jamesriske
Member
Posts: 1095
|
#4 · Edited by: jamesriske
|
 |
philpet,
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I do not feel that it's ok to have or possess young porn. And I also feel that this forum should not include youngren in any manner.
But you are wrong in your interpretation of the law in the United States. It is NOT illegal to have naked pictures of minors. As a matter of fact, there are many examples of this in our society. The Metropolitan Museum in New York has been displaying a very nude set of girls age 8 to 12 very naked for a number of years. One of them is a young Brooke Shields from a photoshoot she did when she was 11. Furthermore, there are many mainstream movies that have young nudity in them. Pretty Baby has many full on nude scenes with Brooke Shields when she was 12. It is widely available from Blockbuster, Amazon, etc. Lawn Dogs has a naked Mischa Barton at around age 8 and is widely available as well. Also, it is perfectly legal to buy naked pictures of minors in the U.S. They are usually sold as nudist publications.
Now, here's where the line is drawn. You can not portray the young in a sexual manner at all or even hint at a sexual act if there is nudity involved. But you can hint at a sexual act in an artistic depiction if certain standards are met (usually clothed). The remake of Lolita with Dominick Swain is a good example of that. Also, you can not have the young's genitals as the 'focal' point or 'center' of the picture or displayed in a lewd or lascivious manner.
The law is chaging now and being interpreted differently but bear in mind that just because pictures of minors are nude, they are NOT illegal. I copied the latest information below for you to read.
One or two of the 'ass' pictures that he linked to are very likely to be labeled as young porn, it's hard to tell. They are very borderline.
I realize that porn sites have to comply with record keeping requirements but I'm not sure what that has to do with some clod posting pictures of girls in bikinis on photo sharing sites.
Once again, not to confuse you. I do NOT think it's ok to have or possess young porn and I feel that all mention of youngren should not be on this site.
I just want to clarify what is legal and what is not. Many people have misconceptions about what is young porn and what is legal and what is not.
if you have kids as I do, here's a very good web site with tips about what to tell them and how to protect them.
The hyperlink is visible to registered members only!
Here's the latest interpretation on what is legal and what is young porn, read carefully.
Under law, for an image that does not involve a young engaged in a sex act, a court must find that it entails �lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area� of a minor to determine that it is young pornography. As a result, courts have ruled that images of naked youngren were not automatically pornographic, and thus not illegal, while also holding that the mere presence of clothing on a photographed young was not, in itself, adequate to declare the image lawful.
Instead, the courts often apply a six-pronged test, developed in a 1986 case called United States v. Dost, to determine whether an image meets the �lascivious exhibition� standard. That test � which requires a court to examine the young�s pose and attire, the suggestiveness and intent of the image and other factors � includes one standard on whether the young is naked. However, no single standard under Dost is absolute, and courts must continuously examine potentially illegal images while considering each part of the test.
The leading precedent on young pornography involving clothed minors is a federal case known as United States v. Knox, which involved a pedophile who obtained erotic videos of girls. In that 1994 case, the Federal Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of the pedophile, Stephen Knox, saying explicitly that clothing alone did not automatically mean that images of youngren were legal.
�The harm Congress attempted to eradicate by enacting the young pornography laws is present when a photographer unnaturally focuses on a minor young�s clothed genital area with the obvious intent to produce an image sexually arousing to pedophiles,� the court�s ruling says. �The rationale underlying the statute�s proscription applies equally to any lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area whether these areas are clad or completely exposed.�
While adult pornography has some First Amendment protections, there are no such protections for young pornography. Still, some experts have expressed discomfort, in general, at criminalizing clothed pictures of minors.
�This is a difficult area,� said Michael A. Bamberger, a First Amendment specialist at Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, based in New York, who filed a brief on behalf of a booksellers� group in the Knox case. �The whole history of the exception from First Amendment protections for young pornography is based on the harm to the young. But there is in my view a free speech issue with respect to designating photographs of permisters under the age of 18 who are clothed as young pornography.�
|
philpet
Member
Posts: 6
|
James.
Thank you for the information. I never meant you would want that here at all.
I do think that posting pictures of under age youngren on THIS forum would be considered porn and not art. This forum has the basic subject of sexuality and what many would consider perversion. Cream pie, cuckold, cock size, sissyfacation, adultery, on and on.
Open crotch shots and such under the headings of "very young girls", which I just saw in another part of this forum is what I am talking about.
Art such as Jock Sturges have been tried in court and after a long legal battle, it was ruled not to be young porn. That type of art is not being posted here.
I am conserned about what I am seeing recently posted and I think it should be removed.
Best Regards
Philpet
|
