Todays Sun

flogen · 09-03-2004 02:31PM #1

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 · 09-03-2004 02:35PM

if thats true, thats very disturbing

eth0_ · 09-03-2004 02:38PM

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 · 09-03-2004 02:58PM

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 · 09-03-2004 03:38PM

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 · 09-03-2004 04:20PM

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 · 09-03-2004 04:21PM

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 · 09-03-2004 04:26PM

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 · 09-03-2004 04:28PM

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

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

super_furry · 09-03-2004 04:32PM

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 · 09-03-2004 04:32PM

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 · 09-03-2004 04:36PM

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

Karoma · 09-03-2004 04:37PM

heh.
Go Crazy

Dont Ban Me · 09-03-2004 05:05PM

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 · 09-03-2004 05:22PM

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 · 09-03-2004 05:26PM

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

Silent Grape · 09-03-2004 05:57PM

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_ · 09-03-2004 05:59PM

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 · 09-03-2004 06:06PM

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 · 09-03-2004 06:18PM

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 · 09-03-2004 06:22PM

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 · 09-03-2004 06:41PM

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 · 09-03-2004 06:48PM

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 · 09-03-2004 06:52PM

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 · 09-03-2004 06:59PM

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 · 09-03-2004 07:00PM

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 · 09-03-2004 07:46PM

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 · 09-03-2004 07:50PM

Originally posted by Minesajackdaniels

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

No I didn't.

rymus · 09-03-2004 09:01PM

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

Raphael · 09-03-2004 09:41PM

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

embee · 09-03-2004 11:00PM

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?

Todays Sun

Comments