So this makes its okay for a nude preteen on a album cover?
(This stems from my earlier question)
Child pornography law in the United States:
..."depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging....... whether between persons of the same or opposite sex and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
So the album from the scoripions that had a nude preteen on the cover is legal becuase it was for an album therefore it is considered art? Is this why it is easily found on the wikipedia/search engines/ect...
If you know of the cover, the girl is posing suggestively and her gentials are obscured by glass.
What are your thoughts on this law and do you think it should/should not be banned?
- ahsoasho2u2Lv 79 years agoBest Answer
Should be banned.
Where does the rights of one, infringe upon another?
Where one gains a right, one loses a right.
Is it in the name of art to proselytize a child, or is it in the name of money?
Many European countries allow children as innocents in art (?) to be photographed, but; at $ 3,000, this is for many of them, a years lively hood, and for what an innocent picture, as they say innocence is beauty? So is a picture of anything in the eye of the beholder?
Then what is innocence.
Can we, or do we, want to protect innocence, would be the question.
This cover "Virgin killer" since 1976, has sparked the same controversy and always will as long as we have free expressions.
But where does it stop at, if we do not try to control it, who does.
Children need to be protected from perverts, the cover showed innocence and it is shattered at the genital area on purpose, as the song says about it innocence is shattered, but; it is not to me really an appropriate cover to be displayed on an album, even the band says in 2006, we did not think, we were young, impulsive and felt it was a statement."
How correct that is a statement, some 35 years later, we are still discussing the merits of the photo.
- KarenLLv 69 years ago
If a Japanese comic book, can be deemed to be child pornography because the DA and Judge could not be certain that the drawn image was over 18. Anything can be challenged. You are playing with a felon and the media will not give you a break.
- korffLv 43 years ago
i don't have faith it is criminal to have a preteen nude on any conceal. yet that album got here out in Europe and replaced into rapidly replaced yet i might wager that kind on the conceal isn't a preteen in any respect, yet an person. i'm considered one of people who appeared decrease than 21 properly into my 30's and replaced into even stopped at 24 years previous as seeking to youthful tocontinual.
- 9 years ago
most americas are prudes yet look at all the sex on tv. PureNudism.net is a perfect example of this because that site has naked children on them and they are nudist and the site is legal and it is protected by the 1st amendment so anyone who looks at the site cant be charged with child porn because the pics does not involve anyone engaging in sexual acts and of course no prosecutor would be dumb enough to charge anyone with child porn for looking at the site because it would ruin there career because they would be violating the persons constitutional rights.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- LisaLv 79 years ago
It was blacklisted in UK for internet searches.
Personally, it looks creepy. The model had no issue with it, even years later. Also, they are European. It may be the crowd I talk to, but they don't view nudity in exactly the same way as we do in general. Like many Europeans I talk to think we're prudes. It also was the 70s.
- lestermountLv 79 years ago
As a Supreme Justice said once, " I don't know how to define pornography, but I know it when I see it."
From your question it may or may not be legal, someone who actually looks at picture and establish the actual age of the subject to know for sure.
- ChuckLv 79 years ago
sounds ok to me