pvlm@hou2f.UUCP (P.LAMASTER) (08/28/84)
<> I've been carrying on this discussion via mail and I think that it's time to re-open it to the net. My original statement included: > I'd very seriously ask what's wrong with a 6-yr-old being photographed > nude even outside the home? (Aside from the very sticky problem of > discriminating photos taken with the intent to be used as kiddy porn). The question of intended use of a photo is a really difficult one. Maybe net.legal has already hashed this one over? (I don't read net.legal). I feel that for photos involving only adults, the intended use shouldn't be considered since pornography is in the eye of the beholder. It's not difficult for me to believe that people exist who would find photos of, say, leather chairs erotic. It doesn't seem reasonable (to me) to therefore ban photos of leather chairs. The area of concern, if any, should be whether the photos were taken with the consent of those involved. Photos involving children, however, are a different matter. Given that people exist who are willing to pay large sums of money for sexually-oriented material involving children, there will be people who will create such material regardless of its effect on the children involved. Legally (and I think rightly) children are not responsible for their best interests so "consent" can't be used as a basis for the legitimacy of a photo. The only other basis apparent to me, however, is the one of intended use of the photos and that criterion has been discussed above. I *do* believe that there should be some distinction between snapshots of my daughter and "obviously prurient", (obvious to me, but not to someone else) saleable material. What's the solution? How does the legal system protect children from kiddie porn without banning all nude photos of children (which I certainly don't advocate)? Does it come down, as usual, to trusting the judgement of our judges and juries as to what is obscene and what isn't? Do we have to live with situations like those in Illinois where it *seems* that the judicial system was so blatantly wrong? Pete LaMaster ihnp4!hou2f!pvlm