Child porn case reveals interesting side note.

Leaving all else aside, your radical right rhetoric makes me wonder what would be your definition of porn? If the acts in the images were themselves legal if NOT photographed, could the images still be prom because they were suggestive?

Maybe I am sick, but when I see pix of these little girls dressed up for these modeling competitions, I see porn. If I am a "liberal" then here is a case where I would be more extreme than the radical right.

You know that little girl in Colorado who may have been murdered by her parents? I think her name was Ramsey. Did you see the pic of her? To me those are porn and adults who participate in that sort of activity should be punished.
--
Stephen M Schwartz

Stephen Schwartz said:

I am not sure what child porn might be. If it is photos of adults
having sex with children, then the act itslef is wrong and the
phots wopuld incrimnate the perpds.

Hpwever, I can imagine other sorts of photography ... also sick to
my taste, but not necessarily abusive. Thsi could include images
of children's genitalia or "erotic" poses by kids. Would all of
this be "porn?"

Click to expand...

Federal cases have demonstrated that nude photography of children is acceptable if it is not sexually suggestive. Of course, I don't see(the issue) why it should be a crime if it is sexually suggestive, when the qualification of sexaully suggestive comes down to photograph of person A in pose X being legal, or person A in pose Y being illegal. I think it is all explained by feelings . If someone(who has the power to make/start/rewrite laws) feels that they don't like something(so long as it's not protected by a constitutional right--and it seems even that does not always protect in all cases), then it stands a strong chance of becoming illegal, regardless of actual merit.

-Chris

Stephen Schwartz said:

You know that little girl in Colorado who may have been murdered by
her parents? I think her name was Ramsey. Did you see the pic of
her? To me those are porn and adults who participate in that sort
of activity should be punished.

Click to expand...

What is he purpose of this proposed punishment? What, exactly, is the infraction that required punishment? What will said punishment accomplish?

-Chris

I really like ti when I see a post like yours.

The issue in the USA ought not to be true conservatives vs. true liberals. The real issue is the radical right(there is little left of the radical left)

Barry Goldwater said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is not extreme." Radical righters miss the key phrase here "defense of liberty." When, in the name of liberty they attack our society' sacred rights to cultural diversity, the right is not defending liberty, it is attacking it.

In this story, it seems to me that there are two issues. One is the issue of what the clerk saw. In my office, for example, I have pictures of my two children being born. I hesitated to put them up because I can imagine some perverted person considering such an intimate moment pornography. I also have an intimate image by Minor White, definitely something some folks might consider porn.

How do you feel about Maplethorpe? Would the clerk have been correct if she called in the cops for Mapplethorpe's images?

I wonder if there is a liberal issue that is similar? Could a clerk call the police if she saw pix that were racially inflammatory?

When I was in Mexico, the government had restricted access to Diego Rivera's murals. The Mexican public could not see them, only folks with foreign passports were allowed in!
--
Stephen M Schwartz

PMJI but my liberla spell checker made two corrections:

Actuallyradical righters and their policies support pornograpy. And of course they are anti-American in any meaningful sense of the word. They say they love their country, but hate its traditions and history.

I don't know about religous fanatics, but I suspect that this sort of deviant would fit in quite well with the rest of the motley collection of deviants that makes up today's Reublican party.
--
Stephen M Schwartz

I think that sort of display of children is a form of child abuse.
It is not very different from child labor.

I amnot sure how to deal with it, but perhaps the same courts that sedn social workers to check on the life of small kids in impoversihed homes, gay households, etc might want to include this sort of environment and if it si extreme the parents might be counseld or even lose their children.
--
Stephen M Schwartz

Good statement.

Persoannly, I found the pix of the Ramsey child pornographic.

It seems to me that the only pix that should be reportable are those that show a child being misused.
--
Stephen M Schwartz

The Constitution DOES guyarnatee privacy just as it does property.

Privacy and property are abstract concespts. The Constitution provides explicit gyrantees that effect protections of each of these.

