|
Forums >
Off-Topic Discussion >
Man arrested for painting & shooting 7 year old
Oct 01 09 09:47 pm Link No, he was arrested for MOLESTING 7 year old Oct 01 09 09:51 pm Link Frog516 wrote: Hey you shhhh... go back to emailing my lady, you'll ruin a good chance for the escort chest beaters to prove why they rule! Oct 01 09 09:53 pm Link MirrorImage Photography wrote: =/ Oct 01 09 09:53 pm Link Conceptually Black wrote:
Oct 01 09 09:55 pm Link Frog516 wrote: I know, she giggles and reads them to me. Hey, you talk to her, I get the physical part. I'm somehow oddly ok with that... Oct 01 09 09:55 pm Link And where in the hell where the parents during this nude body painting session of their 7 year old? If I had kids I certainly wouldn't drop off my 7 year old to some guy and go shopping etc in the meantime. Oct 01 09 09:56 pm Link I've photographed nudes of models under 18. I have NOT fingerpainted models under 18 in places only their bathing suit covers. There's a SIGNIFICANT difference between photographing an underage model in a professional setting, with their parents present and all US and state laws obeyed, and getting naked and feeling up a bunch of kids under the guise of art. Oct 01 09 09:57 pm Link  The title is really what you derived from this story? Really? Oct 01 09 09:57 pm Link Conceptually Black wrote: I am here to help Oct 01 09 09:57 pm Link Miss Fifi wrote: +1 Oct 01 09 09:59 pm Link MirrorImage Photography wrote: He is a predator. Oct 01 09 09:59 pm Link Phyxi wrote: Exactly! What the FUCK?!!! Oct 01 09 10:00 pm Link Miss Fifi wrote:
Oct 01 09 10:00 pm Link at least I got some posing advice from that article. STAND ON ONE FOOT! Oct 01 09 10:01 pm Link I'm creeped out that the OP didn't read that article and get out of it "gee, it sure is wrong to molest children" and instead seems to be upset about the oppression against totally legitimate child-painting nudist photographers. Oct 01 09 10:01 pm Link oh man i thought this post meant some guy used a paint ball gun on a 7 year old  both situations would not be good!Oct 01 09 10:04 pm Link Wow: unbelievable!! Oct 01 09 10:05 pm Link um yeah, I normally read the stuff posted here and side with the photographer who got "caught"... but this guy was just a strait up pedophile with a camera. Glad he's arrested. No reason what so ever to post this on MM though, its got nothing to do with this business. Oct 01 09 10:06 pm Link Sick. Oct 01 09 10:15 pm Link Jeff Cohn::X-Pose.net:: wrote: i am not sure i agree with that statement totally....what we do not know is who this person was and if he was a part of this business.....if he was, it is wise to keep ourselves informed of the bad things that happen in our business so we can try to promote the good things in our business and try to keep a watchful eye as a community to prevent scum like that from practicing in our business.... Oct 01 09 10:16 pm Link just so you know OP...this says a lot... "The girl said Mayberry told them âthat only (Mayberry) could paint them on their privates or their butts.â" Oct 01 09 11:51 pm Link Jenna Black wrote: Actually, there's no difference whatsoever in the eyes of federal and state law. Oct 02 09 12:49 am Link Dizeman wrote: there's no way in fuck i'm reading all of that Oct 02 09 12:56 am Link Danger Ninja Production wrote: I responded directlly to the comment that there is no difference between shooting minor children in a studio setting... Oct 02 09 12:58 am Link Dizeman wrote: I snipped this on purpose......but anyone can read your post if they want. What you wrote is mostly rubbish. Oct 02 09 12:58 am Link It's the law! There's no rubbish involved. Oct 02 09 01:00 am Link Dizeman wrote: and you could've said it in about 2-3 sentences Oct 02 09 01:02 am Link Well, they say ignorance is bliss... But here's the LAW! Under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), child pornography1 is defined as any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where the production of the visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or the visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or the visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Federal law (18 U.S.C. §1466A) also criminalizes knowingly producing, distributing, receiving, or possessing with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting, that depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Sexually explicit conduct is defined under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256) as actual or simulated sexual intercourse (including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex), bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person. Who Is a Minor? For purposes of enforcing the federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), âminorâ is defined as a person under the age of 18. Is Child Pornography a Crime? Yes, it is a federal crime to knowingly possess, manufacture, distribute, or access with intent to view child pornography (18 U.S.C. §2252). In addition, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have laws criminalizing the possession, manufacture, and distribution of child pornography. As a result, a person who violates these laws may face federal and/or state charges. Oct 02 09 01:05 am Link Dizeman wrote: It is NOT the law as you stated. Oct 02 09 01:06 am Link  In progress Oct 02 09 01:07 am Link The federal US Code chapter listings are in the post. It seems paragraphs of prose suggesting photographing a minor child nude was okay and did not upset you, but my posting the facts relative to the crime of photographing a minor child nude seems to have set you off. That's odd and a bit well... scary! Child pornography does not bother you, but posting the fact that it is illegal causes you grief? I've posted references to the law. That should be enough for mature and rational minds. Oct 02 09 01:10 am Link Jenna Black wrote: Dizeman wrote: Datza wrong...... Oct 02 09 01:10 am Link It's not wrong just because you want it to be wrong. Congress has stated and written into law that even if the person depicted in the image is NOT a minor, but is representing themselves as a minor, they can be charged with making and distributing chlid pornography. I suggest you spend some time learning the facts on the topic, instead of so heartily defending nude photography of minors. I've been a commercial photographer for 30 years, it's my job to know the laws governing my craft. There are probably a lot of laws you may not be familiar with, like in Las Vegas, actually Nevada Revised Statutes says a man with an erection, even if that erection is covered by clothing is in violation of state law and subject to a misdemeanor citation. Who woulda thunk it? But it's true! I suggest you do some research, then the MATURE thing to do would be to come back and apologize, but we know that's not going to happen. Oct 02 09 01:15 am Link Dizeman wrote: well the law is flawed then Oct 02 09 01:16 am Link Laws are often flawed. Not always fair. But the very Republic of the United States is defined as a NATION OF LAWS, not of MEN, err..... or women. Not my ruling, I said several times, I may not agree with the laws. But the laws I stated are factual. Oct 02 09 01:19 am Link I'm posting laws restricting the photographing of minor children nude and I am being hit with verbal pies for doing so? I find that amazing! Well that's 2009 Americana for you. Oct 02 09 01:21 am Link Dizeman wrote: well the problem for me is I have kids who I did photograph in the bath naked when they were babies, same as alot of parents and we are now being told we are some kind of perverts, and it causes this kind of reaction Oct 02 09 01:24 am Link Dizeman wrote: i've been one for 2 1/2 years and i know that you just posted a bunch of nonsense Oct 02 09 01:30 am Link Dizeman wrote: No your mixing apples and oranges. If you cannot read your own writing, I'm not going to waste my time. Oct 02 09 01:31 am Link |
as you wish. That is way more fun anyway
