| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/16/2005 09:13:03 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Funny that such a photo (or kids in a bathtub) wouldn't have raised an eyebrow in far more "moral" times 20 years ago, but NOW people question it as provocative despite open nudity on TV, video games, etc. |
Perverts didn't have Photoshop and the internet 20 years ago. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:13:09 PM · #52 |
The legality of hosting anything considered to be child pornography is up to the state and federal law that govern the business, not the site members.
However, I doubt the FBI would have been called on this one, and would be silly to even consider it.
1. Maybe not the best idea to post pics of your kids showing too much skin on the internet, dems the breaks.
2. If you don't care about some sicko out there diddling away to pics of your kids because of your rigid hold to "artistic freedom", you have problems.
3. It is your right to have problems.
4. It is my right to say that you have problems.
5. It is your right to say that my percieved ideas about your phsyche suck, and are a problem.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:18:25 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by sher9204:
would you let someone take possibly provocative pictures of your child for the purpose of posting on the web? perhaps for posting them on a voyeur site? |
You mean like THIS? Hey, it happens, and as you can see clothes are no deterrent. I'm certainly not happy about someone swiping the image, but I'm not about to hide the entry over it either.
Funny that such a photo (or kids in a bathtub) wouldn't have raised an eyebrow in far more "moral" times 20 years ago, but NOW people question it as provocative despite open nudity on TV, video games, etc. |
so ah can I be your lawyer when you sue the living hell out of that site ???
and BTW I was thinking about 25 years ago but you are so right |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:20:22 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
The legality of hosting anything considered to be child pornography is up to the state and federal law that govern the business, not the site members.
However, I doubt the FBI would have been called on this one, and would be silly to even consider it.
1. Maybe not the best idea to post pics of your kids showing too much skin on the internet, dems the breaks.
2. If you don't care about some sicko out there diddling away to pics of your kids because of your rigid hold to "artistic freedom", you have problems.
3. It is your right to have problems.
4. It is my right to say that you have problems.
5. It is your right to say that my percieved ideas about your phsyche suck, and are a problem. |
Thank You for saying it how I couldn't!!! ROFL |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:21:12 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Perverts didn't have Photoshop and the internet 20 years ago. |
How does that make a photo provocative now that wasn't back then? |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:22:09 PM · #56 |
Well,....What If.....you cohersed and paid your twelve year old daughter to pose nude and after four shots she became very uncomfortable and self conscience and left,refusing to pose for any more photos. Would you still post one of the shots on the internet? Would the twelve year old be the perverted one because she had these feelings?
Was the parent\authority figure setting a good example for her twelve year old daughter? Or was she setting her up to cash in at a later date? Which one do you really feel was perverted? What if the child were male? Would it make a diference? How about Michael Jackson? Do ya think he just wanted to share his milk and cookies? Do people with common sense leave their children with a crouch grabbing idiot? People have been selling their children for ages.
Go ahead and flame me, call me another one of those Christian fools and go watch some more of Howard Stern. Fill your heads with more garbage.
edit:
example taken from the site of dpChallenge
Message edited by author 2005-12-16 21:33:18.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:22:20 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
I *said* I didn't assume it was removed because of the comment. |
Yeah, you added that in the edit while I was posting - I saw it afterwards.
Originally posted by Artyste:
I'm not saying legality has no place here, I'm saying making factless accusations of legality based on personal feelings doesn't, and I'll stick by that. Opinion is, "I am uncomfortable with this." not, "I am a police officer and this is borderline illegal." Which, to me, is a bully tactic. |
I hear ya, Artyste, but how do you know what his motives are? How do you know he is not warning the photog that they could be in legal danger by posting it? Even if he is wrong, I wouldn't assume he was trying to bully them into removing the photo.
If I am standing at a bus stop and a guy next to me lights up a joint and I tell him - "hey man, that is illegal and you could be arrested." Do you think I would be telling him for the purposes of making him put it out and not light up again? Or maybe cuz there's a cop on the corner and I'd hate to see the guy get hauled in.
Like I said, you saw the comment, I didn't, so it's hard for me to defend it specifically, I'm just sayin' give the guy the benefit of the doubt. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:23:54 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
The legality of hosting anything considered to be child pornography is up to the state and federal law that govern the business, not the site members.
However, I doubt the FBI would have been called on this one, and would be silly to even consider it.
