# Manhattan and Naked Threads **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 18, 2000, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-and-naked-threads/26001 "2000-07-18T18:22:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Amok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f17d59/32.png) [@Amok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amok)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2000, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-and-naked-threads/26001/21 "2000-07-19T18:00:21Z")
> [@](#): > > _ **capacitor** sez:_ > I believe that a federal court ruled unconstitutional the ‘depiction appears to be’ clause in the law, because it was vague. It could apply to all babyface 18+ year olds. I am not sure about the case reference, though. I found that ruling, [http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/870e86074f45abe6882566eb005d6cd4/723f1714f48cc02b8825684a00754091?OpenDocument](http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/870e86074f45abe6882566eb005d6cd4/723f1714f48cc02b8825684a00754091?OpenDocument), on the net (the url appears to be too long for this software, and a space is being inserted into it, if you want to check the url out, make sure you take out any spaces). Some quotes from it: > [@](#): > > We find that the phrases “appears to be” a minor, and > “convey[s] the impression” that the depiction portrays a > minor, are vague and overbroad and thus do not meet the > requirements of the First Amendment. Consequently we hold > that while these two provisions of the Act do not pass constitutional muster, the balance of the Child Pornography Prevention Act is constitutional when the two phrases are stricken. > [@](#): > > The 1996 law, the law at issue here, changed course. The regulation direction shifted from defining child pornography in terms of the harm inflicted upon real children to a determination that child pornography was evil in and of itself, whether it involved real children or not. This shift forms the basis of the constitutional challenge Free Speech makes here. > [@](#): > > The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 expanded > the law to combat the use of computer technology to produce > pornography containing images that look like children. The > new law sought to stifle the use of technology for evil purposes. This of course was a marked change in the criminal > regulatory scheme. Congress had always acted to prevent > harm to real children. In the new law, Congress shifted the > paradigm from the illegality of child pornography that > involved the use of real children in its creation to forbid a “visual depiction” that “is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” See 18 U.S.C.A. > S 2256(8)(B) (West Supp. 1999). > [@](#): > > [11] The CPPA’s criminalizing of material that “appears to > be a minor” and “convey[s] the impression” that the material > is a minor engaged in explicit sexual activity, is void for > vagueness. It does not "give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, "and it fails to provide explicit standards for those who must apply it, “with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.” Greyned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S.104, 108-09 (1972). > > [12] The two phrases in question are highly subjective. > There is no explicit standard as to what the phrases mean. The phrases provide no measure to guide an ordinarily intelligent person about prohibited conduct and any such person could not be reasonably certain about whose perspective defines the appearance of a minor, or whose impression that a minor is involved leads to criminal prosecution. From looking through the decision, it appears that the writers of the law were not attempting to criminilize pornography featuring youthful looking adults (Monfort’s mythical 29 year old girlfriend), but rather images that looked like children but that had been produced by computers rather than by having actual children pose. I’m not exactly sure what that would include, possibly sexually explicit animation, or “fakes” featuring the heads of (celebrity) minors pasted onto the body of adults. Nevertheless, various people felt that the law was vague enough that it could be interpreted in quite a few ways, and the 9th Circut Court of Appeals agreed with them by ruling that the controversial phrases were unconstitutional. (Can’t seem to fix that url, sorry. your humble TubaDiva) [Edited by TubaDiva on 08-22-2000 at 04:26 PM] ---
**Author:** ![handy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@handy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handy)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2000, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-and-naked-threads/26001/22 "2000-07-19T22:23:16Z")
They are now posting pictures guys on the net at: [http://wetip.com/wetip/sbstat/sbstagr.htm](http://wetip.com/wetip/sbstat/sbstagr.htm) Wanted for Criminal Statutory Rape. ---
**Author:** ![Skott](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Skott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skott)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2000, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-and-naked-threads/26001/23 "2000-08-21T22:45:36Z")
Not to beat a dead horse, monkey or whatever, but I came across this factiod at IMDB: “Thora Birch was only 17, so filming her brief nude scene required permission from her parents, who were both on the set during the filming along with child labor representatives.” Now I don’t know if that means that the law requires that there be parental permission before underaged children can be photographed in the nude or if the Screen Actor’s Guild or Hollywood standards demand it. ---
