating: if some pervert somewhere can have sexual fantasies about something, then that something should be banned.
-
-
- I read somewhere(?) that for it to be legally considered pornographic, the subjects must be involved in sexual activity. Simple nudity does not qualify as such, for subjects of any age.
~
- I read somewhere(?) that for it to be legally considered pornographic, the subjects must be involved in sexual activity. Simple nudity does not qualify as such, for subjects of any age.
-
That’s a bit of a straw man. Most fetishes are perfectly legal and no one is advocating banning most books which cater to these fantasies. Sexual depiction of children is an exception, not the rule, and it is illegal where sexual depiction of almost anything else is legal. As far as the OP is concerned, I have no idea where or how the legal line is drawn, but it’s a fact that depiction of children has a relatively unique status in this respect, and generalizing that to broad censorship is disingenuous.
Mere nudity does not pornography make. Even the courts and Congress have that one figured out, which is why the Kiddie-pr0n laws kind of go through a whole set of contortions and explanations to make sure that for children the bar is set much lower than for adults, w/o going to the absurd of outlawing the mere existence of a picture of a child w/o clothes. Even then, material such as the OP describes falls into something of a “grey area” under the current laws. It’s a context call, and if it’s being sold at a major chain bookstore, it’s a good bet that the lawyers have already gone over this one.
As to the 2nd part of the question, in many if not most US jurisdictions, if someone were arrested for “real” kiddie-pr0n, or child molestation and they found this in his home, or even a stack of cutouts from the Sears catalog showing children in their undies, that CAN be brought in as evidence of the perv’s state-of-mind even if otherwise legal.
(BTW: The “could possibly”, “may possibly”, “fuel pedophile fantasies” argument is also in something of a “grey zone”. This was the rationale for several recent laws that included language outlawing so-called “virtual” K-p, i.e. representations consisting purely of computer-graphic or drawings, and “simulated” K-p, i.e. representations involving non-minors playing minors. Twice already the Supreme Court has said that in those cases it was not good enough, that the basis for anti-K-p laws is to outlaw the actual exploitation of real children, not to address hypothetical could-would-may-possibly-conceivably scenarios.)
So? Did you buy the book? 
Note to anyone who has considered this:
Barnes & Noble frowns upon patrons reshelving the Jock Sturges books in the “Children’s Picture Books” area.
Nudity? Sexual activity? Neither is required for depictions of minors to be found pornographic. See United States v. Knox.
One of the truisms of the Web is this: if you post an image of anything, and I do mean anything, somebody somewhere wants to sleep with him/her/them/it.
You, sir, are evil. I will be fighting this temptation for the rest of my life.
Sad but true…
Were the photos by Mapplethorpe?
One giveaway that decides if something is porn: Are the pages stuck together?