Child Pornography - Where to Draw the line

[youngyew]

First off, some background for the uninitiated:

In most Western countries, it's not illegal to possess adult materials as long as the viewer, and the subject depicted are above the age of majority (usually 18 years old) and the "artwork" is done with the subject's consent. However, child pornography is a universal no-no - it's illegal to possess anything depicting naked subjects who are less than 18 year old. You can read more about it in these wiki articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...laws_by_region

Last year, a Monash medical student was convicted of possessing child pornography and faced ruin for his whole medical career. *(news here)* He was supposed to be an outstanding student with an impeccable background, but he will very likely lead a life with shame because of this incident.

Recently, one of the hottest news in Australian papers is this Bill Henson who had photographs consisting of pictures of naked 13-year-olds in art galleries. He is an otherwise "decent and inspirational" man; but these works of his, now perceived as child pornography, may now bring him some court or jail hours in the near future. *(news here)*

Meanwhile, Keira Knightley, your pretty princess in "Pride and Prejudice" and Pirates of the Caribbean, showed her bare breasts very legally in a movie called "The Hole", when she was 16 years old. And Saaya Irie, the "Busty 11-Year-Old Girl with F cup", is very well a legal thing because she wore bikini for her very suggestive photos.

Meanwhile, you, the readers of this post, might now be tempted to find the pictures of Bill Henson's works and Keira Knightley's The Hole screencaps. Yes they are available online, BUT WAIT!!! It's illegal to view those in Malaysia. Beware, you might face the same consequence as that medical student if you are not careful. However, you can very well enjoy Saaya Irie's pictures and videos, because, as you might have expected, as there are no genitalia or nipples in those works, you are still a free and legal man.

Do you think Bill Henson should really face the charges? Assuming that Bill Henson's works were genuinely "artistically orientated", how is his work more inculpable than Saaya Irie's shots? Just how should we draw a line for child pornography?

[bluez_aspic]

re: Bill Henson - is anything permissible so long as it is done in the name of art? Gratuitous violence/gore/nudity/porn/sex signifies rather a dearth in artistic talent and creativity.

Cases like Keira isn't uncommon btw (it probably started with Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet). 18 is quite arbitrary, if you think about it.

[youngyew]

Well I am not acquainted enough with art to answer that (that bit should be obvious to you ). But I do agree that with the case of art, it's a valid concern that people often try to exonerate themselves of violence or obscenity with the "art" excuse, just like how some people naively think that racism is permissible as long as it's done in www.uncyclopedia.org

[youngyew]

Originally Posted by bluez_aspic

18 is quite arbitrary, if you think about it.

Precisely!

I know the legal convenience of setting an arbitrary threshold as such; but when things become black and white, sometimes it's becoming preposterous to say that someone jerking off to a photo of an 18-year-old is more punishable than jerking off to a photo of 17-year-and-11-month-old. And you see people writing things like "she's legal next month" very often.

[bluez_aspic]

Originally Posted by youngyew

Precisely!

I know the legal convenience of setting an arbitrary threshold as such; but when things become black and white, sometimes it's becoming preposterous to say that someone jerking off to a photo of an 18-year-old is more punishable than jerking off to a photo of 17-year-and-11-month-old. And you see people writing things like "she's legal next month" very often.

And Muhammad had a 9-year-old wife.

Heh, how do you ensure proper use of liberty?

The West clamours for artistic freedom (freedom of all sorts, in fact), but they've forgotten that personal responsibility is a REQUIREMENT freedom. They've totally lost the plot - and with moral foundations being eroded Western society is on the decline.

[Shoblast]

re: Bill Henson - is anything permissible so long as it is done in the name of art? Gratuitous violence/gore/nudity/porn/sex signifies rather a dearth in artistic talent and creativity.

Cases like Keira isn't uncommon btw (it probably started with Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet). 18 is quite arbitrary, if you think about it.

Your argument stands, but it goes cuts both ways, you know. The excuse people throw up to deflect accusations of Gratuitous violence etc etc by calling it art works because there are examples of violence/gore/nudity/what-have-you that is good art. Just because someone is distasteful enough to hide their lack of creativity with a smokescreen, doesn't mean that the original merit of using these elements in art isn't there. In fact, it speaks for the power of using such elements that it is used as an excuse at all.

So lets draw the line.

Is the child hurt? is the child exploited? will this cause mental trauma? was the child physically hurt? was there consent?

I'm arguing for artistic freedom, so long as the active intent to cause someone hurt is not part of the art making process.

[youngyew]

Shoblast, people who can't accept naked 13-year-olds being displayed in art exhibition are emotionally hurt. Is that a good enough reason?

[vseehua]

Originally Posted by youngyew

Shoblast, people who can't accept naked 13-year-olds being displayed in art exhibition are emotionally hurt. Is that a good enough reason?

Who are they to decide whether the child was emotionally exploited or hurt, when they are not there at the scene at all?

[Shoblast]

if they are emotionally hurt, then too bad for them. as long as the child is not hurt.

if we had to care about people who get emotionally hurt from content which making does not involve them, then the world would still be perceived flat.

[bluez_aspic]

A fully-clad Keira is good enough for me.