**Author:** ![Badtz\_Maru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e36b37/32.png) [@Badtz\_Maru](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Badtz_Maru)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2000, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-and-naked-threads/26001/24 "2000-08-21T23:10:05Z")
[note: inappropriate link removed by manhattan] **Do Not** , in any context, ever, for any reason, link to sites purporting to depict nude underage persons. [Edited by manhattan on 08-22-2000 at 01:04 PM] ---
**Author:** ![black\_rabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@black\_rabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/black_rabbit)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2000, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-and-naked-threads/26001/25 "2000-08-21T23:38:08Z")
Sally Mann, David Hamilton, Jock Sturges, et al have consistently been vindicated in court whenever some local sherriff decides to take them (or the distributors of their books) to court. The pseudo-porn sites that use scans of their work are guilty of copyright violations, not disseminating. There was a recent case in my town of a B&N getting hauled up on charges for selling a Hamilton book to one of the local family values crusaders in a “sting.” The judge immediately tossed the charges because, no matter what some may think, Hamilton is an artist, not a pornographer, and his works supposedly have artistic merit. ---
**Author:** ![yabob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yabob/32/2821_2.png) [@yabob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yabob)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2000, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-and-naked-threads/26001/26 "2000-08-22T00:56:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Unaware of the content of The Tin Drum, but aware that the novel was written by a Nobel prize winner, I rented it recently. > > The film was rated R (in Australia) and I’d been watching 90 minutes or so, thinking, this is disturbing, but R? > > Then the contraversial scene. Whoah. > > Later there were other (non-sexual) scenes equally emetic in effect. > > I can’t imagine that anyone would find any of it erotic though. Gunter Grass is a favorite author of mine, but I haven’t seen the movie of “The Tin Drum”, and I’m not really sure I want to, and not especially for the “pornographic” content (the damn eels are vivid enough in print, thank you). > [@](#): > > As near as I can determine, under US federal law (Title 18 Chapter 110, see Skott’s link), nude pictures of minors (no matter what their age) are not illegal in and of themselves. It only becomes illegal if the picture has a minor engaged in “sexually explicit conduct” and simple nudity doesn’t qualify for that. > > > [@](#): > > > > (2) ‘‘sexually explicit conduct’’ means actual or simulated - > > … (some list items deleted for brevity) > > (E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person; > > Persumably this is the case so that naked baby pictures and photos from nudist camps don’t land people in jail. Of course, there’s a difference, IMO, between having such photos in a family photo book and, say, posting them on the web, but I don’t think the law differentiates between those cases. Trouble is, that E) item is AWFUL flexible, and “lascivious” is very much in the eye of the beholder rather than in the intent of the photographer. National Geographic is traditionally lascivious exhibition if you happen to be a 13 year old boy. And there have been a few well-publicized cases lately of mere nudity of the “naked baby pictures” variety getting people in trouble even when intended only for private photo albums. In todays political climate, if you’re going to take nekkid pictures of your kids, you are probably well advised to buy a digital camera, or be very damned careful where you get them developed. And if you go to nudist camps, the same applies to your holiday snaps. ---
**Author:** ![Dijon\_Warlock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a9a28c/32.png) [@Dijon\_Warlock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dijon_Warlock)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2000, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-and-naked-threads/26001/27 "2000-08-22T09:53:02Z")
Skott– Was your landlord Carl Gross? He did indeed do a nude shoot of Brooke when she was 10, at her mother’s request. He still sells prints on his website (sorry, mods say ‘No Links!’). She had them taken for Louis Malle, the film director who was casting for his (I believe) first American film. She landed the part, “Pretty Baby” was made (Brooke nude in the film at 12yo, or thereabouts), and Ms. Shields was instantly on the cover of _everything_. Regarding the legality of photographing minors nude: it _can_ be done, but it’s a pain to get by with. Jock Sturges is a master of the genre, but gets hassled every time a new book comes out (even raided by the FBI on one occasion–a federal grand jury threw the case out, finding that the pornography charges had no merit). New one coming at Thanksgiving. Watch for the hooplah. