View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
|
Hawkwing
Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Posts: 317
Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:41 pm
|
|
|
Good news in my opinion, i don't think it should be considered as child pornography.
|
Back to top |
|
|
swhitey
Joined: 25 Apr 2012
Posts: 31
|
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:54 pm
|
|
|
I'm glad they got dropped. I thought the charges were idiotic in the first place.
|
Back to top |
|
|
ScruffyKiwi
Joined: 25 Oct 2010
Posts: 708
Location: New Zealand
|
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:12 pm
|
|
|
The photo was a bloody stupid idea and was blatant sexualizing of an adolescent. It's a good job that someone took action over this and hopefully people will use their brains more next time!
|
Back to top |
|
|
VORTIA
Subscriber
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 944
|
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 6:44 pm
|
|
|
Dear Law Enforcement,
Child Pornography is illegal because IT HURTS KIDS.
If this actually was "child pornography", why would you ever drop your case just because distribution ceased?
If the kid wasn't hurt, stop being jack-booted thought police and go tackle real crime - like actual child porn!
Sincerely,
Common Sense
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kutsu
Joined: 23 Apr 2011
Posts: 570
|
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 6:56 pm
|
|
|
VORTIA wrote: | Dear Law Enforcement,
Child Pornography is illegal because IT HURTS KIDS.
If this actually was "child pornography", why would you ever drop your case just because distribution ceased?
If the kid wasn't hurt, stop being jack-booted thought police and go tackle real crime - like actual child porn!
Sincerely,
Common Sense |
'Common sense is not so common.'
|
Back to top |
|
|
clawfinger
Joined: 05 Feb 2013
Posts: 38
Location: Illinois
|
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:30 pm
|
|
|
This some type of swimsuit mag?
|
Back to top |
|
|
TarsTarkas
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Posts: 5936
Location: Virginia, United States
|
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:52 pm
|
|
|
Guess it is okay to show a 3 year old standing on a chair breast feeding directly (without any feeding cover) on the cover of Time magazine, but it is somehow wrong and illegal in this case.
|
Back to top |
|
|
ANN_Lynzee
ANN Executive Editor
Joined: 02 May 2011
Posts: 3030
Location: Email for assistance only
|
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:29 pm
|
|
|
TarsTarkas wrote: | Guess it is okay to show a 3 year old standing on a chair breast feeding directly (without any feeding cover) on the cover of Time magazine, but it is somehow wrong and illegal in this case. |
Breastfeeding a child and risque photos are not comparable.
|
Back to top |
|
|
EnigmaticSky
Joined: 06 Aug 2011
Posts: 750
|
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:35 pm
|
|
|
Breastfeeding a child and risque photos are not comparable.[/quote]
Mouth covering it = ok
hands covering it = not ok?
If you ask me, I think TarsTarkas makes a good point.
|
Back to top |
|
|
CatoriStar
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 53
Location: Tennessee
|
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:46 pm
|
|
|
I'm sorry but there is a HUGE difference in breastfeeding a child and photos of breastfeeding a child and a photo that is meant to be sexy and titillating. Breastfeeding a child is not meant to be a sexual act. The photo that got pulled from this magazine was intended to be taken in a sexual way, it was supposed to be taken as a pair of hot boobies. If you still can't understand I don't know what to tell you...
|
Back to top |
|
|
TarsTarkas
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Posts: 5936
Location: Virginia, United States
|
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:12 pm
|
|
|
octopodpie wrote: | Breastfeeding a child and risque photos are not comparable. |
If it was a baby being breastfed in the normal way, you would be right. But it wasn't a baby being breastfed, and it wasn't a normal breastfeeding.
It was a staged cover photo, done to be provocative and shocking.
|
Back to top |
|
|
prabb
Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Posts: 86
|
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:16 pm
|
|
|
But was it done to be arousing?
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sam Murai
Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 1051
|
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:39 pm
|
|
|
Good to hear. The bad publicity and the subsequent consequences were enough punishments and Kodansha pulled it altogether. No real need to put public funds into a case that would have been already tough to prosecute on concrete ground.
|
Back to top |
|
|
ANN_Lynzee
ANN Executive Editor
Joined: 02 May 2011
Posts: 3030
Location: Email for assistance only
|
Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:10 am
|
|
|
TarsTarkas wrote: |
octopodpie wrote: | Breastfeeding a child and risque photos are not comparable. |
If it was a baby being breastfed in the normal way, you would be right. But it wasn't a baby being breastfed, and it wasn't a normal breastfeeding.
It was a staged cover photo, done to be provocative and shocking. |
As far as I remember about the photo in question, it wasn't staged. The woman in the photo was still breastfeeding her toddler outside of the photograph. And you might be surprised to find out that in many countries, extended breastfeeding is not abnormal. Many women wait until a child self-weans, possibly up to five years. Regardless, health organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) recommend breastfeeding up to 2 years old, while the APA recommends at least a year and "as long as is mutually desired by the mother and baby".
And yes, to the previous poster, it's not comparable because a woman breastfeeding her child isn't meant to get anyone off.
|
Back to top |
|
|
enurtsol
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 14886
|
Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:15 am
|
|
|
Kutsu wrote: |
VORTIA wrote: | Dear Law Enforcement,
Child Pornography is illegal because IT HURTS KIDS.
If this actually was "child pornography", why would you ever drop your case just because distribution ceased?
If the kid wasn't hurt, stop being jack-booted thought police and go tackle real crime - like actual child porn!
Sincerely,
Common Sense |
'Common sense is not so common.' |
When a child isn't hurt because he/she doesn't know about it any better, so it's not child pr0n then..............?
Anyways, the bad PR and costly recall are punishment enough. The state needn't waste any more resources on this.
|
Back to top |
|
|
|