File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Can anybody tell me the name of this photographer? It's driving me crazy becouse i have a bunch of her photos and i can't remember:/
>> Anonymous
the photographer is a woman, thats all i know, forgot her name ~~
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Yea i remember, that she photographed her family for years. I have also this photo anybody know her name.
>> Anonymous
ok , got it. it's Sally Mann if anybody's else interested.
>> Anonymous
lol children smoking in black and white
>> Anonymous
>>188536
I can't count the number of times that I've masturbated to her photographs of her children.
>> Anonymous
More pedo photography. Reported.

This shit should get perma bans AND PRISON TIME. Pedos should get the death penalty.
>> sage sage
>>188546
Sage because you're a creep. This is why we can't have serious discussions in /p/
>> sage sage
>>188557
Sage for you too. You don't know shit about her work, or about photography.
>> Anonymous
>>188546
Stop shitting up photography for everybody else.

>>188557
You're an idiot who has to be entirely ignorant of art history. That said, I know a guy who was permabanned for posting a Sally Mann picture in a "important photographers you should know about" thread on here.
>> Anonymous
>>188562

I don't care about her or her work. Just lock up her and the perverts like that other Anon and throw away the key. The world would be better and safer with them dead.
>> Anonymous
>>188567
Why? These photographs have harmed no one. Why would the world be better without them?
>> Anonymous
>>188570
There is no need for children to appear in these images. The potential for abuse and harm outweighs any other reason.
>> Anonymous
>>188573
BUT IT'S ART
>> Anonymous
>>188573
Yes, there is. Go look into her work and you'll see why they have to be children, her children. You know these are her kids, right?

And no, there's no potential for harm or abuse. Some pervert fapping to these things is disrespectful in the extreme, but it's a hell of a lot better than him going out and molesting some kids. There is no way, at all, anyone could come to physical harm through these pictures, unless some pervert developed an insane crush on one of them and found out where the hell in the middle of the Virginia woods Mann's family's cabin home was an came with a shotgun. And now, these photographs were taken more than sixteen years ago. The kids are probably in college, if not college graduates.
>> Anonymous
>>188573
There is no need for children to appear in photographs, is that your argument here? Is that what you're saying? That having a subject (or subjects) under the age of eighteen in a photograph is dangerous?
>> Anonymous
>>188567
You're a dumbass. Fapping to great art has never hurt anyone. As long as it's legal and doesn't harm the children, I'll fap to what I want. Photogs like her only make it easier to access fapping material.
>> Anonymous
>>188578

So if someone is selling pictures to pedophiles, that is okay with you as long as the pedo can't meet up with those kids personally? Is it okay to sell child porn to these twisted monsters as long as you sell it after they have grown up?

You are sick and evil. I hope one day they catch up with you in prison where justice finally comes for evil scum like you and other pedos.
>> Anonymous
>>188582
Oh hay here's an answer for you, no, because child porn is illegal. But who the fuck was talking about child porn, this discussion is about photography as art. gb2 Fox News circa 1984.
>> Anonymous
>>188582
Producing child pornography is wrong because it inherently involves coercion and abuse of the kids. This is a mother telling her kids to pose for her and them cooperating, no different than a child actor in a movie.

I'm not a pedophile at all. I'm someone who knows the role depictions of nude children have played and play in Western art.
>> Anonymous
>>188583

Define "art" then. After that we can start categorizing them. Good luck.
>> Anonymous
>>188586
Art is the attempt to communicate and express personal and universal truths to other human beings through aesthetic form.
>> Anonymous
Fucking trolls shutthe fuck up already.
>> Anonymous
>>188586
Nice try, but I'll leave that to the philosophers. Instead why don't you look at>>188584to help you define child pornography, so you know what's to be avoided. Consider them categorized.
>> Anonymous
>>188591

So you can just pretend that your CHILD PORN is "art" instead and say "oh, I'll leave that to the philosophers, LOL!!!"? Bullshit. Your weasel words and politician-style squirming isn't fooling me, scum.