The question is how does the "spirit" of the consitution apply? Justice Marshal, remember, created the court's role as a third leg of governement. he used the "spirit" of the Constitution to decide ythe ealry cases.

I would point out a current radical right issue ... the freedom of religion ... is not in the Constitution either. The Constiution explicitly bans a state church, but the devil is in the details.
--
Stephen M Schwartz

Of course Mapplethorpe is porn! Disgusting.

As far as a picture of your children being born. My guess is you took the picture towards your wife's head including all of her perineum. Man, I'll bet that's just gorgeous! I'm sure she'd love a picture of her perineum up in your office for all the world to see.

1. Mapplethorpe:

There are no illegal acts depicted in Mapplethorpe, so I guess to you images of people holding each other, caressing etc .. esp if they are naked are porn?

OK. We just disagree but I can understand your POV.

How do you feel about racialy offensive photogrpahy? I mean the anti-black put downs we used to see or the ant Jewish stuff published by der Sturmer?

What about the pix of the little Ramsey girl, made up to look like an adult movie star?

2. Birth Pix

I am surprised at you. I though radical righters wer all celebrants of the miracle of birth? Actually, the pix are nto clinical (boring) images of a groint, they are pix of the kids first moment, as the emerged, cords intact, crring. Too wonderful for words.

I would hope,as a Christiam (?), you would appreciate the miracel of birth.
--
Stephen M Schwartz

Pictures of little girls dressed up is not porn by any stretch of the imagination. It is NOT my cup of tea and I wouldn't have my little girl get involved, but I would not legislate against it.

You on the other hand herald the virtues of photos of your own wife's perineum. You think it's OK to promote explicit child pornography, but want pictures of fully clothed little girls restricted?!

Robert Mapplethorpe with pictures of fruit placed in anuses is OK, but fully clothed little girls is somehow offensive to your highly refined tastes?

On your web site you say you are interested in Jewish history. And yet I'll bet you didn't object to Saddam's holocaust. No, I guess just the European Jews merit your sympathy. Jewish synagogs are being destroyed by your French friends and nary a word from you and people of your ilk.

Jews are again being threatened by the Islamofascists and yet I'll bet you think the Patriot Act too stringent.

I will say, you're picture is a perfect reflection of your world view.

As long as your birth pictures don't include explicit pictures of your wife's perineum I've no problem. In fact I've hundreds of pictures of my children's first moments. And yes, it is a miracle. If you are in fact a practicing conservative Jew you would too regard it as a miracle.

Racially offensive photography? I'm not sure what you mean. I think Leni Reifenstahl was a genius, but her art cannot and should not be evaluated in a moral vacuum. All photography is about morality. Albert Speer was a organizational genius who denied knowledge of the evil that surrounded him, but he was surely an instrument of that evil - no question.

The Ramsey girl. Not my cup of tea, and maybe a little discomforting, but surely not in the same offensive category as Mapplethorpe's offensive garbage (a crucifix immersed in human urine!)

1. Mapplethorpe:

There are no illegal acts depicted in Mapplethorpe, so I guess to you images of people holding each other, caressing etc .. esp if they are naked are porn?
OK. We just disagree but I can understand your POV.

How do you feel about racialy offensive photogrpahy? I mean the anti-black put downs we used to see or the ant Jewish stuff published by der Sturmer?

What about the pix of the little Ramsey girl, made up to look like an adult movie star?
2. Birth Pix

I am surprised at you. I though radical righters wer all celebrants of the miracle of birth? Actually, the pix are nto clinical (boring) images of a groint, they are pix of the kids first moment, as the emerged, cords intact, crring. Too wonderful for words.
I would hope,as a Christiam (?), you would appreciate the miracel of birth.
--
Stephen M Schwartz

Oh, now that's clever!! Come on Stephen! You can do better than that!

