2007-10-02 06:46:35 · 35 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
below is a link from Sotherby's catalogue of the offending photo, it is by a photographer called Nan Goldin, an American photographer who works mainly with transvestites and homosexuals.
In my book it is child porn as the little 'un on the floor is naked with their genetalia in full view.
I'd say throw him in the slammer, but he'd probably enjoy it !!.
The image is quite small, (so as not to offend) but you will get the general idea.
http://www.artfact.com/catalog/viewLot.cfm?lotCode=ef4evpcK
2007-10-02 07:05:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
Suzie S: I actual have idea about this for decades interior the context of having old. I actual have seen the overlook from lack of sufficient workers in elder care centers. So, i presumed howdy, even as the time comes that i visit now no longer look after myself, perchance i visit confess to a Federal crime. i'd be sentenced to a Federal reformatory, the position wellbeing-care is extremely sufficient and loose. some Federal prisoners have even had loose powerful organ transplants. drugs and wellbeing evaluation is likewise loose. The reformatory guards are Federal workers, and are better screened and supervised than wellbeing-care workers for the adverse. The Federal reformatory gadget is "penitentiary", yet maximum "loose" assisted residing centers and nursing houses also are "penitentiary". this is properly documented that there are "perks" interior the Federal reformatory gadget. And, if the reformatory is minimum protection, you'll come and pass on the grounds. If the reformatory is in a San Diego type climate, walking on the grounds might want to be respectable. there'll be those who imagine it is a goofy idea, yet even as the time comes and one has 0 resources and no relatives, call an outstanding option?
2016-10-20 04:34:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If this picture is that old, then the 'child' is quite grown up and I wonder what her views are on this subject. Does anybody know if she has objected?
As for the artist, she was a drug addict and hung around low life for sometime.
I dont believe it is right for adults to get kids to perform in this manner in a picture. The reason being is that they are innocent and can be manipulated so this art I consider porn.
By the by will the kids get any royalties from this photograph?
2007-10-02 07:50:10 · answer #3 · answered by shafter 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I am not aware of what you are talking about. If it's real pornography, then he should be arrested. What you and I may find offensive, to others is "art". And believe you me, some of the stuff out there that is considered "art" is beyond me. Our city actually commissioned some art thing done. I'm not sure what it was suppose to be or what it was suppose to represent but it turned out to look like giant penis when lit up. Boy did that get taken down fast. However, there were some who just loved it.
Okay. I just viewed the link that someone gave. I couldn't see it really close up because you had subscribe or join something but I thought it kind of stupid looking and would not for one minute consider it art. It is suggestive.
2007-10-02 07:44:23 · answer #4 · answered by lilith663 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If Elton John had child pornography his money would mean nothing. He is gay but he is not a Pedophile. I have not seen the pictures he has. But I'm sure if the pictures were child pornography The fact that he is Elton John would not save him from jail.
2007-10-02 07:15:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
What you also need to question is why art such as this is not banned period. Art is one thing but there needs to be boundaries no? Why is no one looking at the artist? Or the people that put pieces like this on display? Because it's art? Give me a break, it's junk. I don't agree with anything that exposes children be it art or anything else for that matter. I mean what is the reasoning for show casing naked children? Regardless of how its done, its tasteless and gross.
2007-10-02 07:29:07 · answer #6 · answered by zail 3 · 5⤊ 2⤋
What Elton had was actually art, and had been displayed in many places and never challenged as child pornography. Sex was not involved. (Are you listening to talk radio again?) Art is in the eye of the beholder. If you see lewdness in every naked body, does that mean that the body is lewd, or that your mind is lewd? Why is nakedness equated with sex and pornography, particularly in this culture? Ok, I answered a question with a question, but you get me drift.
2007-10-02 06:54:31 · answer #7 · answered by Mary A 3 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Because he is Elton John - Duh!!!!
God Bless.
2007-10-06 00:31:20 · answer #8 · answered by Bethy4 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it is all in the eyes of the beholder, pretty soon they are going to paint over the ceiling of the sixteen chapel, because there is child pornography on them thar ceilings.
2007-10-02 15:30:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course, not only are their two sets of laws for Republicans and Democrats, there are two sets of laws for the rich & famous and then the rest of us. If any of us had child porn, we would be spending about 20 years in prison. No questions asked. Right?
2007-10-02 07:04:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