There is no need for this pedo shit. PERIOD. Ban it all.
>> Anonymous
>>188595
Sorry, you must have gravely misunderstood. Art is subjective, a damn hard thing to define. Child porn is not however, see>>188584, and that is what's to be avoided. But hey, why don't you feign ignorance again and throw a couple more ad hominem my way and we'll call it square.
>> Warren !!JL+uuUHRNlZ
>>188584
You think there's some kind of coercion going on here? There wasn't anything of the sort.

Go dig up a copy of the May 2003 issue of Aperture magazine. It has a long interview with Jessie Mann, one of Sally Mann's daughters and the subject of a majority of her images. There have also been any number of essays by and interviews of Sally Mann herself about these photographs. I suggest you go out and read these and actually acquaint yourself with her work IN DEPTH before you go around condemning it as CP, dangerous, etc.
>> Anonymous
>>188601

Child porn does not need any obvious coercion or force. What about sneaks with hidden cameras or something
>> Anonymous
>>188601
No, I know there's no coercion. I eas contrasting the coercion in child porn with Mann's approach, which I've read about in other interviews with her. I'll have to track down that interview of her daughter; it's sounds interesting.

I'm also the guy who joined up with you in that shitfest over the bad newspaper copy.
>> Anonymous
>>188601
He was defending Mann, the posts you're looking for are>>188582,>>188586and>>188595
>> Warren !!JL+uuUHRNlZ
>>188607
My mistake. I'm hungover and confusing posts, apparently. In any case, though, the suggested reading is still relevant for those who aren't as well acquainted with her as they should be.
>> Anonymous
>>188603
Another tactic that is in no way related to or present in Mann's photos, go ahead and chalk up "hidden urinal cam" under illegal, you have my blessing.
>> Anonymous
>>188609
I don't think people are saying that it is classified as CP, but it is still harming the children. Even if the kids are consenting, it doesn't mean you are allowed to take naked pictures of them, since kids don't know shit.
>> Anonymous
>>188613

So we've now proven and you agree that coercion is not needed for it to be child porn and wrong. Yet more undermining and erosion of any defence of this sort of filth.

Ban it all. There is no justification. The world would be better without it. We do not need it. We should not be supplying evil perverts.
>> Warren !!JL+uuUHRNlZ
>>188615
Thing is, the kids were *not* harmed by these photographs. Jessie Mann herself dismisses all the controversy as "puritanical nonsense." You can argue all day long about harm that could be/could have been done, but the bottom line with Sally Mann's work is that there wasn't any harm done.
>> Anonymous
>>188621

a pedo justifying his lust for children. warren is nambla's official spokesperson here on /p/, folks.
>> Anonymous
>>188619
>There is no justification.

Yes, there is. Sally Mann had something to say with her kids. The body of work they produced one of the best works dealing with childhood in all of art, probably the best in photography.

>The world would be better without it.

How? It has done no harm but it has done good.

>We do not need it.

I guess we don't need some of the paintings of Caravaggio, either. Young, unclothed boys, oh my. Can't have that.

>We should not be supplying evil perverts.

They have an impulse whose fulfillment would be evil. A pedophile sitting at home fapping is hurting no one, so long as he's not buying child pornography and thereby financing further abuse and exploitation.
>> Anonymous
>>188619
>this sort of filth

Your total lack of understanding of this work or its place in art is disturbing. Your total lack of interest in gaining any understanding of it only makes it worse. People like you are killing freedom of expression.
>> Anonymous
>>188619
What we've done is expounded what constitutes child pornography, you must have missed the part where it already has no bearing on Mann's photography or the photo's you deem to have no artistic merit (or, even in acknowledging their merit, argue are perverted and corrupt in nature). The world would be worse off without it, that's the whole point of art.>>188588might help you out there.
>> Warren !!JL+uuUHRNlZ
>>188627
Fuck you. Your ignorance is astounding, your position weak, and your assertions absurd.