That's the first thing I thought about, good movie. (the part where he's dreaming about being in a completely white shopping aisle and then opens his eyes suddenly was weird ;9 )
--
I'll take donations in the form of an EOS 1DsMKII, if anybody wants to...

First of all, the photographer who took the infamous "p*ss christ" photo wasn't Robert Maplethorpe, it was Andres Serrano. I saw it displayed in Chicago and it was an absolutely gorgeous photo. Provoking idea though, I agree.

As for prosecution in these child "porn" cases... to paraphrase a friend of mine, it used to be those laws were in place to protect children from exploitation. Now the authorities seem to want to protect us from outselves -- to police people's desires.

--

Larry in NYC

Not really.

The radical right reminds me of their predecessors the radical left.

Both groups KNOW they are correct, both groups speak for THE PEOPLE, both groups deminize all non-bleivers ....

Predecessora of thia sort of thing inlcude Stalin and Hitler.

Moderation, tolerance, equality of oppotunity ... the radical right has no interest in these American values.
--
Stephen M Schwartz

1. I told you the pix are of my neborn children, if your dirt mind is obsessed with anyones groin, I think you ought to buy a mirror.

2. Your comments on Saddam are absurd. Do you really think Jews are insenistive to others' sufferkngs just because of what thwe Christian world has perpetrated on us?

Quite the contrary. It is usualy my people who are in the forefront of efforts to help others. For example, Physicians without Fronteirs was founded by French jews remains a favorite cause of many of us. Dr, King, Mahatma Gandhi both had Jews as close advisors ans supporters.

If you are visiting my website, you may benefit from looking at the Haggadah. Every jewish family reads this twice a year. While there are variations in the content of Hggadot, they all teach one lesson ... human, ALL humans, are entitled to freedom and, as Jews, it is incumbent on us to welcome the stanger and fight for his or here equlaity.

3. I am all to aware of French antisemitism and FWIW, the topic is a hot one today in Israel because a significant number of French peole are discussing Aliyah (movong Israel).

In farnce, Judaim is wodely accepted BUT, it is a French Judaims. An openly orthodox Jew, say Joe Lieberman, would have problmes there.

4. Are you awate of the extent of antisemitism in the USA? Here in Seattle we had a ritual slaughter of a jewish family and when my wife and I cam here, about 30 years ago, it was common for communities to be porsted with the "Restricted" sign.

The US AirForce academy has admitted to systematic antisemitism and currently jewish students can not attend the academy unless they are willing to be subject to evangelism by their superior officers.

Jeeferson would weep to see our current state of decayed democracy.
--
Stephen M Schwartz

To me dressing a little girl in a corset, painting her face to look like a seductress, teaching her to flounce her skirts ... this is porn, plain and worse it is child abuse.

As for Mapplethorpe, a non Christian, I have no feelings one way or the other for the debate you folks have amongst yourselves anymore then I am entitled to the debate about the satanic verses of slam.

However, as a non Christian, I am all to aware of the horrid history of your people. No other human organization can claim the same opprobrium for its acts against non-believers .... the inquisition, the extinction of the Nazarenes, the crusades, enslavements of California and Mexico, York, the blood crimes, the trial of the talmud, abductions of Jewish children, cultural holocausts in America and Africa, and the Holocaust itself.

These are crimes that should evoke self criticism in the true Christian. I took Maplethore's art as a statement of just this problem. How is it that the religion that introduced a loving god also deal with tis legacy of hatred?
--
Stephen M Schwartz

BobHaverford said:

The Ramsey girl. Not my cup of tea, and maybe a little
discomforting, but surely not in the same offensive category as
Mapplethorpe's offensive garbage (a crucifix immersed in human
urine!)

Click to expand...

Bob,

Do you know anything about mapplethorpe that your pastor didn't shriek from the pulpit? I'd guess not given that you don't seem to know that Mapplethorpe didn't do the cross in the urine pic. That piece, entitled "P~ss Christ", was made by Andres Serrano. Serrano and Mapplethorpe are the two most hated photographers in the art hell of the right, so you probably have heard both being denounced by your leaders but simply got them confused. Have you ever seen any of Mapplethorpe's work? I have.
--
Chris Crawford
http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com

Stephen Schwartz115733 said:

1. I told you the pix are of my neborn children, if your dirt mind
is obsessed with anyones groin, I think you ought to buy a mirror.

