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

Since I agree with the idea that this discussion doesn't really belong on the God thread, I'm going to post my reply to yur most recent post here.

"Hence a beautiful girl of 15 who wishes to embark on a modelling career may not have photographs taken of which a jury might disapprove! Where such photographs have been taken in countries which permit it, is it so terrible to download them? "

Well, if the law is justified in forbidding them to be taken in the UK, then presumably it is justified in trying to prevent people from benefitting by offshoring the photography. Either taking the photos is wrong or not. If it isn't wrong, obviously it shouldn't be illegal to download them. But if it's wrong enough to justify making taking them illegal, it's wrong enough to justify trying to contain their spread.

Presumably it is illegal to counterfit British banknotes in Britain. Suppose someone counterfitted them in some Carribean country where doing so is totally legal. Would it be wrong to intentionally bring the counterfit notes to Britain on the grounds that "they weren't made there"?

Hi, RDO. Let me simplify the problem, and make it apply to myself accurately, by specifying that no money or other exchange, even contact, takes place between the photographer and the downloader.

It is easy to see why it should be illegal to import counterfeit banknotes. It's not so easy to see why it should be illegal to import books. In fact, books featuring models under 16, as photographed by top international artists such as David Hamilton, are legally imported and sold. It is just the downloading that falls foul of the law!



If only it were that simple. People have different opinions about this, and countries have different laws. None of them is right or wrong as far as I can see. We also have to consider the unpleasant possibility that some photography, although wrong, might be the lesser of two evils. I have my doubts about getting involved in this, but maybe I should be more sympathetic to it. I mean cases where modelling is an alternative to poverty, starvation, prostitution or just not being able to get an education or go to the best school of dance and drama.

Are the models being exploited, even under 18 in the USA where that is the age limit? For most, 18 is too late to start. Famously Traci Lords started at 16 by lying about her age.

It's easy to answer this question when it's about photography of child abuse. Clearly there just shouldn't be child abuse. When it comes to teens wearing as little as they might anyway on a beach - often nothing, in some continental countries and our naturist beaches - there is no clear answer. We live in a multicultural society where people visit such beaches, and other women cover themselves from head to toe in public. Who is right or wrong? Who is to be described as a 'victim'?

toxx

<>

That, I acknoledge, seems contradictory.


<>

I agree it is a complicated question, not a simple one with a clear answer. But I just don't see the distinction between taking the photos and importing them. I do think that it is contradictory to allow some methods of importation but not others. In any case, it is time for me to eat dinner and I will have to read your post more carefully later.

Hi, RDO. This particular law makes it an offence to take or make a photograph of ......

Downloading a file is making another copy - therefore it's an offence. Buying a book isn't making another copy, so that's OK.

There's another law that relates to 'possessing' rather than 'making'; but it happens to be harder to pin that on someone, and the permitted penalties are much less.

They just don't make 'em (laws) like they used to!

toxx