h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I never even posted a link. Did I get yikesed? I never noticed, wasn't online...

Yeah, you did. it was weird, I didn't see anything offensive about your posting.

Why should majority rule or general concensus determine morality? I know it usually does, but what justification is there for that?

I meant that yes, you did get yikesed. Not that yes, you did post a link and then it mysteriously vanished, or anything.

Odd, that...

So majority rule is what determines morality? What if most people had those types of pictures in their photo albums, but with a carrot jammed up the child's rectum? Still okay?>>

not its not okay as fine you know it aint , i'm on about peoples pics or there childhood friendy pictures that mean no harm .

Sure there are! I see no harm in showing babies naked, that's the way they come.

We once didn't get our photos from the lab in the US because one had a picture of me and my sister in the bath...

We once didn't get our photos from the lab in the US because one had a picture of me and my sister in the bath...>>

yes i have them also , it minds us of our childhood ,

what if everyone in the album had carrot?

what if everyone in the album had carrot?>>

what if one liked eating a carrot as it is a veg , its only ones mind to think otherways .

Possibly emotional content for some, given the above discussions about children and abuse.
Whilst we may discuss this, I think we should be aware there may those reading this for whom such subjects are deeply emotional and give them fair warning of the content to come.






So it's the intent in owning the pictures and not the content that's the deciding factor?
Given that a large number of abusers are family members, that makes even the humble family photo album suspect.

This way, nothing is above suspicion.

Yet, pictures are just pictures.
Which makes me wonder. Can a picture taken by someone for socially or morally offensive reasons, ever be considered outside of that light?

If you knew that a picture of a beautiful landscape was taken by a rapist so he could plan the luring, raping and killing of his victim, could you ever see that picture purely as just that picture? A beautiful landscape?

And what if the planned action never occurred, no one was ever assaulted there? Would the intent still colour the image?

Yet, pictures are just pictures.
Which makes me wonder. Can a picture taken by someone for socially or morally offensive reasons, ever be considered outside of that light?.>.


>> yes pictures are pictures but
sadly in this day and age , one can take a friendly picture ,but someone will see something wrong with it and start complaining ,

Ictoan,

If nothing actually happened, it'd be a odd chain of events that could cause someone to believe the photo was taken with ill intent, unless it was taken by someone who *only* ever took photos with ill intent.

I'm not sure how much difference there is in emotional (not moral) staining associated with actual intention and after-the-event associations.

I can imagine a house of horrors displaying school photos of a serial killer. Some people might think "Oooh - he was sweet and innocent then", and some might think "I can see the evil in his eyes". Whether the photos were actually of the person in question may make little difference to what a given person may see in them.

Hmm, maybe. But I could see a situation where a serial-somethinger might take pictures before hand and was caught before the particular event that this hypothetical picture was taken for. Not so strange I wouldn't have thought.

Or maybe an obsessive with a gallery of 'art' about a person who was caught before they put their plan into action.

'art' such as this is, I guess, normally destroyed? But I could see that some might find a market.

Sometimes the shades of grey give way to stark black and white, though. A child molester who takes photos of children which are intended to titillate, or a serial killer who takes photos during or after his crimes are a couple of examples.

Somewhere further down the spectrum are artists who deliberately create offensive material whose only purpose is to shock. That disgusting Mel Gibson snuff film would be one. Can you imagine the public outcry if the same treatment was given to the execution of Louis XVI?

>> if the piece of art were the end result of an illegal activity (i.e., photographing nude underage models), I would be likely to report the crime to the proper authorities. <<

There was, back in the late 1980s, a woman who took photos of young children, all doing young children things, who published a book about the innocence of children. In most of the photos, the children were clothed, but in a couple, they were in various stages of undress (one little girl who was obviously uncomfortable in a big poofy dress stripped down to her undies, and a little boy, naked as a jay bird, was imitating one of those "peeing" statues. When these naked/nearly naked pics were found on a pedophile's computer, she was charged as an accessory, although she was acquitted. Was she really guilty of a crime?

Malabarista, it was MOG's response (and the fact that I couldn't see the post because it was awaiting moderation) that made me think a link to a piece had been posted. Still, the question stands.

Oh, and there already is a market for what's called macabre art. The clown paintings done by John Wayne Gacy went for a fairly high price at auction...far above their artistic merit.

<>

We have to look at intent here. Since it would seem that we can establish that the woman who took the pictures did not have the intent to exploit her subjects or appeal to the paedophilic market, it seems to me that she is not guilty of any crime. We cannot always act in expectation of those who will take advantage of us or our actions, and we cannot be blamed for what others choose to do.

Exactly my thoughts, EMR. I mean, if I take a picture of my daughter naked, and email it to my mum, and somehow someone hacks into her computer and uses it with malicious intent, is that child porn? Is it their intent that matters, or the creators?

Why the hell would you take a photo of your naked daughter? That in itself seems a bit bloody odd to me! But then I'm an Aussie, maybe we think different, what being upside down and all, blood rushing to the head etc.

There are pictures of me and my brother naked as kids, up to about age 4, I guess it's not seen as an unnatural state by children or their parents. Why wouldn't you take pictures of your children naked? I mean, parents obviously see their children naked, they wander around naked all the time, it's just part of growing up. I really think that if a parent would even consider that seeing or taking a picture of their children naked is wrong then there is something wrong with their thinking.

If photos are never intended for anyone's eyes but family, surely that can't be considered pornography?

Yes, I agree, MR. There are loads of pictures of my sister and me, aged about two or so, in the bath naked, or running around with a very small amount of clothing on. The human body is not "dirty", first of all, and a naked child is not automatically a target for paedophiles. It's true that you need to be careful, especially on the Internet, as there are a lot of crazy and scary people out there. But people have started to see paedophiles everywhere, and when you're scared of what people could do with your own private family photos, and when you're then possibly blaming people for keeping a record of their children's early years... then you've got problems.

Isn't someone who worries about pictures of naked children a little obsessed, whatever their motive?

Just saying...