Click to expand...

You said you didn't have the pictures in your office because others would consider them pornographic. Excuse me if I assumed that they had some pornographic content - your wife's perineum. There is nothing pornographic about newborn pictures. Perhaps graphic, but not pornographic.

Stephen Schwartz115733 said:

2. Your comments on Saddam are absurd. Do you really think Jews
are insenistive to others' sufferkngs just because of what thwe
Christian world has perpetrated on us?

Click to expand...

If I were you I wouldn't worry about the Christian world at this point. You have enought problems with the Islamofascists. But your liberal worldview won't allow you to recognize that these animals are bent on YOUR destruction. You no doubt are opposed to the Patriot Act.

Stephen Schwartz115733 said:

If you are visiting my website, you may benefit from looking at the
Haggadah. Every jewish family reads this twice a year. While
there are variations in the content of Hggadot, they all teach one
lesson ... human, ALL humans, are entitled to freedom and, as Jews,
it is incumbent on us to welcome the stanger and fight for his or
here equlaity.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, welcoming the stranger includes those who are committed to your destruction and that is just plain stoooopid. You can fight for the Islamofascists equality, but you'll excuse me if I pass.

Stephen Schwartz115733 said:

3. I am all to aware of French antisemitism and FWIW, the topic is
a hot one today in Israel because a significant number of French
peole are discussing Aliyah (movong Israel).

Click to expand...

Gee, I wonder what the source of French anti-Semitism is? It's nidus is of course the "religion of peace." But closely related to and in bed with the Islamofascists is the Left and its hand-maidens.

Stephen Schwartz115733 said:

In farnce, Judaim is wodely accepted BUT, it is a French Judaims.
An openly orthodox Jew, say Joe Lieberman, would have problmes
there.

Click to expand...

Oh, I see. As long as you are not a PRACTISING Jew you're OK. Don't kid yourself. If you support Israel and are Jewish, or even if you don't support Israel and are Jewish you will be subject to the most virulent anti-Semitism since the third Reich.

Stephen Schwartz115733 said:

4. Are you awate of the extent of antisemitism in the USA? Here in
Seattle we had a ritual slaughter of a jewish family and when my
wife and I cam here, about 30 years ago, it was common for
communities to be porsted with the "Restricted" sign.

Click to expand...

here is no systemic anti-Semitism in the USA today. Sure there are those who dislike Jews, but Jews have done better in the USA than in any other country (including Israel) in the history of the world. It is VERY ungracious of you not to recognize this fact. I'm a practicing Catholic and I'm not whining about the anti-Catholic sentiment either in the Third Reich or in the USA. Get over it and thank God you live here!

Stephen Schwartz115733 said:

The US AirForce academy has admitted to systematic antisemitism and
currently jewish students can not attend the academy unless they
are willing to be subject to evangelism by their superior officers.

Click to expand...

Oh, I see!! It was reported in the NYT so it must be true. Stephen, you are even more naive than I thought. This story stinks and is undoubtedly bogus.

Stephen Schwartz115733 said:

Jeeferson would weep to see our current state of decayed democracy.

Click to expand...

I agree, Jefferson would weep. But Mr. Jefferson would weep because his ideal of a federation of independent states with the right to secede has become a federal monolith. He would weep because of the manner in which his Constitution has become debased. He would weep because activist judges have overstepped their limits (as he predicted) and have begun legislating. He would weep because these same activist judges have conveniently forgotten the 10th Amendment of the constitution. He would weep because his lovely country has been waylaid by Leftists who hate our traditions and our Constitution.

Stephen Schwartz115733 said:

Stephen M Schwartz

Click to expand...