Dizeman wrote:
The topic was never NUDITY, it was photographing MINOR CHILDREN NUDE. Talk about apples and oranges.

Actually it was about touching minor children in a sexual fashion using photography as the excuse.. talk about your apples and oranges.

291 wrote:
the fact is, the law as pointed out is correct.  determining the length of the law is another matter as it comes down to local interpretation and community standard.

the federal law is one that begins the starting point for local authorities to build based on their standards.  where a suggestive photo taken of a 16 year-old may be perfectly fine in los angeles, that same photo taken in omaha could be viewed as a pornographic image based on their standard.  the weight of the local decision is supported through the federal guideline, not a federal agency that will come swooping in to make a bust.

outside of how this relates to minors, it's also pertinent to allowing or refusing the placement of titty bars through zoning laws.  it becomes a local issue of which previous challenges have sided with local statutes and ordinances in determining what constitutes pornography.

body painting little girls is deplorable.  body painting big girls gets the camera messy and is best left to one specializing in that field rather than the one snapping the pictures.

I agree that any abuse, such as the inappropriate touching of a child is inexcusable. I do not find touching or abusing a child equal to taking a photograph, but my comments were not about how I feel about the issue, merely pointing out that the law prosecutes both under the Child Protection Act.

CGI Images wrote:

Actually it was about touching minor children in a sexual fashion using photography as the excuse.. talk about your apples and oranges.

from some of his quotes, I don't think he knows the difference between a buick and a banana.

Tessa Chernoi wrote:

But these terms are not synonymous with nudity... the law is talking about lascivious, lewd, lustful images... not simple nudity.

As well as all the example cases he posted had to do with sexual images of minors.

Dizeman wrote:

I agree that any abuse, such as the inappropriate touching of a child is inexcusable. I do not find touching or abusing a child equal to taking a photograph, but my comments were not about how I feel about the issue, merely pointing out that the law prosecutes both under the Child Protection Act.

but you also said that ALL photographs of nude children were illegal, which is in fact 100% wrong.

Lazyi Photography wrote:

from some of his quotes, I don't think he knows the difference between a buick and a banana.

I'm quite sure of that... most definately doesnt know the difference between sexual and non-sexual when it comes to images.  Wonder if he's aware you can produce child porn without any nudity involved at all....I doubt it.

Dizeman wrote:
merely pointing out that the law prosecutes both under the Child Protection Act.

Granted... and you failed in miserable fashion.

Dizeman wrote:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/08/art-or-obscenity-a-nude-model-is-arrested-at-metropolitan-museum-of-art.html

Apparently nudity is against the law. Or, perhaps she was arrested for posing. Or maybe she was arrested for being in public? Maybe she was arrested for standing too straight? Was she arrested for being too pretty, if indeed she was pretty at all? Possibly she was arrested because she was too blonde? Too brunette? NO! SHE WAS ARRESTED FOR BEING NUDE!!

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culture … f-art.html

Yeah, nudity is illegal in some places, that doesnt make nudity illegal in itself, really thats the best you've got.

I can go nude all day long at my favorite designated family nudist camp, even take my kid and be nude with her as well, I can even take pictures of all the kids there nude.. perfectly legal.

I cant go to walmart and shop in the garden isle naked, thats illegal.... do you really not get the difference?  Really?

CGI Images wrote:

Yeah, nudity is illegal in some places, that doesnt make nudity illegal in itself, really thats the best you've got.

I can go nude all day long at my favorite designated family nudist camp, even take my kid and be nude with her as well, I can even take pictures of all the kids there nude.. perfectly legal.

I cant go to walmart and shop in the garden isle naked, thats illegal.... do you really not get the difference?  Really?

Actually, now that you mention it... I don't get the difference. I don't find nudity offensive at all. Be it your camp or Walmart, but... I think hitting people is offensive, stabbing and starving people is bad, but nudity does not trigger my offensive buttons.

Phyxi wrote:
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.

Yeah man where were they??
Dude this is so messed up, this is what obsession over photography can do to a man Be aware!

TanyaDal wrote:

well the law is flawed then

Whoa, be careful of the pictures you post. That second one rank up there in the most depressing photos I've ever seen.

Dizeman wrote:
Nude photos of minor children is pornography.

IF the image is deemed lascivious in content and of a sexual nature.  There's a HUGE IF in there! 
For example, NOT porn:

Dizeman wrote:

Actually, there's no difference whatsoever in the eyes of federal and state law.

The United States Congress and the U.S. Department of Justice expanded child pornography laws to include the representation of, be it abstract or real, through any means, be it electronic or mechanical, any drawing, sketching,  painting, video, photography of a nude or suggestive image of anyone under the legal age of 18.

Any and all under the age of 18 are minor children in the eyes of the law. Federal law and each and every one of the 50 States of the Union consider nude photos and suggestive photos of anyone under the age of 18 a Class III Felony with sentences from 20 years to LIFE in prison.

Parents of minor children, defined as any and all under the age of 18 cannot authorize and have no right to authorize the creation, depiction or permission to do either of a minor child.

The minor child themselves have no right, nor legal authority to authorize or allow any such depiction or creation of nude images of themselves.

In fact, both the parents and the minor child can face felony charges of "Manufacturing and Distribution of Child Pornography" as well as "Conspiracy to Manufacture and Distribute Child Pornography."

