raveneyes wrote:

Well I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell me what to say and what not to say...and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop implying that nude photography of minors is illegal...and I'd appreciate it if you'd go fly a kite, but a lot of times what I'd appreciate doesn't happen.

I did not imply that nude photography of minors is illegal.  I said the pornography including minors is illegal, and the "artist" when creating the work has no way to know if their work will be deemed pornography.  Because it's not up to the artist to decide. It's up to the court.

raveneyes wrote:

Well I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell me what to say and what not to say...and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop implying that nude photography of minors is illegal...and I'd appreciate it if you'd go fly a kite, but a lot of times what I'd appreciate doesn't happen.

Why don't you realize that the court doesn't give a flying f*ck if YOU think that you created pornography or not?  The court only cares about what they see, and if they see pornography, you go to the clink.  What's not to understand?

raveneyes wrote:
here are you happy now??? (all links 18+)

...All that posturing for three nipples?  My friends' list on LiveJournal is dirtier.

PhotoBob wrote:
Well I would suggest don't do it.  And not for the same reason, my reason is he will (probably) never get the photos and he can get into trouble for it.  The military does and will open packages going to that part of the world and if there is any nudity he will not only never get it he can get in trouble over it. 

Bob

EXACTLY!!!

It's not worth it.

Mark-NewStart wrote:
The question you put out there was "what would you do?" 
And what you got was a varying set of replies....most of from the legal point of view, and a couple from a moral end.  Also as was pointed out that the military checks the mail of their personel overseas in a war zone, whether or not they check going both ways, or just outgoing, only that could be answered by someone currentily fimilar with that situation. 

If they do check the incoming mail, then taking the shots would be a mute point, as they wouldn't get to whom she wants them to. 

If she is emanicipated, that does make her an adult, where she is able to make her own deciesions without interferance from a parent or guardian.  Also I have read that if she isn't, the parent or guardian can sign a release, or approval for the pictures to be used, as Sturgges and others like him have done.

I don't think that's likely.  Seems like it would open up a whole other can of worms for the courts to deliberate, as it would technically make it legal for a parent to photograph their pre or post pubescent children nude for any purpose they wanted.  While some scenarios are perfectly innocent (bathtub, etc), others are not.  But I don't know what the books say on this one.

Amanda Schlicher wrote:
I just meant I think it's funny that you respect the rules of the messageboard but you don't respect the possibility that any court in America could easily throw you in jail for something you would never consider pornography.  People have gone to jail for much less.

Of course I respect the rules of the message board.  I also respect the law, insofar as it is actually written and interpreted.

No court in America can "easily throw you in jail" for pornography...an overzealous prosecutor and police system can, but that is our own fault as artists, because we've not bothered to fight the system in over 20 years.  Our rights are simply being eroded out from under us because we allow this kind of crap to happen and when it happens to us we worry about ourselves rather than the larger implications of what is going on.

When someone like Larry Flynt is the most recent example of someone going to bat for freedom of speech, then we as artists aren't doing what we should be doing...and I'm sorry if it gets my goat when I hear photographers cow-towing to the whims of society, but I really think that art is the leading edge of society and we should step up and claim our role.

raveneyes wrote:
Of course I respect the rules of the message board.  I also respect the law, insofar as it is actually written and interpreted.

"Interpreted" being the key word here.  Pornography of a minor is OFTEN interpreted as nudity of a minor.  The law is "we know it when we see it."  The law is not nearly so benevolent to artists as you'd like to think.  In the meantime, I'd rather stay out of jail.  You can pickett all you want but stop attacking people who don't want to walk that path.

Amanda Schlicher wrote:

"Interpreted" being the key word here.  Pornography of a minor is OFTEN interpreted as nudity of a minor.  The law is "we know it when we see it."  The law is not nearly so benevolent to artists as you'd like to think.  In the meantime, I'd rather stay out of jail.  You can pickett all you want but stop attacking people who don't want to walk that path.

