This one is for the grown-ups:
In the news this last week, CNET reported on a a case where certain types of pictures of kids may help reform and redefine federal child pornography laws. This link came to me via a posting in a professional photographers newsgroup. On the CNET page, there is a link where you can see examples of some of the photos in questions through the Google Archive WAYBACK machine. Forgive me for not posting this link directly, but some people may find these photos distrubing. What makes this all so unusual, there is no nudity, and no overt sexual contact in these photos. However, the images do seem to place young girls in ‘suggestive’ poses. The photographer had signed model releases from the parents, but now he faces jail time.
This is one of those classic, “I can’t explain it but I know it when I see it” – but remember, we all may have different interpretations of whether it is or isn’t. I don’t want this to be debated here, but would rather you take a look, and just see what you think. Personally, I think these images are disturbing, and at the very least, show some possibly poor judgement on the part of the photographer, parents, and child. (although kids are allowed to have poor judgement). Is it child porn? Should it be considered child porn? I suppose part of that answer should be dependant on whatever reason the images were originally created and intended for. For myself, I’ll say at find it at least as distrubing as seeing some of the stuff that happens with those little girl beauty pagents that are now marked in our collective memory by the face of JonBenet Ramsey.