It does not matter what YOU or I think or feel about what is and what is not child pornography ie; Kiddie Porn, it is clearly defined by federal and state law to be any representative image, be it real or abstract of any minor child, defined as anyone under the age of 18.

It's a felony... PERIOD! to photography anyone under the age of 18 in a sexually suggestive pose or any state of undress or nudity.

DATZ DA FACTS!

You or I may agree with that or not agree with that, but if you get caught photographing or photos you took ten years ago of a 17 year and 364 day, 23 hour and 59 minute, 59 second old model... you just committed felony child pornography and are subject to spending the majority of the life you have left in prison.


In the Las Vegas valley we have LVMPD, Henderson Police Department and Boulder City Police Department as well as North Las Vegas Police Department, each have their own Electronic Crimes Division which does nothing all day, all night, 365 days a year, but check out such violations, they even set up fake minor child accounts to entrap LEGALLY predators who prey on minor children, again...defined as anyone under the age of 18. It is not a flexible law. It is literal and not up for interpretation!

There is a ZERO TOLERENCE policy when it comes to child pornography and photographing any minor child, regardless of how beautiful they are, regardless of how sophisticated they may appear, regardless of how mature they act, they are still in the eyes of every law enforcement agency, the Department of Justice and every court in the nation, minor children protected under the Child Protection Act.

Shoot a 17 year-old model nude and I suggest you brace yourself! The only people who ever get caught are the ones who are CERTAIN they will never get caught. In fact... being certain you will never get caught is REQUIRED for you to do time in prison.

Those who feel there is a good chance they will get caught... just don't do it!

Are you certain the person you are shooting is 18? Are you okay with photographing a 17 year-old BABETTE?  Are you just as certain that 17 year-old is not a law enforcement DECOY/PLANT?

Hey! Have fun, be safe.... Stay legal!

JD

you are wrong. 

see, i can keep it to under 12 paragraphs

Dizeman wrote:
I've had a saying all of my life that... "The difference between adults and children, is that adults understand there can be disagreement without disrespect."

Actually, I'd say it's voting rights and a mortgage, but I guess we have opposing views there...

Big A-Larger Than Life wrote:

IF the image is deemed lascivious in content and of a sexual nature.  There's a HUGE IF in there! 
For example, NOT porn:

Why are his wittle hands and feet blue?

Sabrina Maree wrote:

Why are his wittle hands and feet blue?

i think that is how they are born.  the umbilical is also still attached.

Damon Banner wrote:

i think that is how they are born.  the umbilical is also still attached.

I hope so... I don't know much about birthin' no babies.

Sabrina Maree wrote:

Why are his wittle hands and feet blue?

Happens plenty with neonates because their circulatory system isn't developed well yet, esp. if they're born a bit premature, etc.  As long as it's the hands and feet that are cyanotic and not the whole nugget, it's no biggie. 

Dizeman wrote:
but my comments were not about how I feel about the issue, merely pointing out that the law prosecutes both under the Child Protection Act.

but your comments go to broad brush strokes that don't alway apply.  if you don't understand that then you don't know how the laws are applied.

Miss Fifi wrote:


The title is really what you derived from this story? Really?

No kidding... the title seems all wrong here!

291 wrote:

but your comments go to broad brush strokes that don't alway apply.  if you don't understand that then you don't know how the laws are applied.

Exactly!  I'm so sick of all of these people that freak out even at the sight of a topless girl young enough to still have her milk teeth.  For Christ's sakes, they have a fucking prepubertal chest at that age in the first place.  And even full nudes of young kids does not mean the image is PORN!  Just as a simple nude of an adult isn't PORN unless there's... PORN involved!  Plenty of art nudes, medical nudes, and other nudes floating around out there of people of ALL ages and both genders that have nothing to do with getting someone's rocks off.  For the life of me, I cannot understand why some people seem so heavily trained to believe that the mere sight of a naked human body is pornographic, sexual, and crude in nature.  That's truly kind of tragic.

Dizeman wrote:
Nude photos of minor children is pornography. Where do you live that you imagine that not to be true.

Were this the case, there would be so many of those photographs of starved, almost totally naked children in third world countries would be considered pornography.

Pornography, by definition, requires a sexual focus.

Eryn M Gombos wrote:
epic fail thread.

and what the hell is that guy talking about!??  I think hes speaking in troll speak

You don't even KNOW, Eryn!  Gah!  He's been doing this for 30 years!!! 

BigA-LTL-The FAB Page wrote:

You don't even KNOW, Eryn!  Gah!  He's been doing this for 30 years!!! 

What...

speaking nonsense

or trolling  ??

Dizeman wrote:
Like I said... it's a simple concept.

Well photograph a nude minor child and take it down to the local police department and I think they will explain it to you better than I have been able to. Hey! Give it a shot!


They will explain to you what I have been unable. If they tell you how wonderful the photo is and send you on your way. Well... give it a shot! They will make my point for me and clear things up for you.

With that... I'm done!  I have no NEED for this.

well obviously you've never heard of Jock Sturges( yea yea I know he wasn't american but he didn't molest anyone nor did he shoot sexual content) and according to you the page in this link is enough to get the owners of google put in jail for allowing such art of children to be on their website.

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&s … =1&start=0