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Skott](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Skott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skott)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2000, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-and-naked-threads/26001/28 "2000-08-22T17:45:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dijon Warlock \* > \*\*Skott– > > Was your landlord Carl Gross?\*\* No, I’m afraid not. My landlord was a French free-lance photographer who happened to be in on a session… whether it was the one with Carl Gross in particular or not, I can’t say. As for his name, I would have to look up my old checks to be sure, but I think his first name was Jacques. The photo itself (going from a dim memory as it is) was from her midriff up. Her hair, _I think_, was flowing as if there might have been a little wind and I think one of her hands was in her hair. His story was that they were near the end of the session and they were looking for a better shot than any one that they had taken so far… something about bringing out her eyes or something. All the clothing she had worn had detracted from the emphasis they wanted to place, so someone got the bright idea of having her go topless. They asked the mother and she agreed, so they took the shot. Don’t quote me on any of it, though. I kind of got the impression that the photo he took was his own apart from the rest of the photographers at the session, and he may have never published it. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2000, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-and-naked-threads/26001/29 "2000-08-22T21:24:29Z")
Great idea, that… Have her pose topless so as to emphasize her eyes… :rolleyes: Wouldn’t it have been simpler to just crop the picture at the neckline? ---
**Author:** ![Amok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f17d59/32.png) [@Amok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amok)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2000, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-and-naked-threads/26001/30 "2000-08-22T22:03:24Z")
> [@](#): > > (Can’t seem to fix that url, sorry. your humble TubaDiva) > > [Edited by TubaDiva on 08-22-2000 at 04:26 PM] Thanks for the effort. From playing around with preview a bit, it seems that this software will only accept 100 characters in a row without a space. A link (or anything else) that exceeds 100 characters will have a space inserted into it. Anyways, it appears the link is no longer good even if you do manually remove the space, as its link on the [US Ninth Circuit](http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) website has apparently changed since I posted it. The new link is just as long though, so I doubt it would work any better here. So, for the sake of completeness, if anyone wants to look up the decision I cited, the case name is “Free Speech v. Reno”, the case number is 97-16536, and the opinion was filed December 17, 1999. Hopefully that should be enough for anyone interested to find it. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2000, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-and-naked-threads/26001/31 "2000-08-22T22:19:33Z")
Long links work if you encase them in a hyperlink. Thus, [Free Speech v. Reno](http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/4bc2cbe0ce5be94e88256927007a37b9/f8212abf8bb61a5488256927007af0de?OpenDocument) should work. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2000, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-and-naked-threads/26001/32 "2000-08-22T22:23:07Z")
But of course it did not. I think it’s their fault, some kind of weird Lotus notes internal linking thing. You can go to the 9th Circuit’s site and run a search for Free Speech v. Reno. ---
**Author:** ![Skott](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Skott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skott)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2000, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-and-naked-threads/26001/33 "2000-08-23T23:17:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chronos \* > \*\*Great idea, that… Have her pose topless so as to emphasize her eyes… :rolleyes: > > Wouldn’t it have been simpler to just crop the picture at the neckline? \*\* Well, I can’t speak for them, but the understanding I got was that they didn’t want a head-shot and also, they wanted the complete arm in the picture. The fact that she was topless was, in theory, not supposed to detract from her face since she was so young and had not developed yet. Whether it did or not, I suppose, is up to the viewer. The photographers and the mother all seemed quite pleased with the results, according to Jacques. I just wasn’t happy to come face to face with the picture every time I left my room. After reading about the “Free Speech vs. Janet Reno” case, I want to rant right now about free speech, simulated/non-simulated child, the digital world, and heck I’ll even through in DVDs, but I think that I will take a deep breath and wait for another time and place. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-and-naked-threads/26001.md?page=1)