Go back to /b/ already.
>> Anonymous
Either ban it all, or ban nothing. I don't want any grey area in my CP.
>> Anonymous
>>188627
Oh nice, back to the ad hominem, that's good. The attempt to label him (an unfounded label, at that) doesn't discount his point:
>Thing is, the kids were *not* harmed by these photographs. Jessie Mann herself dismisses all the controversy as "puritanical nonsense." You can argue all day long about harm that could be/could have been done, but the bottom line with Sally Mann's work is that there wasn't any harm done.

Is that better? Now that it's been posted anonymously can you focus on the argument?
>> Anonymous
>>188636

i think you would be better off in nam/b/la than me as your kind of sick pedo habits are tolerated there, much to the dismay of the rest of the human race. i hope you suffer for every child who has been involved in this monstrous trade just to feed your habits and lusts.

burn in hell.
>> Anonymous
>>188643
You mean you don't want to have to think for yourself. While we're at it, let's just ban all forms of nudes in art. We'd clearly be better off for it.
>> Anonymous
>>188643
Tough, there's no such thing as black and white. Do you take that stance with everything in life?
>> Anonymous
>>188644Thing is, the kids were *not* harmed by these photographs. [RANDOM CHILD PORNOGRAPHER] dismisses all the controversy as "puritanical nonsense." You can argue all day long about harm that could be/could have been done, but the bottom line with [CHILD PORNOGRAPHER]'s work is that there wasn't any harm done.

WOW! Such a powerful argument. Actually, no. It is completely generic and hollow. She just says "NO U" and avoids the accusations. It doesn't do shit as anyone could say the same thing and pedos and suppliers do say the same thing even when caught in the act. Try harder.
>> Warren !!JL+uuUHRNlZ
>>188646
What the fuck is your problem? Don't you have anything better to do than to make ridiculous accusations against the one person who actually types something into the name field? Oh no, he's saying I'm a pedo! Oh god what shall I do in the face of accusations that have nothing to with truth and have no bearing on reality?!?!?! You're pathetic.
>> Anonymous
>>188651
Good job ignoring all evidence to the contrary of your opinion. You must be the pride of the 9th grade debate team.
>> Anonymous
Where the hell did this christfag come from? Go somewhere else with your absolutes.
>> Anonymous
>>188651
Jessie Mann was the nude child photographed, not the photographer. But she was just corrupted by her mother anyway.

The real issue here is not whether the child was harmed, but whether pedos can get off to it. If they can, then ban it.
>> Anonymous
>>188652

you are the pathetic one for sinking so low as to be subhuman, warren. there is little hope for one as evil and depraved as you, but i hope one day you'll change your sick ways before you die and go to hell and before too many children are harmed for your disgusting habits and pleasures.
>> Anonymous
>>188657
>The real issue here is not whether the child was harmed, but whether pedos can get off to it. If they can, then ban it.

Pedos get off on Sears ads in the Sunday paper. BAN SEARS.
>> Anonymous
>>188651
Really all that's to be said now is go read the damn interviews quit picking and choosing your points.

>>188652
Take it easy warren, either it's a troll or the person really is that frustratingly stupid and either way further discussion won't glean anything.
>> sage sage
>>188659
leave.
>> Anonymous
>>188660

Yes. Ban it. Like those "child porn" levi ads and stuff. Ban it all.
>> Anonymous
>>188660
Pedos get off on children on the street. BAN STREETS.
>> Warren !!JL+uuUHRNlZ
>>188662
Yeah, I know. Massive idiots just piss me off. I think 4chan must be bad for me.
>> Anonymous
>>188660
That was his point, it was sarcasm.
>> Anonymous
>>188667
Scary thing is, I don't think it was.
>> Anonymous
Is someone who masturbates to a paparazzi picture of a celebrity raping her?
>> Anonymous
>>188669
Please god I hope you're not right.
>> Anonymous
>>188666

people who don't like to molest children like you do are "idiots"? i feel sorry for your family. i can't imagine the pain that your mother and father must go through knowing how far you have strayed from the right path.

