Weldphoto wrote:

Are you speaking as a qualified lawyer on this subject? Or are you just spouting your learned opinion?

You missed the point of what I wrote. My point was its not a moral issue, its an issure of protecting children. And that is not a religious or political issue.

Nope, that's the "law". There is no law specifying any age limit as to who can pose nude. It's the context and "interpetation" that will get you in trouble.

Weldphoto wrote:
Are you speaking as a qualified lawyer on this subject? Or are you just spouting your learned opinion?

I am not a lawyer and do not offer legal advice.  I am recounting what many many many lawyers have said both on this site and off this site...  This is not opinion it is fact that I'm "spouting"...knowing the facts has little to do with requiring a law degree.

Weldphoto wrote:
You missed the point of what I wrote. My point was its not a moral issue, its an issure of protecting children. And that is not a religious or political issue.

No, I responded to that point in the first words of my reply.  It *is* a "moral" issue.  There is an outright public group that states as it's cause bringing a stronger influence from the church to public politics.  It has called itself "The moral majority"...maybe you've heard of them?

It is not about "protecting children" it is about a cultural backlash to the increasing free expression of minority opinions and fringe beliefs in our daily lives...  (by minority I don't mean racial)

Saying it is a battle of "protecting the children" means you've been hoodwinked by the moral majority and you are buying in hook line and sinker in to what they're selling...

Limiting the rights of artists is not going to "protect the children" in any way.

C R Photography wrote:
Yea, definitely keep her clothes on and you should be in the clear.

Of course if you can get her cousin…. I mean husband Cletus to sign for her that'd be more better

*dies*
You beat me to it

"Squeal!  Squeaaaaaaaaaal like a pig!"

raveneyes wrote:
Oh and don't take any photographs including her chest either...even if it's completely covered and behind a lead lined apron.

Oh and not her neck either...some people consider that the ultimate erogenous zone...definitely having her neck in a photo, exposed or not, could lead to people thinking it's pornography

Oh and forget about her lips...JEEZE you could go to JAIL man!

Oh and not her legs either...everyone knows where all legs lead, that's right!!! Not the FLOOR!

Oh and not her feet because that's just perverted!!!

Don't laugh.  One of the laws passed under Clinton after the "Republican Revolution" lead by Gingrich & his co-horts stated that a photograph focusing overly much (How much is too much?  By whose standards?) would be considered child pornography even if the child was clothed.  The courts thankfully struck the law down as overly vague & unenforceable, but those sort of rational judges are the ones now being attacked as "activist" and being replaced with lockstep Facists like Alito.
There ARE people who still believe in this sort of thing, and they're currently running the government.

Weldphoto wrote:
I really think blaming this on religion and morality is going in the wrong direction. We live in a nation in which one out of four girls are abused before the age of 18 every year. One out of six for boys. The laws are not based on religion or morals but on a well meaning hope of protecting kids - like yours. It not a right or left wing issue, its about the protection of minors. Until someone can come up with a better way of doing so, then I suspect we will see these laws enforced more and more.
Sadly its about the rotten apples spoiling the whole bunch. We all pay for the crimes of others. That's why we have a pocket full of keys...

Strict religion & morality laws tend to increase & further child abuse & molestation.  You can find any number of studies that show anywhere fundamentalist ideology (and I mean any sort, I am not singling out Christianity) is in the fore, these sort of things increase.  This is not ionly obviously true in much of the Islamic world, but has also been shown in several demographic studies in the US.  Areas in the south & midwest with higher concentrations of fundamentalist churches have higher rates of all forms of child abuse.
Education and openess, not repression, are the keys to lessening these problems.
P.S., it's ENTIRELY possible to have morality without religion, in fact it's religion (and I am distinguishing religion from FAITH, the former is some guy telling you what God wants, the latter is an actual personal relationship with God) that often corrupts morality.

raveneyes wrote:
THESE ARE NOT LAWS...THERE ARE NO LAWS PROHIBITING OR LIMITING THE SHOOTING OF PEOPLE OF ANY AGE IN ANY STATE OF CLOTHING!!!

As I noted, yes, there ARE such laws, both various state & federal statues.  The courts have just kept them from being ENFORCED.

Nikia B wrote:
I think once a minor has been married, they're automatically considered emancipated.  So there is no "guardian"...

i was an emaciated minor at one point

T R Willmitch wrote:
Hi,

I strongly disagree as to the heart of the matter.  Yes, there is abuse but by whom and to what degree.  Mark Twain wrote that, “There are liars, damn liars, and statistics.â€?  I firmly believe that is the case here.

My graduate minor was in mathematics and I know statistical trash when I see it.  I see it in the numbers here and in the news.  It is a weapon being used in this country against those who do not subscribe to a narrow moral doctrine.  And the techniques that are being used ironically come straight from the pages of Noam Chomsky and works like “Manufacturing Consentâ€?.

Discussions like this fundamentally reflect ripples on the edge of a holy war waged against intellectuals and artists in this country

Take care,
Tom

Exactly.  It's a war of attrition, using the slippery slope method of taking on easy to attack, hard to defend emotional issues in order to chip away at our rights.
Alito spelled this out in the papers he wrote for Reagan on assaulting Roe V. Wade.  As I am frequently pointing out these days, it's NOT about abortion for those people, it's about eliminating the idea & precedent that we have a right to privacy and to be let ALONE in our own homes & bodies.