The law (federal) is actually MUCH more clear than that, and we've had lawyers and photographers who've been through court cases weigh in on several threads about this subject, and they've all confirmed that once appealed to a federal level that most cases are resolved in the artist's favor...the problem is local laws and artists who are afraid of prosecution...and you can be offended by my complaints all you want...in the meantime STFU

raveneyes wrote:

The law (federal) is actually MUCH more clear than that, and we've had lawyers and photographers who've been through court cases weigh in on several threads about this subject, and they've all confirmed that once appealed to a federal level that most cases are resolved in the artist's favor...the problem is local laws and artists who are afraid of prosecution...and you can be offended by my complaints all you want...in the meantime STFU

I just don't see what's so wrong with being afraid of prosecution.  And I'm not offended.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
...All that posturing for three nipples?  My friends' list on LiveJournal is dirtier.

Seven shots featuring eight nipples by my count...did you click the question marks?  each one is an individual link.

And that's only what's on the web.  Try coming out to one of my gallery shows...

raveneyes wrote:
When someone like Larry Flynt is the most recent example of someone going to bat for freedom of speech, then we as artists aren't doing what we should be doing...and I'm sorry if it gets my goat when I hear photographers cow-towing to the whims of society, but I really think that art is the leading edge of society and we should step up and claim our role.

If you're going to take the place of a true iconoclast like [the great] Mr. Flynt, you're going to need something a little stronger than a couple of local girls with emo-poetry written on their chests.  I can recommend a few good bondage supply shops when you're ready to make the big jump.

What's more the most recent example of an artist stepping up for our freedoms would be [the equally great] Barbara Nitke -- check out her site, www.barbaranitke.com



Btw:  Have you ever actually been in a jail cell?  It's not nearly as romantic as you seem to think it is.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
Btw:  Have you ever actually been in a jail cell?  It's not nearly as romantic as you seem to think it is.

Several times...and I agree it's not romantic

Amanda Schlicher wrote:

I just don't see what's so wrong with being afraid of prosecution.  And I'm not offended.

Well I do have a problem with people being afraid of prosecution...it's timorous and stupid.  I have been the target of police profiling and persecution and survived...it is juvenile to be so worried about yourself that you can't suffer a little prosecution for the protection of greater things like the freedom of speech or the future of art.

raveneyes wrote:

Well I do have a problem with people being afraid of prosecution...it's timorous and stupid.  I have been the target of police profiling and persecution and survived...it is juvenile to be so worried about yourself that you can't suffer a little prosecution for the protection of greater things like the freedom of speech or the future of art.

Well if you're going to fight the good fight by photographing minors nude.... good luck.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
If you're going to take the place of a true iconoclast like [the great] Mr. Flynt, you're going to need something a little stronger than a couple of local girls with emo-poetry written on their chests.  I can recommend a few good bondage supply shops when you're ready to make the big jump.

I agree, which is why that stuff isn't even in a portfolio on the web or off...it's just stuff done testing out concepts.

I don't think that I need bondage supply shots to ruffle a few feathers though (obviously I can just type a few words and do so).

raveneyes wrote:

I agree, which is why that stuff isn't even in a portfolio on the web or off...it's just stuff done testing out concepts.

I don't think that I need bondage supply shots to ruffle a few feathers though (obviously I can just type a few words and do so).

My feathers aren't the least bit ruffled.  Although I'm amused that you think you're ready for the big leagues with just a few collegiate art-nudes to show.  I'm serious, my LiveJournal is harder than anything you've shown us so far, and most of those people are just playing around.

raveneyes wrote:
And that's only what's on the web.  Try coming out to one of my gallery shows...

A real rebel would be caught dead having gallery shows.  How bougeiosis can one get?

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

A real rebel would be caught dead having gallery shows.  How bougeiosis can one get?

A real rebel can change things from inside the system...

raveneyes wrote:

A real rebel can change things from inside the system...

