Sat 16 Aug 2008
Phoenix New Times runs hundreds of pictures of nude children
Posted by Pat under Arts , Constitutional Law , Crime and Punishment , Family , Freedom of Speech[5] Comments
The Phoenix New Times has finally gone too far and should be shut down. Its August 14th edition contains not just one, but hundreds of photographs of young children completely naked in provocative poses. How is this not child porn? According to the definition provided by Cornell Law School, child porn includes “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any (minor).” The New Times didn’t post the pictures on its website, tellingly, they are only in the print edition (we would not link or post to them regardless). Somewhat less offensive pictures are on the website, such as the cover picture.
The New Times’ excuse is that the children’s mother took the pictures as “art.” That doesn’t get around the law however. Because then any child pornographer could use that excuse (“Johnny’s mom took the pictures and said it was ok for me to display them for anyone who wants to see them”). Parents have been prosecuted before for sharing naked pictures of their children .
What is the difference between this and what the Phoenix New Times did? Marc Greenberg and Jeff Libman ran a website (like the Phoenix New Times runs a newspaper/website) which provided nude pictures of children modeling, some with the permission of their parents. The two men were prosecuted for child porn, and the court found that posing in yoga positions was enough to constitute sexually suggestive photographs. Similarly, the children in the New Times photos are posing in what looks like yoga/sexually suggestive positions.
ABC-15 covered the story, and says the Phoenix Police is investigating. Let’s hope some family groups get involved and have the New Times prosecuted. This is outrageous. If allowed to continue, it only encourages pedophiles, because it whets their appetite for more, and their next prey will not have the approval of their parents, since very few parents permit their children to be exploited.
Consider the audience – a look through the Phoenix New Times reveals that their readership is the “prurient” type, based on the hundreds of pornographic adult types of ads it contains. This is evidence the photographs were not displayed as “art” but rather to appeal to the prurient interests of its readership. If they had been meant as “art,” they would have been featured in an art magazine, not an “adult entertainment magazine” as many refer to the New Times.
August 16th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Child molesters and predators need to be stopped at all cost. They ruin hundreds of lives every year and must be kept away from our kids.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfXmuZJPh14
August 17th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Did you actually go to the art showing and see the pictures? They truly were art, albeit extremely offensive and not to my liking. The striking difference between this exhibition and your linked articles above is context. Modeling attempts to incite sexual emotions and art tends not to. Of course, artists do cross lines. If they were not brave enough to tread on the fringe of the social fabric, we would not have the art we have today.
This trade off is unfortunate, but necessary to retain the freedoms and liberty we have grown to love.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:10 am
And let me clarify, I no way condone child molestation, exploitation etc… Set your phasers back to stun.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Just trying to understand your position.
Are you calling for the photographer to be charged with distributing child pornography as well?
And when you say that you want the Phoenix New Times prosecuted, which staff members in the production work flow do you mean? Publishers, editors, layout?
And that the punishment that you are seeking is jail time for these individual staff, but also that the entire publication be shut down?
Can you elaborate on that comment? I.e, is your intention that, once found guilty, the sentencing will include a judicial order that the Phoenix New Times cease publication?
August 17th, 2008 at 10:07 am
The New Times has been the largest and most repulsive advocate for behavioral deviancy in Arizona for many years. In a sick way it’s good that it exists, if only to provide an alternative for its perverted readers besides peeking in all of our childrens’ windows at night. On the other hand, I would be able to shoot the sick bastards if they did that and improve society some. Hum.
I haven’t, and won’t see the pictures in question, but if they are pornographic in nature, they should prosecute every individual who assisted in its publication and distribution.