1. Maybe not the best idea to post pics of your kids showing too much skin on the internet, dems the breaks.
|
Time to go back to full-body bathing suits too.Originally posted by wavelength:
2. If you don't care about some sicko out there diddling away to pics of your kids because of your rigid hold to "artistic freedom", you have problems.
|
It's not that people don't care, it's that there are far more people who see the innocence and beauty of it than there are sickos that may be out there using a photo for their own purposes. However, nobody is forcing anyone to go out and photograph their children without shirts on. Are they?Originally posted by wavelength:
3. It is your right to have problems.
|
Percieved problems.Originally posted by wavelength:
4. It is my right to say that you have problems.
|
Sure, just don't expect to win many friends, and what you think is a problem dosn't *make* it a problem automatically but in your own mind.Originally posted by wavelength:
5. It is your right to say that my percieved ideas about your phsyche suck, and are a problem. |
I'm exercising that right.
Bottom line is, for people that are uncomfortable with it, don't do it.. Express your opinions if you have to, but asking that photographs you're uncomfortable with be removed or not taken goes over the line. (clarification: nobody actually asked for the photo the thread was started about be removed.. ) |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:25:30 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Artyste:
I *said* I didn't assume it was removed because of the comment. |
Yeah, you added that in the edit while I was posting - I saw it afterwards.
Originally posted by Artyste:
I'm not saying legality has no place here, I'm saying making factless accusations of legality based on personal feelings doesn't, and I'll stick by that. Opinion is, "I am uncomfortable with this." not, "I am a police officer and this is borderline illegal." Which, to me, is a bully tactic. |
I hear ya, Artyste, but how do you know what his motives are? How do you know he is not warning the photog that they could be in legal danger by posting it? Even if he is wrong, I wouldn't assume he was trying to bully them into removing the photo.
If I am standing at a bus stop and a guy next to me lights up a joint and I tell him - "hey man, that is illegal and you could be arrested." Do you think I would be telling him for the purposes of making him put it out and not light up again? Or maybe cuz there's a cop on the corner and I'd hate to see the guy get hauled in.
Like I said, you saw the comment, I didn't, so it's hard for me to defend it specifically, I'm just sayin' give the guy the benefit of the doubt. |
You're probably right on that last count, and the original post was emotionally laden. Just pricked the right nerve, you know? |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:25:46 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Artyste:
... and what I get a feeling of so far is that people that are uncomfortable with it generally want everyone else to feel the same way. |
What is the basis for that statement? I have opinions and I have expressed my "discomfort" with certain types of images on the site, but it is not my goal or even my wish that everyone I post comments towards adopt my feelings or viewpoint - that's not even realistic. It's simply an expression of a viewpoint - take it or leave it.
As far as someone making an accusation of legality - it was still just an opinion. Could've been a well-intentioned warning. I don't know exactly what the comment was so it's hard for me to make any judgements about it - not that that stopped so many others in this thread from virtually sringing the person up! I am guessing you read the comment before the pic was removed, but you still assumed it was removed based on that comment. And saying "legality" has no place here - are you kidding? |
I think you are going against what you are saying.
There are sick people no matter where you go. Can't keep your kids locked up or pictures of family and friends stuck in a box. This is a time when the internet makes it easy for us to share pictures. Doesn't matter if clothed or not..the pervs will find something that gets them off.
It is up to us to teach our children how to deal with this situation. Keep them informed on what to do or how to act if any bad situation comes up.
I see kids who are in more danger than the kids who are posted online. Kids that are 2-7 in this neighborhood run around with no parent watching them. They just run wild. Or what about the kids that go to school and get malested by teachers..should we pull all kids out of school? There are a million things that could go wrong why put ourselves in a box and hide?
But I do understand the other side, just doesn't bug me like it does others. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:26:52 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Perverts didn't have Photoshop and the internet 20 years ago. |
How does that make a photo provocative now that wasn't back then? |
I'm referring to the experience Laurie related awhile back about perverts making a photo provocative and/or having a central place where they can freely post and access those things.
Am I wrong in thinking that the internet, while bringing amazing technical and social advancements, has also advanced evil, perversion and debauchery at least as much?
Message edited by author 2005-12-16 21:36:00. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:27:10 PM · #62 |
That was meant a good humored post Artyste, lighten up.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:27:49 PM · #63 |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:28:52 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
That was meant a good humored post Artyste, lighten up. |
I get caught up in the moment. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:29:11 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Am I wrong in thinking that the internet, while bringing amazing technical and social advancements, has also advanced evil, perversion and debauchery at least as much? |
The same was said of rock music and film photography. Ever hear of Hustler? |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:29:24 PM · #66 |
Ever heard of Sally Mann?
Very famous photographer who has taken numerous pictures of her kids in the nude. Not illegal and not porn. Her work has been displayed in top galleries across the country for decades. I don't think they'll be shutting down the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art for child pornography any time soon.
It's about innocence, youth and life.
Like it, don't like it - whatever, just don't throw labels of legality around if you don't really know what you are talking about.
