Welcome to Gaia! ::

the minor seventh
Godspeed you Juxtaposed
Adelei Galloway
Godspeed you Juxtaposed
Adelei Galloway


Uh, yeah. An artist friend of mine was freaked out about it, and he did thorough research on it. You can take pictures of children at nude beaches and stuff <_<


once again. in the us under federal law you cannot. even portraying a nude child is illegal. drawings of nude children are illegal as well.


Then we wouldnt be able to display nude baby jesus in our art museums XD

Your mom never took pictures of you when you were in the bath when you were a baby? I guarantee you most mothers have. I guess all of them should be arrested.

A woman artist that live in Virginia, I can't remember her name right now, but she takes nude photos of her children playing in the forest, she hasn't been arrested for it.

Have you ever seen Shin-Chan? He takes his pants off all the time.. why would they air that in the US if you cant have not-perverted nude drawings? What about every cartoon or movie in all of history, where the protagonist is having their first date, and the first thing the mother does is show the girlfriend a picture of him as a baby, running around in his birthday suit?

If you can answer those questions logically, I'll believe you


Why didn't I get a notice for this?

Alright. First off you have two divisions of the law. If one has religious value, a naked idol, it is not considered child pornography.

Secondly, all "obscene" things have to pass a test if they're brought to court as obscene. Most states use the Miller test while we used to use the Hicklin test. They generally have to prove they offer some value to society.

Yes your mother taking pictures of you nude as a child can be considered child pornography and punishable under law. However there is a difference between what is legally wrong and what will be punished in court. Why doesn't Blizzard type World of Warcraft Private Servers and take down all of them and sue them all. Why doesn't Microsoft and Mac go to China and Africa and sue 95% of the people for having pirated software.

Most cartoons and movies that have the mother show sons girlfriend or boyfriend nude picture isn't actually the case.

To be honest I don't have a clue about Shin Chan. Since the show uses a crude drawing style and bad textures they are probably just obfuscating what could be down there thereby getting "legal immunity" from that sort of thing. The non american version of shin chan is much much much more graphic.

As long as the artist doesn't show nude genitalia she won't be able to be tried in court. However the child pornography laws are so deep and confusing that it's possible to convict anyone "bad" on anything. The same way the government can go to war with anyone and have the people be cool with it.

no.

it's only child pornography if it's a child portrayed in a sexually explicit way. that's what pornography means. it's not against the law to have pictures of naked children as long as they do not imply the child is a sex object. though you can still be classed as a ****** and put on a sex offenders list if you have naked pictures of a child and they believe you're using them in a sexually explicit manner.


which once again is what we're talking about. i may have not made it clear enough. if someone is to be tried for child pornography and they possess nude pictures of a child they're going to be arrested and most like convicted by a jury.
disconnections
Godspeed you Juxtaposed


bullshit.


no jarrod

multiple photographers who have taken nude photos of young children have been taken to court and it has repeatedly been shown that what they are doing is legal.

the idea that taking pictures of your children in the bath or running around the backyard naked is illegal is ******** stupid

and while there are multiple people who don't understand the differences between child pornography and pictures of naked children, i don't think you should be one of them.


jock sturges


kudos. gracoy i'm sure you can read to the point where i talked about obscenity tests and how this is actually applied to "artwork" such as photography, literature, and drawings.
Sunshinee-o-mater's avatar

4,200 Points
  • Forum Dabbler 200
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Forum Explorer 100
Yes, it's considered Child pornography. I did something like that once, but I was smart enough to ask him to barrow his computer before he broke up and whipped his hard drive. I then gave it back, I then broke up with him over something else a few weeks later.

She can report him for having it on his phone or do the whole he photo-shopped my head on to this.
It's not to smart to send out n***s unless it's you husband then do what ever your married to him then.
Adelei Galloway
Godspeed you Juxtaposed
Adelei Galloway
Godspeed you Juxtaposed
Adelei Galloway


Uh, yeah. An artist friend of mine was freaked out about it, and he did thorough research on it. You can take pictures of children at nude beaches and stuff <_<


once again. in the us under federal law you cannot. even portraying a nude child is illegal. drawings of nude children are illegal as well.


Then we wouldnt be able to display nude baby jesus in our art museums XD

Your mom never took pictures of you when you were in the bath when you were a baby? I guarantee you most mothers have. I guess all of them should be arrested.

A woman artist that live in Virginia, I can't remember her name right now, but she takes nude photos of her children playing in the forest, she hasn't been arrested for it.

Have you ever seen Shin-Chan? He takes his pants off all the time.. why would they air that in the US if you cant have not-perverted nude drawings? What about every cartoon or movie in all of history, where the protagonist is having their first date, and the first thing the mother does is show the girlfriend a picture of him as a baby, running around in his birthday suit?

If you can answer those questions logically, I'll believe you


Why didn't I get a notice for this?

Alright. First off you have two divisions of the law. If one has religious value, a naked idol, it is not considered child pornography.

Secondly, all "obscene" things have to pass a test if they're brought to court as obscene. Most states use the Miller test while we used to use the Hicklin test. They generally have to prove they offer some value to society.

Yes your mother taking pictures of you nude as a child can be considered child pornography and punishable under law. However there is a difference between what is legally wrong and what will be punished in court. Why doesn't Blizzard type World of Warcraft Private Servers and take down all of them and sue them all. Why doesn't Microsoft and Mac go to China and Africa and sue 95% of the people for having pirated software.

Most cartoons and movies that have the mother show sons girlfriend or boyfriend nude picture isn't actually the case.

To be honest I don't have a clue about Shin Chan. Since the show uses a crude drawing style and bad textures they are probably just obfuscating what could be down there thereby getting "legal immunity" from that sort of thing. The non american version of shin chan is much much much more graphic.