i will pray for your soul and an end to this filth in the future. it is so wrong and evil. so many children at risk and this sort of perverted photography only makes it worse. it does no good.
>> Anonymous
>>188670
Yes
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/04/27/was_woman_raped_on_telephone/5602/
Yes they are.
>> Anonymous
>>188666

warren, your nambla supporting and pedo ways will catch up with you one day. you will suffer now or in the next life. i hope you suffer soon so you change your ways rather than die as the monster you are and suffer for eternity.
>> Anonymous
>>188672
>>188675
So that about wraps up the thread. Latching onto warren because he gave you the responses you were looking for pretty obviously identifies you as a troll, and the OP got his answer (Sally Mann). Everybody good?
>> sage sage
>>188672
>>188676
fuck just leave already.
>> Anonymous
This sort of imagery is another symbol of the corruption and decline of society. Everything is falling apart at the seams. This is why the US and Europe will all collapse in a few years. Get your supplies and ammo while you still can, folks. Build a shelter. Build defences. When anarchy sets in you'll be glad you did.
>> sage sage
>>188677
Yeah, I think we're good.
>> Anonymous
>>188679
The irony is that you're a fascist little prick, and fascism has destroyed far more than liberal, intelligent opinions about art ever have.
>> Anonymous
>>188682
I'm pretty sure he's a troll, but this is true in more ways than the literal historical level would have it.
>> Anonymous
>>188682

Your liberal Hollywood-loving gay fest won't do you much good when China is on the march or people are starving. We'll see how long weak metrosexuals like you survive on 800 calories a day when people are ready to kill for a bowl of rice as the stocks dwindle. Your hair gel and skinny jeans won't do you or your lesbian friends much good then.

It is people like me that will save the human race and be there to repopulate it. Survival of the fittest. Nature says it's time for a cull and when the crops fail and the wars start, you'll know I am right.
>> Anonymous
>>188686
Hitler lost.
>> Anonymous
>>188686
Nice show mentioning China, that got a laugh from me. Any troll that understands irony is fine in my book.
>> Anonymous
>>188686
shit this guy's persistent.
>> Anonymous
>>188682

The weak will die and I am sure you will be feeding the dirt soon after it all kicks off. I will be smiling and sipping lemonade on that day.
>> Anonymous
>>188693
1/10
>> Anonymous
Quick, someone post another thread about a photographer who shoots nude children! This one's getting stale.
>> Anonymous
>>188700
David Hamilton?
>> Anonymous
>>188702
Ahahahaha you beat me to it.
>> Anonymous
Deep thinkers build deep shelters. If you pea-brains had even half a working brain then you would see what was coming. It is a good thing though as it means less stupid people to clutter the place. As it is the public is quickly heading to Idiocracy.

Everyone is looking at me like I am crazy when I tell them to put toilet water on the plants instead of Brawndo. They just say "but it's got what plants crave!!!"

That is when I know it is time to lock the door and leave them to their fate. Nature is wise that way. Clean out all the liberal taints.
>> Anonymous
>>188705
I'd like to see a photograph you took. Please post one.
>> Anonymous
>>188707
It's a self-portrait of a catholic priest sodomizing me. Give me a second to find it.
>> Anonymous
>>188705
John Hagee called - he says you're late for church.
>> Anonymous
>>188705
You're really going for the record, aren't you?
>> Anonymous
>>188709
brb - church
>> Anonymous
Lol. Easely

