On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Charlotte Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> On 12/9/08, Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Things like spread out legs, arms behind back, and pushing forward of the
> > chest?   C'mon, the pose was obviously intended to be a sexual pose.
>
> For better or worse schools tend to consider this definition of sexual
> posing an acceptable way to generate school spirit. Well yes,
> cheerleaders are clothed, but usually at the minimum level allowed by
> whatever dress code regulation has been published by the school board.
>
> On the other hand a pose which involves physical contact of private
> parts (actual or suggested, such as "reaching toward...") would very
> reasonably be "associated with sex", regardless of whether clothing is
> worn or whether the naughtiness is visible to the camera.
>

The law I was referring to included physical contact of private parts and
"lewd exhibitionism" as two separate possibilities, suggesting that one does
not imply the other.  And this makes sense.  Sure, a cheerleader might make
sexual poses while fully clothed, and this isn't considered a lewd
performance.  But the fact that the cheerleader is fully clothed *makes a
difference*.

> The very title and theme of the song they were depicting is "Virgin
> Killer".
> > The image fails to be "sexy" for the sole reason that it's a prepubescent
> > making the pose.
>
> I doubt a title or caption accompanying an image could affect the
> legal status of the image.


It can certainly lend evidence of the state of mind of the photographer who
abused this young girl.


> While it may in theory be possible to collect legal material and
> arrange it in an illegal way I don't see that happening here. Sure,
> it's quite tasteless and not something I'd want my daughter involved
> with at any age, but that doesn't mean it's pornographic or otherwise
> worthy of censorship.


There's obviously a line to be drawn between a tasteless act and a criminal
one.  Apparently you are of the opinion that a criminal act requires
physical contact of private parts.  I strongly disagree.

I wonder, what would you say of a prepubescent girl whose parents had her
work in a strip club?  Is that a decision that a girl and her parents should
be allowed to make, or is it a situation where the government can step in
and stop?  If the latter, is it reasonable to call it a sex crime?
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

Reply via email to