Friday, December 9, 2016 • Evening Edition • "Cyclops was right."

The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

Comics news, comic book reviews, feature articles about comics, interviews with comic creators, plus the greatest comic book and pop culture discussion in the Outhouse forums!

Advertisement

As an Australian it sickens me that child porn is being.....

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Well, they're not accepting new members, but we'll take anyone here, so why not sign up for a free acount? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

User avatar

fieldy snuts

Rain Partier

Postby fieldy snuts » Mon Jul 07, 2008 6:26 am

packaged as fucking cover art in a taxpayer funded publication.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 61,00.html

the cause of the above issue was in protest of the treatment of the "artist" in this link here who took pride in using naked kids as "models":
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 61,00.html

the video in the link shows just how (poorly) coached the kid was in regards to this.

"so olympia....what WAS the message?"

"umm....well the message is....." /dad steps in and takes her away.


there's a fine line between art and fucking kiddie nudes..........im surprised more drastic action isnt being taken here. im curious though, has there ever been a problem like this in the US?
User avatar

Thunderstorm

Not a Kardashian

Postby Thunderstorm » Mon Jul 07, 2008 6:30 am

That's not really child porn... if it is, my parents have some of me getting a bath in the sink that are pretty damn hot if you're into that kinda thing.

I don't think it's necessarily appropriate though...
User avatar

John Q.

cheese

Postby John Q. » Mon Jul 07, 2008 6:51 am

There is a fine line but i don't think this crosses it to be honest.

It was a nude portrait if a child in a nonsexual context, it wasn't sexualised in any way. People don't by art magazines to get their jollies. Nudes appear in art magazines all the time without the magazine or the photography being classed as pornographic.

Is it just because it's a photograph? Would it be such a big deal if it was painted or pencil drawn?

Spidey-Man

Postby Spidey-Man » Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:00 am

John Q. wrote: People don't by art magazines to get their jollies. ?


I've known people who look at them in stores to get their jollies though
User avatar

genetic freak

cheese

Postby genetic freak » Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:01 am

I dont want to stereotype or lump everybody together. But I've noticed quite a tendency for over reacting in protecting the children with many Australians, mostly from Melbourne. Actually only from Melbourne because that's the only place there I've ever been and most of my relatives lives there. Just basing it on that limited observation.
User avatar

John Q.

cheese

Postby John Q. » Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:08 am

Spiderrob wrote:I've known people who look at them in stores to get their jollies though


okay, but that's up to the shops to stop and it's kinda unavoidable anyway.

But not being allowed to depict naked children in art if it's in a nonsexual way is the same as not being allowed to ever mention a child being naked in a book.

Or if there's a book about child abuse that deals with the subject in a nonsexual way, can you not publish it because somebody, somewhere might get their jollies by reading the book?

Children are naked sometimes, everyone in the world who has kids of there own, or has younger siblings or relatives has seen a naked child. So where does that fit in?
User avatar

fieldy snuts

Rain Partier

Postby fieldy snuts » Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:10 am

John Q. wrote:There is a fine line but i don't think this crosses it to be honest.

It was a nude portrait if a child in a nonsexual context, it wasn't sexualised in any way. People don't by art magazines to get their jollies. Nudes appear in art magazines all the time without the magazine or the photography being classed as pornographic.

Is it just because it's a photograph? Would it be such a big deal if it was painted or pencil drawn?
interior pics of the mag was was the kid in a provocative pose wearing adult jewelery. at 6yrs old. great situation for the kid to voice her consent.....
genetic freak wrote:I dont want to stereotype or lump everybody together. But I've noticed quite a tendency for over reacting in protecting the children with many Australians, mostly from Melbourne. Actually only from Melbourne because that's the only place there I've ever been and most of my relatives lives there. Just basing it on that limited observation.
IMO its a global view, especially these days when its being made into a burning issue with its coverage in media from stings such as "to catch a predator", to the internet being the tool of choice for most of those people (which is a common place for a kid to be), to the overall state of fear prevalent everywhere.
User avatar

John Q.

cheese

Postby John Q. » Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:22 am

Vic Mackey wrote:interior pics of the mag was was the kid in a provocative pose wearing adult jewelery. at 6yrs old. great situation for the kid to voice her consent.....


Okay, admittedly i didn't look at the pictures, but i stand by my point.

Naked pictures of children does not equal child porn, just as a book about child abuse does not equal erotic fiction.

Spidey-Man

Postby Spidey-Man » Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:29 am

It can be a fine line sometimes, but I do believe you are correct.

Although personally, I have no desire to own a book with naked kids, art or not.
User avatar

Woody

Motherfucker from Hell

Postby Woody » Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:30 am

Thunderstorm wrote:That's not really child porn... if it is, my parents have some of me getting a bath in the sink that are pretty damn hot if you're into that kinda thing.

I don't think it's necessarily appropriate though...
You'd be surprised-

we had the girl at the 1 hour photo give me and my mom shit about sink bathing photos of my daughter.


In the end she made it out like she was doing us a favor by letting us keep them.
User avatar

John Q.

cheese

Postby John Q. » Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:32 am

Woody wrote:You'd be surprised-

we had the girl at the 1 hour photo give me and my mom shit about sink bathing photos of my daughter.


In the end she made it out like she was doing us a favor by letting us keep them.


so you told them to go fuck themselves and mind their own business, right?
It's what i'd do.

Spidey-Man

Postby Spidey-Man » Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:35 am

I think the reason is photo places are required to report any incidences of child porn under Federal Law.

I doubt they are trained as to what legally is and isn't.

Those that services computers are also required to report it if they found it.
User avatar

Thunderstorm

Not a Kardashian

Postby Thunderstorm » Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:43 am

Woody wrote:You'd be surprised-

we had the girl at the 1 hour photo give me and my mom shit about sink bathing photos of my daughter.


In the end she made it out like she was doing us a favor by letting us keep them.


No, that doesn't surprise me. That's why I'm not ok with calling this image Child Pornography, even though I'm sure there are people out there who'd find the picture arousing. It's a really complicated topic though.
User avatar

Woody

Motherfucker from Hell

Postby Woody » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:11 am

John Q. wrote:so you told them to go fuck themselves and mind their own business, right?
It's what i'd do.
They were refusing to give us our pictures or film
User avatar

Woody

Motherfucker from Hell

Postby Woody » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:14 am

Spiderrob wrote:I think the reason is photo places are required to report any incidences of child porn under Federal Law.

I doubt they are trained as to what legally is and isn't.

Those that services computers are also required to report it if they found it.
I understand why, it doesn't change the idiocy of it though.

leave a comment with facebook


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DarthEwok, Exabot [Bot], FaceBook [Linkcheck], Flamebird, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], HNutz, LiamA, MSNbot Media, StrongStyleFiction and 27 guests