Oh really?  If I recall, just a page back you were calling everyone out for obeying the law and but you're going to work within the system.

Riiiiight.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

My feathers aren't the least bit ruffled.  Although I'm amused that you think you're ready for the big leagues with just a few collegiate art-nudes to show.  I'm serious, my LiveJournal is harder than anything you've shown us so far, and most of those people are just playing around.

Oh no...I didn't mean your feathers...I meant the feathers of society...

And hardcore does not equal artistic nude.

And what the hell are you counter posting me for??? Where do you stand? How can you, a self acclaimed "pornographer", justify letting a line be drawn somewhere between what *is* and *isn't* illegal?  It's a very short trip between 'protecting the children' and 'outlawing pornography to protect the children'.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
Oh really?  If I recall, just a page back you were calling everyone out for obeying the law and but you're going to work within the system.

Riiiiight.

WHAT THE FUCK!  Are my words coming out in gibberish and being retranslated using babel-fish or something???

I was calling everyone out for BEING AFRAID OF PROSECUTION...not for obeying the law.  I have never EVER condoned or supported disobeying the law!!!

GOD DAMNIT...who teaches reading comprehension and how much would it cost for me to buy a class for everyone...

raveneyes wrote:
And hardcore does not equal artistic nude.

Nobody who uses the term "artistic nude" is rebelling against anything.  It dosen't get more middle-class suburban than that, I assure you.

raveneyes wrote:
And what the hell are you counter posting me for??? Where do you stand? How can you, a self acclaimed "pornographer", justify letting a line be drawn somewhere between what *is* and *isn't* illegal?  It's a very short trip between 'protecting the children' and 'outlawing pornography to protect the children'.

I'm counter-posting you because your position is fatuous.  The idea of courting trouble by breaking an obvious law is just silly and jevenile.  It's not subversive, and it's not rebellious.  I don't need to photograph minors to do effective work and if you do, then your work isn't ready yet.

Besides, I don't even like children...why would I want to photograph one naked?

raveneyes wrote:
I was calling everyone out for BEING AFRAID OF PROSECUTION...

What you don't seem to understand is that we're not afraid...we're just not stupid.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

raveneyes wrote:
And hardcore does not equal artistic nude.

Nobody who uses the term "artistic nude" is rebelling against anything.  It dosen't get more middle-class suburban than that, I assure you.


I'm counter-posting you because your position is fatuous.  The idea of courting trouble by breaking an obvious law is just silly and jevenile.  It's not subversive, and it's not rebellious.  I don't need to photograph minors to do effective work and if you do, then your work isn't ready yet.

Besides, I don't even like children...why would I want to photograph one naked?

And futhermore Sir RavenEyes  perhaps you should learn to write for clarity. Say what you mean and mean what you say then you won't have to backpedal.

Cspine wrote:
It seems to me that posting like this shows that the photographer has nither the knowledge or reputation to avoid finger pointing should the photos integrity be questioned.

Bingo.  You'd have to be established as an artist and also have a great lawyer.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
Nobody who uses the term "artistic nude" is rebelling against anything.  It dosen't get more middle-class suburban than that, I assure you.

I don't generally use the term to classify work; however when discussing things with people who don't understand the concepts of nudity in art, the reasons for their use, and the issues involved in choosing to use a nude for a work of art; it's easier to just say "artistic nude" and let the common term bring all those implications than to say "nude" and confuse those that are part of the discussion that don't know those implications.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
I'm counter-posting you because your position is fatuous.  The idea of courting trouble by breaking an obvious law is just silly and jevenile.  It's not subversive, and it's not rebellious.  I don't need to photograph minors to do effective work and if you do, then your work isn't ready yet.

Besides, I don't even like children...why would I want to photograph one naked?

I have not and will not support someone breaking a law.  My post is not fatuous...I'm not being foolish in any way...I think you're being fatuous by assuming that your rights will continue to exist in this environment while you sit idly by and don't defend them.

