Todays Sun

flogen

Im not sure about the other papers, but I was disgusted when i saw the Sun today, which has printed actual child porn.
Its in relation to a new 'art piece' Betsy Schneider which is an image of her very young daughter naked. Now I wouldnt consider the piece art, it is very tasteless IMO, but how can a paper publish relatively uncensored images of children, one of which is undeniably made for sexual purposes??? They get on their high horse about things like Brass Eye, and then they themselves print this filth.

needless to say I'm writing a complaint to the paper and the proper authorities (cant think of the group responsible for newspaper content, but shall find out in a minute).

Flogen

Agent Smith

if thats true, thats very disturbing

eth0_

Oh please!
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004110579,00.html

THat is for 'sexual purposes'? Get off your high horse! Nakedness is not the same as pornography.

BTW the complaints board is the Press Complaints Commission. But i'm sure they won't take it very far...because it's not child porn!

bikini widow

disturbing yes - pornographic no -

If you want to make a complaint though these are the people to get in touch with

http://www.ispai.ie/hotline.htm

they deal with Ireland and EU complaints in regard to child porn.

Rgds,
Bw

Karoma

child exploitation? perhaps (headline grabbign is more important than talent). child porn? hardly.
Are you gonna lead an angry mob to every household that's taken photos of their young child nekkid in a bath,etc? (why DO people do that? er,they do..don't they? ..not just my family....er... )

koneko

My parents had a picture of me at the swimming pool lying on my tummy, in the shallow end in my nip (aww bless I was 1 and really smiley). They even framed it it was such a nice picture. They're obviously sick! Someone arrest them!

PC gone overboard. Get over yourself.

azezil

Originally posted by flogen
Im not sure about the other papers, but I was disgusted when i saw the Sun today, which has printed actual child porn.

Porn, oh good god you poor innocent child :rolleyes:

Its a naked child, big whoop, and yes i would regard it as art, perhaps the fact that you would see anything else is a sign of your own perversion.

koneko

Dammittttt! Azezil beat me to what I was going to edit in

If you see a picture of a naked child and immediately think of child pornography that says a lot more about you than it does the original artist.

aidan_walsh

The Sun prints pictures of (semi-)nude people now???

What ever is the world coming to??? :rolleyes:

super_furry

I wouldn't expect anything more from that horrible, disguting, lying, piece of ****e 'newspaper'. Anyone that buys The S*n should be ashamed of themselves.

Johnny Versace

Well, if you went to a webpage that had those two pictures on it, would you feel comfortable?

If I was crazy I'd love to suicide bomb The Sun.

Doctor J

As craziness goes, it's not that crazy an idea

Karoma

heh.
Go Crazy

Dont Ban Me

Originally posted by azezil
Porn, oh good god you poor innocent child :rolleyes:

Its a naked child, big whoop, and yes i would regard it as art, perhaps the fact that you would see anything else is a sign of your own perversion.

I whole heartedly agree!!

**In shock, with something profound from Azezil!**

dudara

Even though it's not porn, it is disturbing,

why can't we let our children be children any more. Childhood isn't valued anymore. Parents dress their children up as miniature versions of themselves.

Karoma

that li'l rant doesn't apply to this: the mother is clearly seen wearing clothes...

Silent Grape

how are the pics about not letting children be children anymore? how is it disturbing?

anyway whys everyone blaming the sun, its the artist who created the work.

'actual child porn' it is not.

eth0_

Originally posted by dudara
Even though it's not porn, it is disturbing

How is it disturbing? If I saw that in a gallery i'd pass by it as it's an unremarkable piece of art. I guess it's cute, but it's in no way disturbing or pornographic.
You speak of letting children be children, surely the attitude you're displaying contradicts your feelings on the subject, should children wear burquas now so their parents aren't accused of being paedophiles?

flogen

Im not talking about the supposed art piece, Im talking about the picture that the paper itself said was child porn. And dont get at me about childhood pictures, of course its not porn, I never said it was, but did your parents make you pose nude like the child in the 'non-art' pic and then publish it online or elsewhere? No, they didnt, they took a picture of you having a bath, which is part of what happens with children, why? because it was cute.
I am by no means into censoring things to the Nth degree, but a newpaper printing a picture which it admits to being child porn is not on IMO.
As for the other pic, I dont see it as art, and to assume that I thus see it as porn is rediculous. 99% of modern 'art' is crap, but i dont think its porn. Take a look at the artists other work, one of a picture of the inside of someones mouth. I could have done that..... wheres the merit in it though??