http://tinyurl.com/3mb6hl
>> Anonymous
>>188718
Direct link, please? Because following a Tiny URL off 4chan, especially in a thread like this, is kinda iffy.
>> Anonymous
>>188736
I don't know what it is, since it's not in English, but it's nothing bad. Looks like comments on a blog or something.
>> Anonymous
>>188746
whoops, forgot the sage
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
heres some more cp for you guys kekeke. Fucking retards.
>> Anonymous
>>189310
wtf let this die
>> Anonymous
sage
>> Anonymous
Hayhook was the best goddamn picture from that Immediate Family series. It's been my desktop wallpaper for fucking years now.
>> Anonymous
bump for more fap material
>> Anonymous
holy shit you guys got trolled
>> Anonymous
>>188533

if that is a girl i am fapping so hard rite now
>> Anonymous
Bump for CP on /p/.
>> Anonymous
how are artists able to get away with this kind of shit?
is sally mann european? what about jock sturges? he is american and his photos are basically kiddie porn...


>Through photographic portraiture, Jock Sturges portrays the radiance of the children of close friends and family. The photographs, taken with a large-format camera and often in the final hours of late summer days, depict the luminescence of the human form, unclothed and unashamed. Born in New York City in 1947, Sturges earned his B.F.A. in Perceptual Psychology and Photography from Marlboro College and went on to receive his M.F.A. from the San Francisco Art Institute. His work is in the collections of major institutions including The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; The Museum of Modern Art, New York; The Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris; The Frankfurt Museum of Modern Art; and The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. His work is published in numerous monographs, most recently Jock Sturges, New Work 1996-2000 (Scalo, 2000).
>> Anonymous
>>191027
0/10
>> Anonymous
LET THIS DIE
>> sage sage
sage
>> Anonymous
>>191047
>0/10

why do you accuse me of being a troll?
jock sturges' photos would be considered CP by any mod on this board.
if i posted that shit on any board on 4chan i'd be perma-B& for posting kiddie porn.

how is he legally able to do this shit?
why do parents let him take pornographic images of their children?
it seems like this should be considered child abuse since the children are too young to consent to this kind of shit.
>> Anonymous
>>191058
0/10

Learn the difference between nudity and pornography.
>> Anonymous
>>191060

Define the difference between art and porn.
>> Anonymous
>>191061
Art isn't the issue. It's nudity vs. pornography. This is why National Geographic can have photos of naked children in it.
>> Anonymous
Child Nudity = Legal

Child Pornography =/= Legal

?

1. Kidnap children
2. Go home and unclothe kidnapped children.
3. Take artistic photos of naked children.
4. Sell artistic nude photos of children to pedophiles.
5. ???????
6. PROFIT
>> Anonymous
>>191063
>It's nudity vs. pornography. This is why National Geographic can have photos of naked children in it.

Incorrect.
It's quantity and style of nudity that make the difference.
NG can have n00ds of kids because they're foreign kids and there's usually only 1 shot and the nude kid isn't the focus.

If you printed a magazine full of nothing but big glossy copies of Jock Sturges & Sally Mann photos you'd be arrested for distributing child pornography.
>> washer !kxrJVlZ8OE
i respect sally mann,

but this whole thread sucks.
>> Anonymous
despite all the trolling i think this thread brings up some good questions
>> Anonymous
>>191067

Considering this forum is just a bunch of questions about gear and pretentious asians posting "INSTA-ART" and "VIGNETTING DOG LOLOLZOLZ" as a reply to every picture; this thread is actually one of the high points of /p/.
>> Anonymous
>>191071
>Considering this forum is just a bunch of questions about gear and pretentious asians posting
> this forum is just questions about gear and pretentious asians posting
>pretentious asians
>asians

In this forum?
>> Anonymous
How do I wipe my hard drive?

I just did a Google image search for "Jock Sturges" and now I'm worried about what might be on my hard drive still...
>> Anonymous
Why must this thread keep coming back to life?
>> Anonymous
>>191081
>Why must this thread keep coming back to life?