Defending your rights does not require "subversive" behavior, nor does it require "rebellious" behavior...it requires doing what your heart and your logical mind tell you would be the "right" thing to do...in this particular case the OP, and everyone else, clearly feel it would be "right" to photograph the 17 year old in the nude for her husband (other than the of not being able to send it to him, which answers the original problem because if she can't send it to him what's the point of the photo, we however have been ignoring that for the sake of argument).  So if everyone feels it would be "right" to photograph the 17 year old nude, then the only issue is a matter of an overzealous legal system encroaching on the rights of artists.  It's not a matter of being subversive, it's a matter of doing what you should do.

If you don't like children and don't work with them you wouldn't have raised this question in the first place...your answer on the post would be "I would have hung up the phone because I don't photograph babies or people under the age of 18".  The OP obviously *does* work with children and those under 18 however, and would *like* to photograph a minor in the nude in an artistic manner.  So of the two of us, you're the only one being fatuous.

Thanks for playing...have a nice day...

Dave Krueger wrote:
This is an interesting thread.  Most everyone here seems to think it's morally ok to photography a 17 y/o under these circumstances. 

The big issue is whether some prosecutor will destroy this guy's life if he does it.

I can sympathize with raveneyes.  This kind of crap makes people want to rebel.

But, my daughter is a lawyer who defended a woman accused of child porn in a Federal case.  I was there in court when she argued the appeal in the 9th Circuit and I can tell you one thing for sure.  Everyone in that courtroom openly acknowledged that that woman defendant should probably never have been charged.  The judges, the prosecutor, everyone.  The law just wasn't meant to target a mother who got drunk and took a single explicit picture of her daughter while they were goofing around coloring Easter eggs.  But the wheels of justice kept right on turning anyway because that's what bureaucracy does.

The circumstances and juridiction are obviously different and I mention it only for the sake of making one point.  Sacrificing yourself for a cause is very noble, but when it comes to anything having to do with children, practically no one is going to be your friend and no one is going to care if you fry.  There are still people rotting in prison from the Satanic Ritual Abuse witch hunts that swept the country in the 80s.  They have websites and petitions, but you never hear about them because no one really gives a shit.

By the way, my daughter won the appeal (United States v. McCoy).  Unfortunately, the state (California) was prosecuting the woman for the same crime and I don't think that turned out quite as well.

-Dave

EDIT:  I didn't mean that the case discussed here was child "porn", but it does involve the potential of "child" nudity which is often lumped together under the same heading in terms of public opinion.

Someone give this man $20

raveneyes wrote:

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
Nobody who uses the term "artistic nude" is rebelling against anything.  It dosen't get more middle-class suburban than that, I assure you.

I don't generally use the term to classify work; however when discussing things with people who don't understand the concepts of nudity in art, the reasons for their use, and the issues involved in choosing to use a nude for a work of art; it's easier to just say "artistic nude" and let the common term bring all those implications than to say "nude" and confuse those that are part of the discussion that don't know those implications.

I have not and will not support someone breaking a law.  My post is not fatuous...I'm not being foolish in any way...I think you're being fatuous by assuming that your rights will continue to exist in this environment while you sit idly by and don't defend them.

Defending your rights does not require "subversive" behavior, nor does it require "rebellious" behavior...it requires doing what your heart and your logical mind tell you would be the "right" thing to do...in this particular case the OP, and everyone else, clearly feel it would be "right" to photograph the 17 year old in the nude for her husband (other than the of not being able to send it to him, which answers the original problem because if she can't send it to him what's the point of the photo, we however have been ignoring that for the sake of argument).  So if everyone feels it would be "right" to photograph the 17 year old nude, then the only issue is a matter of an overzealous legal system encroaching on the rights of artists.  It's not a matter of being subversive, it's a matter of doing what you should do.