It doesnt have to be a very graphic picture for it to be pornography

Flogen

dudara

eth0_, listen to me and understand what I'm saying,

when children are dressed in adult fashion, aka belly tops and mini skirts, of course it's going to attract attention from the worng kind of people. It's sexualising the children before they're any way mature enough to deal with it. The people responsible are the parents and guardians.

It's a similar story with these photos. Once upon a time, naked baby photos were cute, but those mainly innocent days are well gone. As well, this isn't a photo of a naked baby, this is a more grown-up child, and in this modern world, photos like this have sinister connotations. I don't agree with what this lady did.

Art is supposed to shock sometimes, and make us question. But I'm no prude, and I must admit to being a bit nauseated by this.

Silent Grape

oh right they actually printed a pic of a porn site. jesus thats heavy. but only because it is intended as sexual. as in there's a difference between going to a life drawing class and going to a strip club.

ive done paintings of my little sisters on the beach naked, done from photos. ive already sold two of them. thats not porn.


where's the merit in it? u said 'i cudve done that' u didnt though, so the merit goes to person who did do it. i dont really see what ur trying to say.

99% of modern art is crap? yeh, u really know ur art....

flogen

firstly, i never said i was an expert, and even if i was, I am entitled to my opinion, most of the modern art that ive seen has been pointless IMO. Like the one of a room where the light came on and off again and again.... WTF?
Anyway, to me art is something that has been created by man that is beautiful, that captures humanity or questions pre-set notions or something along those lines. I dont think the womans picture is art, but its up for debate... thats just my opinion.
The picture of inside a mouth isnt beautful, it doesnt say anything to me, or raise anything of artistic merit... thats my opinion, maybe you dont agree, as i said, Im no expert.
My beef is with the sun printing a nude picture of an underage girl from a porn site that is undeniably (according to the sun anyway) for sexual reasons and not artistic.

(btw, any art i like would be the more classic kinda stuff, the usual paintings and sculptures)

Flogen

Michelangelo

I don't know what to make of it. When I first saw it, I said what the hell? I do not think it is art. I think it is wrong.

Silent Grape

yeh, ur opinion is based on very little knowledge. thats my point, the term 'modern' art doesnt just cover the wierd art. it covers most contemporary art. art can be anything or nothing. the artist obviously created it as an art piece, therefore it is a piece of art. u cant argue with it. u dont have to like it though. once u learn about art though, and get a bit of understanding about it, u begin to appreciate it a lot more. thats why the 'usual paintings and sculptures' are the things that sell, because then u dont have to make much of an intellectual effort to understand it, they just 'look nice'.

i think the sun were just showing us that there was little difference in the pics. i agree with ur complaint though.

it is not the artists fault, that there are paedophiles in the world. thats like a girl being blamed for getting raped because she was wearing a short skirt.

end of giant rant.

flogen

granted, I dont have much knowledge on art, so I can only make a 'laymans' comment on it, but its still my opinion. I think the problem with alot of modern art is that its an in joke, Ive been told this by afew art students when I told them I didnt like most of the modern stuff i saw, they told me its kinda made for those in the know. And i understand that not all modern art is bizarre, but alot of what Ive seen is (I mean, look at the tate gallery, such rubbish... sorry.... rubbish to me anyway, I must be missing something).

If the artist made it as art, thats fair enough, but Id like to see what she thought was artistic about it. Thats not me being bitchy, i just want to hear what she was getting at, or what your supposed to take from the piece at all...

anyway, thats a different matter....

Flogen

BigO

its pretty bad no matter how you look at it but did you read the scoop on Jessica Wallace and the latest gritty story line in Corrie,
NOW THAT DESERVES TO BE NATIONAL NEWS!!!

its the sun! never expect it to be:

Tasteful
True
Appealing
Worthwile
Clean
Chid-friendly
Believable
Useful

The Sweeper

The most disturbing part about all of this is that the image of a naked child can inspire thoughts of pornography, arguments about art, accusations of perversity, suggestions of inappropriateness and generally heated debate.

A naked child.

Underneath your clothes, you all used to be one of those too.

Johnny Versace

Originally posted by Minesajackdaniels

Underneath your clothes, you all used to be one of those too.

No I didn't.

rymus

ahh the good old Sun... another bit of exagerated sensationalism to add to the pile. Anything to sell papers eh?

Raphael

Last time i checked, i was never a naked baby girl...

embee

May I ask...

Why does the child in the "pornographic" picture have what appear to be carrots painted on her arms?

Is this some sort of paedo sex fetish madness that us ornery folk don't know about?

Also - it ain't porn imo.