The teddybear picture was no more pornography than any of Sally Mann's and IF it was taken down because of someone's scare tactics, well that's just not right. Not everything is about sex - and certainly seeing a young child nude does not mean you want to have sex with them.
For those that don't know who Sally Mann is:
Sally Mann gallery
Or better yet do a google search and you'll find hundreds of pages devoted to her work. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:30:07 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Well,....What If.....you cohersed and paid your twelve year old daughter to pose nude and after four shots she became very uncomfortable and self conscience and left,refusing to pose for any more photos. Would you still post one of the shots on the internet? Would the twelve year old be the perverted one because she had these feelings?
Was the parent\authority figure setting a good example for her twelve year old daughter? Or was she setting her up to cash in at a later date? Which one do you really feel was perverted? What if the child were male? Would it make a diference? How about Michael Jackson? Do ya think he just wanted to share his milk and cookies? Do people with common sense leave their children with a crouch grabbing idiot? People have been selling their children for ages.
Go ahead and flame me, call me another one of those Christian fools and go watch some more of Howard Stern. Fill your heads with more garbage. |
wow... that was out of left field
proves what I said before |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:32:24 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by megatherian:
Ever heard of Sally Mann?
Very famous photographer who has taken numerous pictures of her kids in the nude. Not illegal and not porn. Her work has been displayed in top galleries across the country for decades. I don't think they'll be shutting down the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art for child pornography any time soon.
It's about innocence, youth and life.
Like it, don't like it - whatever, just don't throw labels of legality around if you don't really know what you are talking about.
The teddybear picture was no more pornography than any of Sally Mann's and IF it was taken down because of someone's scare tactics, well that's just not right. Not everything is about sex - and certainly seeing a young child nude does not mean you want to have sex with them.
For those that don't know who Sally Mann is:
Sally Mann gallery
Or better yet do a google search and you'll find hundreds of pages devoted to her work. |
Been a long time fan of Sally Mann, and Ron Oliver as well, who specializes(d) in Family Nudes. Haven't seen or heard much from him lately though.
EDIT: Just did a search, and apparently Ron Oliver is effectively exiled from Britain because of his work, but was never formally charged with a crime.. because he never actually committed one. Go Britain.
Message edited by author 2005-12-16 21:34:45. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:34:27 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by megatherian:
Ever heard of Sally Mann?
For those that don't know who Sally Mann is:
Sally Mann gallery
Or better yet do a google search and you'll find hundreds of pages devoted to her work. |
This is HILARIOUS:
"Forbidden: You do not have permission to access this page.
CLIENT_IP: ###>###>###>### DATE: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 02:31:51 GMT CATEGORY: Erotica and Sex
ERROR: Access denied by WebWasher DynaBLocator content category. The requested URL belongs to the following category: Erotica and Sex.
URL: //www.art-forum.org/z_Mann/gallery.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Conduct: Employees are expected to comply with the following rules of conduct while on the Internet.
Do not violate any [my company] policy or guideline when accessing the Internet.
Do not represent being affiliated with [my company] or as speaking on behalf of [my company] unless: (i) it is in the furtherance of job duties; and (ii) you have received the approval of a director-level or above individual within his or her department to do so.
Do not transmit, post, display, print, forward, or otherwise disseminate material that is fraudulent, illegal, harassing, offensive, sexually explicit, obscene, threatening, infringing, defamatory or otherwise objectionable.
Do not initiate or forward to others chain letters or other offensive messages.
Do not engage in any activity or conduct which is contrary to the best interest of or disloyal to [my company]."
ROFL!!
Guess SOMEONE thinks it's indecent huh?
Message edited by author 2005-12-16 21:35:12.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:35:44 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by megatherian:
Ever heard of Sally Mann?
Very famous photographer who has taken numerous pictures of her kids in the nude. Not illegal and not porn. Her work has been displayed in top galleries across the country for decades. I don't think they'll be shutting down the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art for child pornography any time soon.
It's about innocence, youth and life.
Like it, don't like it - whatever, just don't throw labels of legality around if you don't really know what you are talking about.
The teddybear picture was no more pornography than any of Sally Mann's and IF it was taken down because of someone's scare tactics, well that's just not right. Not everything is about sex - and certainly seeing a young child nude does not mean you want to have sex with them.
For those that don't know who Sally Mann is:
Sally Mann gallery
Or better yet do a google search and you'll find hundreds of pages devoted to her work. |
Been a long time fan of Sally Mann, and Ron Oliver as well, who specializes(d) in Family Nudes. Haven't seen or heard much from him lately though. |
If memory serves, I read something that said Sally Mann got caught up in some of this same kind of nonsense and decided not to do those types of images.
I may be wrong though... |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:36:39 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Well,....What If.....you cohersed and paid your twelve year old daughter to pose nude and after four shots she became very uncomfortable and self conscience and left,refusing to pose for any more photos. Would you still post one of the shots on the internet? Would the twelve year old be the perverted one because she had these feelings?