I don't remember saying I thought it was "right" to photograph a 17 year old for her husband.  Who is this "everyone" you are talking about?  And what makes you so qualified to "call everyone out" as you say?  Oh yeah, because you're an ARTIST and the rest of us are just poseurs.

aye provide wrote:
And futhermore Sir RavenEyes  perhaps you should learn to write for clarity. Say what you mean and mean what you say then you won't have to backpedal.

ok...1) it's raveneyes or Raveneyes...or James if you can't handle capitalization.  2) I *was* posting for clarity and that's what got me called "middle-class suburban"...if you want to jump in on an argument, try to read from the beginning through to the end.

Amanda Schlicher wrote:
I don't remember saying I thought it was "right" to photograph a 17 year old for her husband.  Who is this "everyone" you are talking about?

Sorry...my fault...everyone except for Amanda thinks it would be ok to photograph a 17 year old in an artistic manner, nude, for her husband overseas in a theater of war, to bring him some much needed relief from the lack of loving attention he would be receiving at home if he were here.

Amanda Schlicher wrote:
And what makes you so qualified to "call everyone out" as you say?  Oh yeah, because you're an ARTIST and the rest of us are just poseurs.

No the only thing that makes me *want* to call everyone out is that we all claim to be artists.  I pass no judgment on whether you are an artist or not...I just feel that if you *are* an artist you have an obligation to protect artists rights and art.  Separately I feel that if you are afraid of prosecution over a matter that you feel you are right about, and that stops you from doing your art then you aren't being true to being an artist.

raveneyes wrote:

Sorry...my fault...everyone except for Amanda thinks it would be ok to photograph a 17 year old in an artistic manner, nude, for her husband overseas in a theater of war, to bring him some much needed relief from the lack of loving attention he would be receiving at home if he were here.

Ad Populum - The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

   1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
   2. Therefore X is true.

If I say everyone thinks something is right, therefore everyone thinks what I think, therefore I am right, therefore the action is right.

Ad Misericordiam - An Appeal to Pity is a fallacy in which a person substitutes a claim intended to create pity for evidence in an argument. The form of the "argument" is as follows:

   1. P is presented, with the intent to create pity.
   2. Therefore claim C is true.

That poor soldier.  He deserves naked pictures of his wife.  Therefore it is morally correct to do whatever we want to deliver that to him whether it is legal or not.

raveneyes wrote:
No the only thing that makes me *want* to call everyone out is that we all claim to be artists.  I pass no judgment on whether you are an artist or not...I just feel that if you *are* an artist you have an obligation to protect artists rights and art.  Separately I feel that if you are afraid of prosecution over a matter that you feel you are right about, and that stops you from doing your art then you aren't being true to being an artist.

Now everybody claims to be an artist.  Where are you getting your arguments?  Take some valium and get back to me when you can leave your passion at the door and make sense.

Amanda Schlicher wrote:

Now everybody claims to be an artist.  Where are you getting your arguments?  Take some valium and get back to me when you can leave your passion at the door and make sense.

*bangs head on desk again...*

You're really trying to make me break the top of this desk...it's glass you know...I could hurt myself...

Would you not call yourself an artist?

Would not anyone who is a self respecting photographer call themselves an artist?

Hey, I've even heard several models call themselves artists for what they do.

I don't take prescription mood altering drugs...

I don't leave my passion at the door...that's what drives me to be an artist...what drives you?

Amanda Schlicher wrote:
Ad Misericordiam - An Appeal to Pity is a fallacy in which a person substitutes a claim intended to create pity for evidence in an argument. The form of the "argument" is as follows:

   1. P is presented, with the intent to create pity.
   2. Therefore claim C is true.

That poor soldier.  He deserves naked pictures of his wife.  Therefore it is morally correct to do whatever we want to deliver that to him whether it is legal or not.

Where oh where Amanda did anyone suggest crossing the line of legality and doing something illegal.

One of these days you'll be able to hold an argument logically...really...I have faith...