Personally speaking I find it more disturbing that The Sun chose to even run such a non story in the first place. Their front page story

"Kieren is innocent"

Really says a lot about a newspaper, where they would lead a days news coverage with rubbish about a champion jockey that (most) people have no interest in.


As someone said earlier, anything to sell newspapers eh?

ferdi

alot of shite passes for art - this is some of it. that child is too young to decide if she wants her nude picture displayed as art. therfore i would class it as abuse if nothing else

here is some nude art, the models here are all old enough to decide if their bodies are going to be art.

Superman

yeah ferds its omz here (my alter ego, i got a litlle banning in the other account)

that picture was out of line, i'd say it had alot to do with benneton trying to be cutting edge and rocking the boat way too much.

Karl Hungus

Far be it from me to succumb to the knee-jerk reaction and "BAN THIS SICK FILTH!" mentality of your average tea-sipping, catholic house-wife... But...

While I do agree that it's an interesting peice of art, and I can certainly appreciate the idea behind it, if being a little disturbed at first... We really do have to keep in mind that not everything is going to be used solely for its intended purpose.

What I'm trying to say here is, that despite the fact that the pictures are intended to be viewed and contemplated as an artistic statement, there's nothing stopping hundreds of grown men 'Whipping it out' and jerking off over them.

Furthermore, in the reactionary society we are living in, I find it hard to beleive that this thought had not entered the mother's mind, and reguardless of the intent of the pictures, she has put her child on display in the nude for anyone and everyone to "Enjoy" in any way they see fit. And it's a scary thought that a mother would knowingly expose their child to such an audience.

I can't honestly imagine how this might haunt/scar the poor kid in years to come.

Stark

It may not be porn, but I do feel it's exploiting the child. I wouldn't have liked it if my mother did that to me when I was younger.

Having your naked baby photos shown to your girlfriend when she comes round is embarrassing enough without half the British isles seeing them.

Walter Ego

Why does anybody buy the Sun in the first place?I wouldn't put it in the cat's litter tray. It's only a rag.

flogen

couldnt agree more Silent Death, it is a piece of dogsh1t, with no real news, terribly inacurrate reporting and sometimes rediculously right winged takes on the news.

Im doing Journalism in college at the mo, and we have a tutor who used to work in the Irish press, all he does is tell us drinking stories and bad mouth the Sun using complex strings of intellectual words and phrases.... he teaches us some times too.... great laugh

Flogen

flogen

just to add to the topic, the sun today published the supposed art piece again today, although they didnt go so far to print the actual child porn.... not as bad as yesterday i suppose...

Flogen

embee

You should write a letter to Gerry Ryan detailing your outrage......

Silent Grape

'supposed art piece'........ tut.

sorry, but eh, how is the pic 'abuse'.

and the 'porn' one isnt porn. what is so sexually explicit about it? a lad jerking off whilst looking at a photo of his girlfriend doesnt make the photo 'porn'.

ur friends were just being arty elitists for saying that art is really made for those 'in the know'. thats ridiculous. arts for everyone. its easier to understand, maybe, if ur in college or whatever, but that doesnt make it an 'in joke'. stoopid pretensious annoying people! thing is, ur not 'supposed' to take anything from a painting etc, what u feel with it is exactly what is 'supposed' to happen. and if u hate it, thats cool, if i was an artist trying to make everyone like my work id go mental! there is no right or wrong way to feel about these things.

y dont u research this artist woman if ur so into it. i dont like the pics myself. i dont see anything wrong with them tho. if my mum used me in photos when i was little id think she was really cool.

angelwhore, so u think that ithe artist is responsible for the scumbags who see the pics as other than art. how do u know the thought wasnt in the mothers mind? i think its a pretty ballsy thing to do, saying **** u to the scum, im going to create this and ur perversions are not going to stop me.

Nuttzz

thats what you get for reading the sun...............

flogen

sorry Silent Grape, but for all your cursing of pretentious arty people, you are being quite pretentious yourself.
What is art is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that alot of modern 'art' is rubbish and should not be considered art. and this picture is not art, it is a bad decision made by the mother to publish a naked picture of her daughter across the world.

And porn does not have to be explicit, do you think that the girl has to be conducting a sexual act for it to be porn?

You may be happy for your mother to put nude pictures of you online, but the fact is you would have no say in the matter, and may, in 10 years or more, be adversly effected by the happening

And art should be for everyone, but its not IMO. the 'art' that I refered to before gave me nothing other than anger at the fact that they were being payed for such tripe.... no beauty, no raised questions, nothing of artistic merit. I dont expect art to appeal to everyone, but I dont know anyone who actually likes modern art, so who is it appealing to?