As long as the artist doesn't show nude genitalia she won't be able to be tried in court. However the child pornography laws are so deep and confusing that it's possible to convict anyone "bad" on anything. The same way the government can go to war with anyone and have the people be cool with it.


Hm, I honestly don't get it.. I do think children should absolutely be protected, but if what you say is true, then it goes far beyond protecting children and turns innocent people into perverts <_<. I guess a lot of people haven't been exposed to art history... so they couldn't possibly see it as a study or a belief that the human body is just a part of nature.


if they can prove it holds value, for art and such it can stay legal. if someone possessing nude pictures of children, even in an innocent manner is arrested and charged with possession of child pornography they can be charged and convicted. the law can also apply to cases where an adult, 18, is pretending to be younger 15-17, and they produce pornography of that.
Godspeed you Juxtaposed
disconnections
Godspeed you Juxtaposed


bullshit.


no jarrod

multiple photographers who have taken nude photos of young children have been taken to court and it has repeatedly been shown that what they are doing is legal.

the idea that taking pictures of your children in the bath or running around the backyard naked is illegal is ******** stupid

and while there are multiple people who don't understand the differences between child pornography and pictures of naked children, i don't think you should be one of them.


jock sturges


kudos. gracoy i'm sure you can read to the point where i talked about obscenity tests and how this is actually applied to "artwork" such as photography, literature, and drawings.


i'm just saying at the beginning you were making a generalization of "every picture of every naked child is illegal" and whether or not that was to incite boring conversation and whether or not you elaborated, it's still stupid.
Yeh

People are stupid these days and get chipped off easily.
disconnections
Godspeed you Juxtaposed
disconnections
Godspeed you Juxtaposed


bullshit.


no jarrod

multiple photographers who have taken nude photos of young children have been taken to court and it has repeatedly been shown that what they are doing is legal.

the idea that taking pictures of your children in the bath or running around the backyard naked is illegal is ******** stupid

and while there are multiple people who don't understand the differences between child pornography and pictures of naked children, i don't think you should be one of them.


jock sturges


kudos. gracoy i'm sure you can read to the point where i talked about obscenity tests and how this is actually applied to "artwork" such as photography, literature, and drawings.


i'm just saying at the beginning you were making a generalization of "every picture of every naked child is illegal" and whether or not that was to incite boring conversation and whether or not you elaborated, it's still stupid.


every picture of a naked child is illegal until proven to have some value. that's not a generalization that's how the us law works.

User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

rivals a very famous painting and to which it holds "value"
Godspeed you Juxtaposed


every picture of a naked child is illegal until proven to have some value. that's not a generalization that's how the us law works.

User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

rivals a very famous painting and to which it holds "value"


which album is that again? lol i remember it being posted in the mf a few months ago
disconnections
Godspeed you Juxtaposed


every picture of a naked child is illegal until proven to have some value. that's not a generalization that's how the us law works.

User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

rivals a very famous painting and to which it holds "value"


which album is that again? lol i remember it being posted in the mf a few months ago


See Jungle! See Jungle! Go Join Your Gang, Yeah. City All Over! Go Ape Crazy by bow wow wow
Sunshinee-o-mater's avatar

4,200 Points
  • Forum Dabbler 200
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Forum Explorer 100
A note to the discussion here about the photography side:

As a photographer there is a very fine line when using children. I have shot some photos where the side of the s**t or dressed slipped off. I have shot bare bottoms and children with only dipers, I have seen shots in tubs, babys first bath, and baby when first delivered.

Can they be said to be child pornography? Yes.

I had a problem with few I have shot. The one with the dress strap falling, and one with a child painting bare bottom.

I have never been prosecuted because they stated that it was considered Family Portraits with no sexual arousal.

Anything can be labeled Child pornography, even if you take a child and place them in a bathing suit and tell them to role in the mud.

It's one of those thing where you take the photo and if they say that there is a problem you fight it. You explain to the Judge what the photo was for, what happen after the photo and with the photo and what was the photos use. Most times it can be cleared up quickly and quietly.
Valkyrie Hatter's avatar

7,400 Points
  • Tycoon 200
  • Happy Birthday! 100
Adelei Galloway
Valkyrie Hatter
Adelei Galloway
Eh well, I think you can have n***s of children for artistic references.. but it can't be sexual in any way. And, hers were probably obviously sexual, so I'd say yes.

Artists are kind of face a complicated situation.. they want to portray the young human body correctly, but some are afraid of being labeled as ***** if they try to look at references.
You're thoughts on Charles Lutwidge Dodgson's photography is very amusing.


I didn't even know he was accused of such things <_< Yes, I do think children should be protected from child pornography, but he was accused because of regular pictures...? Why do we try to pervert everything? People that throw their accusations around are the ones that need to get their mind out of the gutter. xD
No he took nude and semi nude pictures of the girl he babysat and tutored, he also came up with Alice in Wonderland for her bedtime story and she urged him to make it into a book.
If she's dumb enough to take the pictures then, she has to face what's coming.
Last year, my senior year of high school, we came into school and the entire TV production lab was shut down (lots of people take that class). Some sophomore was dumb enough to send naked pictures to a guy she wasn't even dating. He proceeded to make them the background of all the computers at the school. rolleyes
Mister Okami's avatar

Dapper Pup

Technically yes, nude pictures of anyone under the age of 18 is considered child porn regardless of if the person in question takes the picture themselves and gives it to their boyfriend/girlfriend or whatever, or if someone takes the picture for them. Just like consensual sex between a minor and an adult is still considered statutory rape.

iirc in the case of pictures, both of the people involved are charged. At least that's how it works here I believe.

Now the real question is: Is drawn child porn still child porn? <:3c

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games