Was the parent\authority figure setting a good example for her twelve year old daughter? Or was she setting her up to cash in at a later date? Which one do you really feel was perverted? What if the child were male? Would it make a diference? How about Michael Jackson? Do ya think he just wanted to share his milk and cookies? Do people with common sense leave their children with a crouch grabbing idiot? People have been selling their children for ages.
Go ahead and flame me, call me another one of those Christian fools and go watch some more of Howard Stern. Fill your heads with more garbage. |
Interesting to think of it that way. I don't think a 12 year old should be posing nude, but if they had a cover up and felt comfortable with the shots I don't see why not. Like the kids in jcpenneys magazine or other clothing magazines.. they pose for underwear and bra ads. Even commercials. Pervs could use those to. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:37:42 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by megatherian:
Ever heard of Sally Mann?
Very famous photographer who has taken numerous pictures of her kids in the nude. Not illegal and not porn. Her work has been displayed in top galleries across the country for decades. I don't think they'll be shutting down the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art for child pornography any time soon.
It's about innocence, youth and life.
Like it, don't like it - whatever, just don't throw labels of legality around if you don't really know what you are talking about.
The teddybear picture was no more pornography than any of Sally Mann's and IF it was taken down because of someone's scare tactics, well that's just not right. Not everything is about sex - and certainly seeing a young child nude does not mean you want to have sex with them.
For those that don't know who Sally Mann is:
Sally Mann gallery
Or better yet do a google search and you'll find hundreds of pages devoted to her work. |
Been a long time fan of Sally Mann, and Ron Oliver as well, who specializes(d) in Family Nudes. Haven't seen or heard much from him lately though. |
If memory serves, I read something that said Sally Mann got caught up in some of this same kind of nonsense and decided not to do those types of images.
I may be wrong though... |
I think in Sally Mann's case, her children grew up and decided for themselves they didn't want to pose nude anymore, and she decided not to pursue it with other models. I know she's been the subject of countless investigations of the type, so it may have contributed to her decision.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:38:53 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by megatherian:
Ever heard of Sally Mann?
For those that don't know who Sally Mann is:
Sally Mann gallery
Or better yet do a google search and you'll find hundreds of pages devoted to her work. |
This is HILARIOUS:
"Forbidden: You do not have permission to access this page.
CLIENT_IP: ###>###>###>### DATE: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 02:31:51 GMT CATEGORY: Erotica and Sex
ERROR: Access denied by WebWasher DynaBLocator content category. The requested URL belongs to the following category: Erotica and Sex.
URL: //www.art-forum.org/z_Mann/gallery.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Conduct: Employees are expected to comply with the following rules of conduct while on the Internet.
Do not violate any [my company] policy or guideline when accessing the Internet.
Do not represent being affiliated with [my company] or as speaking on behalf of [my company] unless: (i) it is in the furtherance of job duties; and (ii) you have received the approval of a director-level or above individual within his or her department to do so.
Do not transmit, post, display, print, forward, or otherwise disseminate material that is fraudulent, illegal, harassing, offensive, sexually explicit, obscene, threatening, infringing, defamatory or otherwise objectionable.
Do not initiate or forward to others chain letters or other offensive messages.
Do not engage in any activity or conduct which is contrary to the best interest of or disloyal to [my company]."
ROFL!!
Guess SOMEONE thinks it's indecent huh? |
Hey WaveLength... shouldn't you be working... " are we ah paying you to browse the web... we ah are going to have to take this issue up with ah HR first thing Monday" ROFL
Message edited by author 2005-12-16 21:40:09. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:42:25 PM · #74 |
I am the one who entered that beautiful shot of my daughter with the teddy bear. I didn't see anything wrong with the photo, but I recieved sick and threathening emails over it. Someone claiming that they found my address and phone number in 8 minutes and even suggested that I must be desperate to photograph half nude children. I was even asked if I gett off on it?? I think it is really sad that the world has become so evil and ugly that something as beautiful and innocent as that shot would be considered a borderline pornographic shot. I asked to have it withdrawn forthose reasons, I was really shaken up and disturbed by the negativity I got from it.
It is a BEAUTIFUL photo and I am blowing it up and framing it in my home for sure!!
I CANNOT express how much I TRULY appreciate the positive support I have received form it though!! I thank you dso much that you all could see the beauty and innocence in it!!
I will continue to enter photos here, I just won't do anymore 6yrs olds with no shirts! LOL!!
Thank you all again! SOOOO MUCH!!!:)
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you!!:)
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:42:33 PM · #75 |
...
Message edited by author 2005-12-16 21:43:14.
|
|