And it is a mothers responsibility to protect her child from such possible harm, not expose them to it. If she didnt think of the possible use for the picture then she was extrememly irresponsible as a parent. If she did, but decided to print them as a stand against paedophiles, then she is an idiot and seems unaware of consequences

Flogen

ven0m

I'm sure the artist's intention wasn't for her work to be child porn - but her naievity & the sick twisted bastards out there will only take it & use it for their own sick & twisted means... which apparently has already happened.... if you ask me they should lock paedo's in a room with IRA arms to be decommissioned & blow the lot to hell.... paedo's CANNOT be reformed, & the %'s for reformation from alot of organisations dealing in child sex abuse show research to that affect.....

the world just gets worse.....although the artist really shoulda put 2 & 2 together & realised what COULD happen to her work & how it could have found it's way into seeider channels of distribution..... silly silly woman!!!

USEFUL LINKS:

http://www.isapi.ie
http://www.cari.ie
http://www.barnardos.com


:::::: THIS POST HAS BEEN SURFED ON!!! ::::::::

flogen

got this back from hotline.ie as regards a complaint I made to them on the publication of the image on the Sun website... and it looks as though the image does not legally constitute as child porn:

Thank you for submitting your report to the www.hotline.ie service. Your report has been investigated.

The www.hotline.ie service handles cases of Child Pornography on the Internet which is specifically illegal under the 1998 Child Pornography and Trafficking Act. If the material you reported turns out to be confirmed child pornography action will be taken.

Your report about material published in a news paper is outside the remit of the Hotline. As there is no "Press Council" in Ireland you may make a complaint directly to the Editor of the Sun or, if you believe what they have published is obscene, you may report it to the Gardaí. Alternatively, complaints may be made to the Censorship of Publications Office, 13 Lr Hatch St., Dublin 2. I understand their procedures require the complaint in writing along with three different, recent copies of the periodical (newspaper) to back your complaint.


In relation to the online version, despite the Sun's banner headlines claiming these images are "Child Pornography", it is the opinion of the Hotline that they do not constitute illegal images under Irish legislation.
- Especially in the form published with blackout areas and within the context of the article.

This is backed up by the very fact that they were published in the paper, you can be sure their legal people were extremely careful to ensure that none of these images constitute an illegal image in any of the jurisdictions where the Sun is sold.

Irrespective of whether an image is offensive in one's personal opinion, The Hotline can only act according to the strict definition of the law as it stands today. For your information, below is an extract of the relevant part from the Irish legislation.

[No. 22.] Child Trafficking and Pornography [1998.] Act, 1998.

---

‘‘child’’ means a person under the age of 17 years;
‘‘child pornography’’ means—
(a) any visual representation—
(i) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a
person who is or is depicted as being a child and
who is engaged in or is depicted as being engaged in
explicit sexual activity,
(ii) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a
person who is or is depicted as being a child and who
is or is depicted as witnessing any such activity by
any person or persons, or
(iii) whose dominant characteristic is the depiction, for a
sexual purpose, of the genital or anal region of a child,
(b) any audio representation of a person who is or is represented
as being a child and who is engaged in or is
represented as being engaged in explicit sexual activity,
(c) any visual or audio representation that advocates, encourages
or counsels any sexual activity with children which
is an offence under any enactment, or
(d) any visual representation or description of, or information
relating to, a child that indicates or implies that the child
is available to be used for the purpose of sexual exploitation
within the meaning of section 3,

---

The Internet content to which you refer in your report is hosted on servers which are outside of Irish jurisdiction.

The Hotline receives many reports of sites containing the type of images shown as being available on "Child Pornography" sites. The sites reported have been hosted outside of Irish jurisdiction. However, where images contravene Irish law, The Hotline gathers relevant technical information about the location and hosting service and report these details to the Gardaí, so they may be referred through Interpol to be acted on by the relevant law enforcement agencies.


Best regards

Paul

so it looks as though the Sun didnt really do anything illegal (however as the e-mail says, these laws dont really reflect moral obligations).
May I also point out that at the moment, if a paper breaches regulations of good taste etc, the most they can be made do is print an apology. They are not forced to pay a fine, suspend the editor/writer or anything. The apology doesnt even have to be prominently placed in the paper...

Rediculous really (just look at the star/indo today, the cover shows a picture of the madrid bomb scene where you can quite vividly see a decapitated head.... heres a pdf file of the cover if anyone want to see it: http://unison.ie/irish_independent/frontpagepdfs/2004/10581.pdf... its abit much IMO... no-one needs to see that to realise just how big a tragedy it is)....Made me resepect the indo alot less.

Flogen