Brooke Shields pic exposes real/online rift Police advice to the Tate Modern Art Gallery, that one of the pictures in their current "Pop Life" exhibition may be child porn, and therefore illegal to display, highlights yet again the difficulty of policing this sort of material in an internet age. The picture in question is Spiritual America, by reputable photographer …
Nudity is not indecency, as anyone with kids will know. Do you close your eyes when you help clothe and bathe them?
By the same analogy, adult nudity should turn us all into rapists.
My naked baby photos are not indecent, and destroying them would have zero effect on my protection, or anyone else's.
The argument for criminalisation of possession of indecent images is that the demand for the images causes an increase in the supply of those images.
I am not here to discuss the merits of this picture, I have not seen it and I have no intention of seeing it. If it is technically kiddieporn then I really don't want to see it and if it is a harmless picture of a 10 year old girl in makeup then I also don't want to see it. Nor am I saying that the current definitions of child porn are correct, valid, helpful, pointless or anything else. Neither am I addressing the point at which photos become abuse (not the act in the photo).
However it is clear that were there no demand for [proper*] child porn there would be no child porn and therefore a reduction in child abuse. It is clear to me also that an argument that the abuse has already occurred and it is no worse if 1 person looks at the picture or 10,000 do so is without merit as a defence.
*where abuse is definitely taking place.
To all the people saying that the surest way to spot a paedo is show them a pic of a naked youth and see who yells the loudest, isn't is just as plausible that you who are OK with a piece of "art" such as this are just more cleverly disguised kiddie fiddlers? I mean, why else would you assert so adamantly that you have the right to see other peoples children naked?
Just a though...
What possessed Brooke Shields' mother to have such photos taken is an interesting question -- it clearly can't have been an innocent record of childhood. On the other hand, was it her mother's drive that was the architect of Brooke Shields' subsequent acting success?
However, having said that, if it hadn't been for this most recent ban, how many people would have seen the pictures? Declaring them illegal has caused millions to view them who would otherwise never have even heard of them. Does that say something about the extent to which the "guardians of public morals" are in touch with the real world.
What those putative guardians of public morality have done in taking such a public action is likely to have a counter-productive effect.
I'm not sure that the fact that her exact age is of central importance -- what's relevant is that she was manifestly pre-pubertal. The overwhelming majority of the adult population are heterosexual and not have no paedophilic leanings. This sort of fuss is likely to have the effect of stirring up a prurient curiosity about paedophilia.
A J Stiles wrote: "The argument for criminalisation of possession of indecent images is that the demand for the images causes an increase in the supply of those images"
The issue is whether an increase in actual physical abuse takes place. What if I have a photo of myself as a child, completely naked. I don't consider it indecent, and I consent (as an adult) to let you, or anyone else, look at it.
I may have an entire photo album of me running around on a beach naked, posing, even playing (as kids do) with my dingaling. No abuse took place, and they are not indecent. Myself, and many other naturist families consider them natural, innocent pictures.
The law says I **might** be thrown in prison, and claims abuse where non happened.
Doug Southworth wrote: "why else would you assert so adamantly that you have the right to see other peoples children naked?"
As some extremist would argue, why would you want to look at photos of other adult women (even clothed!), unless you intend to flirt, or covert thou neighbough's wife. That is why they force women to dress in veils, and stone to death the men who gaze upon them.
It is not about having the right to see other people's kids naked. It's about my family bathing, or running around on the beach naked, taking photos, and having the right to show the pictures to others without fear of arrest.
My friend tells me the grauniad have a detail from the photo at http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/sep/30/brooke-shields-naked-tate-modern. I do hope this is legal. Is the print edition also spreading this vile filth? Bit of a problem for the teachers / social workers / media luvvies if it is... Better make sure the bin nazis (or the local paedos!) don't start rooting through the recycling.
"It's about my family bathing, or running around on the beach naked, taking photos, and having the right to show the pictures to others without fear of arrest."
I agree with you wholeheartedly, but that is miles away from taking those same pictures, enlarging them, touching them up with virtual makeup, and then displaying them to the public. And that is where the law fails us...there is no way to distinguish the two. One mans art is another mans prurient interest.
My point was mainly that there seem to be some in this world, and indeed in these comments, that are very zealous about their right to view what might be considered kiddie porn. It does make me wonder what their intent really is.
Either way, this is one of those debates that will never end, and neither side will come eye to eye on.
"The argument for criminalisation of possession of indecent images is that the demand for the images causes an increase in the supply of those images." -- Er, no it isn't. The argument for criminalisation of possession of indecent images is that even though it's very hard to catch someone who looked at a picture, it's still a lot easier than it is to catch someone who actually abused a child. Everything else is post-hoc rationalisation and sophistry.