Weldphoto wrote:
You missed the point of what I wrote. My point was its not a moral issue, its an issure of protecting children. And that is not a religious or political issue.

Given that, at 16, this girl has already had a child & is living with a man, I am not sure what exactly we're protecting her FROM, except maybe herself.

Weldphoto wrote:
I would encourage you to go to www.darkness2light.org/  .com and learn more about child abuse in this country. Statistics are not always trash and I think you will find many intellectuals and artists in this country who do not share your fears of creeping holy wars.

Funny.  I looked that page up then started doing some referencing.  The page is assosciated with at least 2 Christian ministries, and there's one fundie ministry that share the same name tho there are no overt links.  It's also affiliated with several other "children's advocacy groups" all from southern states that're heavily right-wing Republican and made up of members that support neo-con (as opposed to true conservative) political principles.
Not to mention it's listed on several websites as a great example of network marketing, since the people who run it took it from the original community activist plan it ran on & turned it in to a business selling books, DVD's, "kids" bracelets, etc.
I'd wonder not only where the money was going, but about the veracity of information coming from people whose livelihood depends on you believing the problem exists to the extent they say it does & offer to sell you solutions.

Vito wrote:
You missed the point of what I wrote. My point was its not a moral issue, its an issure of protecting children. And that is not a religious or political issue.

Nope, that's the "law". There is no law specifying any age limit as to who can pose nude. It's the context and "interpetation" that will get you in trouble.

Way too many laws are like that.  In Florida, the state concealed wepaons statue reads that it shall be illegal to carry any weapon "excepting a common pocket knife" concealed without a permit.  But "common pocket knife" is never defined.  Basically it's left to each ADA and DA to decide if he wants to prosecute if a cop stops you & finds any sort of a blade on you, and then you have to defend yourself & take your chances wtih a jury.
Shooting minors works about the same way.
Thing is, if someone decides to make an issue of it with you, you may be right morally & legally, but by the time they get done prosecuting you, you'll be bankrupt & have your reputation smeared even if you win.
I don't feel it's worth the risk.

qphotonyc wrote:
i was an emaciated minor at one point

And then you found food?

Megs Corner Photography wrote:
I didn't finish reading the posts so I don't know if someone already said this or not but i'll say it anyways.

My brother was married at 16 which he had to be emanciated (sp) first by my parents.  Once he was married his wife became his legal guardian until he turned 18. 

If her husband were to sign the release for her than he is legally her legal guardian.

Depending on the state you're in, that still may not matter.
As a for instance, here in Fl a teen can go in the grocery store with her parents & the parents can buy beer.  But if she is with her husband and she's under 21 (even 18-20) they will not sell to him.
In Texas, on the other hand, she could go in a bar with him at 16, tho not drink, and it used to be that she could drink with him at 18, tho I believe that's been changed.
(I am a state licensed salesperson for alcohol in Fla, I have to know all the laws here & I know some in other states, they're a mess)

SLE Photography wrote:

Funny.  I looked that page up then started doing some referencing.  The page is assosciated with at least 2 Christian ministries, and there's one fundie ministry that share the same name tho there are no overt links.  It's also affiliated with several other "children's advocacy groups" all from southern states that're heavily right-wing Republican and made up of members that support neo-con (as opposed to true conservative) political principles.
Not to mention it's listed on several websites as a great example of network marketing, since the people who run it took it from the original community activist plan it ran on & turned it in to a business selling books, DVD's, "kids" bracelets, etc.
I'd wonder not only where the money was going, but about the veracity of information coming from people whose livelihood depends on you believing the problem exists to the extent they say it does & offer to sell you solutions.

You really don't know what you are talking about at all. I am very well aquanted with this organization and know many of its board members. Were you to say to them that they are right wing neo-cons they would laugh in your face. In fact I'll enjoy telling one tomorrow.

That there are religious groups supporting it does not mean its under its wings. Many religious groups support the Red Cross as well. Your logic is faulty.

The books sold are on ways to recognize and prevent child abuse. The cost covers the printing mostl. Are you against people learning the accepted signs of child abuse and ways to avoid it?

And are you further suggesting that because its located in the South its therefore Republican? Your prejudice is amazing and your knowledge of the South is tainted by it.

You are tilting at the wrong windmill with this organization.

What are you doing to prevent child abuse that is working better than a national organization offering information and training programs for prevention?

SLE Photography wrote:
Strict religion & morality laws tend to increase & further child abuse & molestation.  You can find any number of studies that show anywhere fundamentalist ideology (and I mean any sort, I am not singling out Christianity) is in the fore, these sort of things increase.  This is not ionly obviously true in much of the Islamic world, but has also been shown in several demographic studies in the US.  Areas in the south & midwest with higher concentrations of fundamentalist churches have higher rates of all forms of child abuse.
Education and openess, not repression, are the keys to lessening these problems.
P.S., it's ENTIRELY possible to have morality without religion, in fact it's religion (and I am distinguishing religion from FAITH, the former is some guy telling you what God wants, the latter is an actual personal relationship with God) that often corrupts morality.

In addition 75% of all porn in the U.S. is consumed in the so called bible belt states.

UCPhotog wrote:
The big one to remember is this - I don't think there is one lawyer here at MM.

There are several lawyers on MM...and some have replied to this thread.