"Mom" photos were pulled. Probably someone complained. Very sad.
Jim Tonne wrote:
"Mom" photos were pulled. Probably someone complained. Very sad.
Found a message saying images of minors are not allowed. Sigh. - JT
Any photos of naked children in our world could get you a visit from the FBI. Even if you do say its art, do you really want to go through the hassle of trying to defend your work? Even for us who look at it could get in trouble for technically downloading child porn. Having it removed from UHH protects you and us.
ImageCreator wrote:
Any photos of naked children in our world could get you a visit from the FBI. Even if you do say its art, do you really want to go through the hassle of trying to defend your work? Even for us who look at it could get in trouble for technically downloading child porn. Having it removed from UHH protects you and us.
IC: You do have a couple pf points. Unfortunately :-) - JT
Iβm glad it was up for at least a few days. We got to pretend that we live in a different place.
That is amazing! Not that I didn't sort of expect something. The grandmother being arrested in my area was indicative of attitudes. I am against kiddie porn, but give me a break!
There was a classic nude child in the Museum of Modern Art's "A Family of Man," also lots of nude babies in the Metropolitan Museum of Art's collection. Yes, that was in the past, but, give me us a break. It wouldn't be the FBI anyway, but if someone did complain, but, would they have to track down every viewer, or just the poster?
It would depend on who you voted for,
I would be surprised if it does break down on political basis.
Really? There are naked/semi naked kids in many of the videos played on βAmericaβs Funniest Videos.β Why are they allowed if seeing kids without clothes is so bad?
Jim, I did not see the photo, however it probably was illegal in Massachusetts. G.L. c. 272 s. Section 29A. (a) states: "Whoever, either with knowledge that a person is a child under eighteen years of age or while in possession of such facts that he should have reason to know that such person is a child under eighteen years of age, and with lascivious intent, hires, coerces, solicits or entices, employs, procures, uses, causes, encourages, or knowingly permits such child to pose or be exhibited in a state of nudity, for the purpose of representation or reproduction in any visual material, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of not less than ten nor more than twenty years, or by a fine of not less than ten thousand nor more than fifty thousand dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment. "
I have never seen a court attempt to define "lascivious intent", but I would not want to be the first case.
the key to that is the term "lascivious intent!" I bet no one on hogs can say they have no images of their children when the child was naked.
bdk
Loc: Sanibel Fl.
In photography class, one day was given to the law and photograph. pix of babies bare ass on bear skin rugs were considered child porn. a father holding a naked baby where you saw baby butt got him arrested. I think the people filing complaints about a naked baby butt are the sick ones.
I recall years ago that Sports Illustrated published a photo of a model--I believe it was Christie Brinkley--with her infant daughter--nude--clutching her leg, thereby exposing her posterior. Several readers wrote to express their outrage.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.