----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Studdert" Subject: Re: PAW
> On 1 Mar 2004 at 13:20, William Robb wrote: > > > I was thinking that as well when I looked. > > That picture may well be kiddie porn under Canada's laws. > > Talk about anal, a similar thread scared my baby sister off the list a few > years back. You may recall the discussion Bill, something about photographing a > 17 year old girl semi-clad? The problem was that the photographer whos project > it was and who was asking for advice was an art student, a girl and only 16 at > the time herself. In any case the shoot proceeded, it was academically assessed > and publicly displayed and all went well, in fact no one landed in jail. I don't know about how the Aussie law is written, but the Canadian one is written in such a way as to cause as many transgressors as possible. Our law is not even based on fact (IE: the person is, in fact, below an arbitrary age) but is based on appearance. If the person looks to be below an arbitrary age, according to the judge, then that part of the law is satisfied, no matter what the model's true age may be. William Robb