Because it's CP on 4chan for several days.
>> Anonymous
Context.
>> Anonymous
*sad rage*
>> Anonymous
>>191079

Party van time
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>191084
And yet, there is no cp in this thread. Funny, that.
>> Anonymous
>>191084
>Because it's CP on 4chan for several days.
>it's CP on 4chan for several days
>it's CP on 4chan
>CP on 4chan
>CP on
>CP
>> Anonymous
durrr
>> Anonymous
I love the two sides to this argument:

>Anonymous#1) This is child pornography. You can tell because of X, Y, and Z.

>Anonymous#2) NO IT ISNT IT'S ART.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>191096

>Anonymous#1) This is child pornography. You can tell because of X, Y, and Z.

>Anonymous#2) NO IT ISNT IT'S ART. ART IS ANYTHING I SAY IT IS, EVERYTHING CAN BE ART.

fix'ed for you.
>> Anonymous
>>191096
You forgot:

>Anonymous #3: No, it's not CP, anyone with half a fucking brain can tell and here's reason 1, reason 2, reason 3, reason 4, etc
>> Anonymous
>>191092
>And yet, there is no cp in this thread. Funny, that.

May I direct you to the topless young girl in>>188533
>> Anonymous
>>191101
>Anonymous #3: No, it's not CP, anyone with half a fucking brain can tell and here's reason 1, reason 2, reason 3, reason 4, etc

Nobody has given any reasons other than "it is art" or "it is nudity not porn" to suggest that this is not CP.
$100,000 says that the argument "it is just art nudes not pornography" would't hold up in court.
>> washer !kxrJVlZ8OE
>witty retort to entire thread.
>> Anonymous
>>191104

There's the solution. Any fag claiming this isn't porn then feel free to fill a DVD and HDD with these images and then drop off a copy of the DVD at a police station with your name and address. If you are so sure of yourself then you'll have nothing to worry about in court when thousands of images of naked children turn up on your HDD.
>> Anonymous
Somebody post some Jock Sturges photos.
If you don't get B& then it isn't CP.
If you do get B& then it is CP.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>191102
I still don't see the pornography. Little girls run around with no shirts all the time when they're playing, this specific photo goes no further.
>> Anonymous
>>191111
i still run around with no shirt on
>> Anonymous
>>191111

Fair enough.
Though this is one of the tamest of her photos.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>191110
>Somebody post some Jock Sturges photos.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>191110
Given that this is 4chan, that's just good caution. But that has more to do with the users than the photos themselves.
>>191113
Yeah. I was just referring to what's actually in this thread.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>191115
>> Anonymous
>>189310
came bucketz
>> Anonymous
Jock Sturges' photography is inferior to that of Sally Mann.
>> Anonymous
>>191124
MAN = power
>> Anonymous
>>191104
The United States Supreme Court established a test that juries use to determine whether material is obscene. Under this test, something is obscene if the average person would find that the work, [...] lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

That'll be $100,000 plz...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>191129

Pornography isn't always "obscene."
These children are too young to consent to having these kinds of images made of them.
If nothing else this is child abuse.

Pic related.
From Sturges' font page of his website.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:27 13:38:58Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width400Image Height497
>> Anonymous
>>191104
Also, for something to be CP it would have to contain at least "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person".
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
naked baby?

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>> Anonymous
>>191134

Try telling that to Eljat Feuer.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEEDD173DF933A05752C0A963958260
>> Anonymous
>>191134

http://www.adultweblaw.com/laws/childporn.htm

>Section (E) prohibits images of "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area." Courts that have interpreted this section have done so broadly - "as used in the child pornography statute, the ordinary meaning of the phrase "lascivious exhibition" means a depiction which displays or brings forth to view in order to attract notice to the genitals or pubic area of children, in order to excite lustfulness or sexual stimulation in the viewer." See United States v Knox (1994). You may risk prosecution if your website displays images of minors depicted in a way that excites viewers.
>> Anonymous
>>191108
>There's the solution. Any fag claiming this isn't porn then feel free to fill a DVD and HDD with these images and then drop off a copy of the DVD at a police station with your name and address. If you are so sure of yourself then you'll have nothing to worry about in court when thousands of images of naked children turn up on your HDD.