Most people don't have paedophilic tendencies, and aren't going to seek out images of child abuse. Of the ones who do seek out such images, most will just think "ick!" and make an effort to forget what they have seen. Of the ones who actually get any gratification, most will be satisfied with masturbation -- or at any rate, will have the self-control not to actually abuse a child in real life. After all, you've probably seen porn of adults. Did it make you go out and rape someone? Of course not, you've got more self-control than that.
"However it is clear that were there no demand for [proper*] child porn there would be no child porn and therefore a reduction in child abuse." -- But there *is* a demand for child porn, and it *isn't* going to go away. The best we can hope for is to minimise the harm that comes from that.
"It is clear to me also that an argument that the abuse has already occurred and it is no worse if 1 person looks at the picture or 10,000 do so is without merit as a defence." -- Then it should be equally clear to you that 10000 people looking at the *same* picture of *one* abused child is a lot less harmful than 10000 *different* children being abused.
Now, the odd person or two *may* decide that looking at pictures isn't enough, and go on to abuse a child. Or they may never even have seen a single child porn picture, but abuse a child anyway. Ironically, they will in all probability get away with it -- because the police were too busy searching for people who had been doing nothing worse than look at pictures.
That's how criminalising the possession of images is counter-productive.
It is possible that the police have advised the TATE that displaying that particular image, after the publicity it has received already, might lead to a breach of the peace, or some such, in which case no questions of indecency arise.
But, otherwise, I have to say that I am confused about what the actual situation is with regard to the Brooke Shields image. I am aware that there are various laws other than the Protection of Children Act 1978 that would prohibit "indecent displays" and obscene publications, and I know rather less about them than I do about the 1978 Act, but, as a strict matter of logic, IF offences would be committed under those Acts by displaying the photo, then the image MUST BE indecent or obscene, and it follows that offences under the 1978 Act or the Criminal Justice Act 1988 have ALREADY been committed. The image is not extreme porn, but even if it were, it would also be an indecen photograph of a child - R v Stanley (1965) "while an indecent article need not necessarily be obscene, an obscene article must almost certainly be indecent."
But the police seem satisfied that they have prevented an offence being committed. So, again as a matter of logic, the image is not indecent, or the police do not know what the law is, or the police do not want the public to know what the law is...
Or maybe the only rift revealed by this is the rift between those who can afford good lawyers, and those who cannot...
Regarding what the law should be, I'd say it should be about images of *abuse*. That's what the law was meant to be about (although sadly it's since gone from that to absurd claims of fuelling fantasies, or simply on the grounds of being disgusting, a road which has brought us laws against fictional images and even adult images now).
In some cases, taking photographs of a naked child could be abuse (being told to strip and having photos taken could certainly constitute abuse, I think). But if it's clear that the act itself wasn't abusive, there should be no grounds for the image being illegal. And if it is considered abuse, the police should start off by prosecuting the crime of production in the first place.
Some good points made about asking why the gallery owners aren't being charged for child porn, nor the image being destroyed. Not that I think this should happen, but why the double standard? The law is one of possession, not publication. When you or I break the law, will the nice policeman come round to merely give us "advice", and say it's okay as long as we don't publish, and we don't even have to delete it? No, we'd be arrested without even a chance to delete it, and be facing prison and/or the Sex Offender Register.
"This is nothing to do with the legality or not of the image, but she does not support it being shown."
Your source for this? According to the article, they're using the law on child porn. If it wasn't a matter of a law, and was simply them taking it down at her request, why are the police involved?
h4rm0ny: "Still, a ten year old child can't give informed consent and if Ms. Shields says the photograph is against her wishes then that should be an end to it - get rid of the picture."
I don't necessarily disagree, but note that this would have wide ranging implications - everything from babies used in nappy adverts, to child actors. How do we handle them not being able to give informed consent? What if they later say it was against their wishes - does that mean even say an entire film should be scrapped?
I also think there's the point that these issues shouldn't have anything to do with child porn law. Removing an image from a gallery because the person no longer wishes to be in it is one thing; saying that everyone who's privately got a copy of the image in their browser cache deserves up to 10 years in prison and being placed on the Sex Offender Register is another...
"My point was mainly that there seem to be some in this world, and indeed in these comments, that are very zealous about their right to view what might be considered kiddie porn. It does make me wonder what their intent really is."
Who? Come on, let's not be making up straw men. Quote an example of someone who is allegedly "zealous about their right to view what might be considered kiddie porn", and then we can discuss what their intent seems to be.
Is not the more worrying aspect of this law it's place in an insidious trend: i.e. the current Government's apparent intent to label/stigmatise as many of their citizens as possible as 'criminals' (and paedophiles in this case)?
This legislation is simply another subtle way to expand the potential for the 'criminalisation' of honest, upstanding and decent citizens - which (I'm sure our rulers hope) will lead to the sort of docile society they want to develop: one in which each and every individual is way too fearful of the authorities to stand up for common sense & decency just in case they're accused/arrested for something (a breach of some legislation) so genuinely innocuous they hadn't even noticed it!
Or am I just paranoid...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