Best post in this thread so far.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>191143
First, authority figures are obviously going to err on the side of caution.
Second, if they're being dropped off at a police station, the context indicates that it is being reported as a crime.
Once in court, given the vagueness of many of the laws and the subjectiveness of the material, of course any defense would be tricky.
>> Anonymous
>>191139
After aggressively pursuing the Feuer case for a year, the Somerset County Prosecutor, Nicholas Bissell Jr., appeared to back off on Jan. 25, tentatively agreeing to enroll Mr. Feuer in a special pretrial intervention program that could clear his record of the arrest on child endangerment charges.
>> Anonymous
>>191132

I could jack off to that, no problem.
>> Anonymous
>>191152

Do it faggot or shut up. You are just making excuses to avoid admitting it is porn.
>> Anonymous
I can't believe nobody has said
>B&W = INSTA-ART
in this thread so far...
>> Anonymous
>>191132
this shit should be reported to the ICCC.
that is sick and should not be allowed.

http://www.ic3.gov/complaint/
>> Anonymous
>>191152

The law and the courts are what decide it is with these things. Everything else is bullshit you're pulling out of your ass. If you are scared of the courts, then chances are it isn't what you are claiming it is. Good luck delivering your disc of CP.
>> Anonymous
>>191108
>>191104
Actually it would hold up in court. It has. Self-righteous moralist idiots have gotten both Sally Mann and Jock Sturges in court. Fuck, the FBI raided Sturge's home. Result? CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES. This is not pornography, and those of you bitching about how it's CP are actually arguing a point that has been struck down as bullshit by the courts.

You're wring. Deal with it.
>> Anonymous
>>191132
As long as it's b&w, it's art, not porn.
>> Anonymous
>>191172
wrong not wring, you know what I meant...
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>191164
Now, that Sturges photo>>191132
definitely looks suggestive. It just doesn't look like there's much going on there besides showing off their bodies, and the poses look adult.
The point is, it all depends on the particular photography. You can't just collapse all nude photos of children into the cp category, and dropping off any of them at a police station isn't proof of anything. Look at the guy in the article posted.
>> Anonymous
Sally Mann and Jock Sturges are in totally different categories.
I think Sally Mann's work is art, but Sturges... I dunno. A lot of his images cross the line for me. They aren't children having sex, but... they feel very sexual. If I saw a grown woman posed the way he poses kids I would think it was erotica at least...
>> Anonymous
>>191180
How much do you know about his work, though? It has to be taken in context. Some of his shots might look sexual if you're inclined to see them that way, but none of them are meant to be. None of them are remotely erotic, as far as I'm concerned. I see his photos and I see very intimate portraiture of his friends and family, some of whom he has been photographing for over 20 years. He doesn't even use model releases, as he feels that he shouldn't be using photos of people who he has not maintained contact with over time. I'll admit that his work is easy to misunderstand, and that's where a lot of trouble comes from, but if you really understand the work and how/why it was made, the controversy surrounding it seems absurd at best.
>> Anonymous
>>191182

If it looks like a duck, it's a duck.
Doing a Google Image Search for Jock Sturges pulls up images that the majority of Americans would consider inappropriate.

Sorry, it's erotic & abusive.
>> Anonymous
If you don't like it - don't look at it. End of fucking story. This stuff has been seen in court and deemed appropriate.
>> Anonymous
>>191184
In my own opinion and this is the first time I post on this thread, his nudes are tasteful, but I'm sure most people wouldnt agree.
>> Anonymous
>>191187

Shit hasn't been to the Supreme Court.
I bet money the current conservative Court would find this stuff to be erotic in nature.


>In fact, I don't believe I'm guilty of any crimes, but I've always been drawn to and fascinated by physical, sexual and psychological change, and there's an erotic aspect to that.

-Jock Sturges
>> Anonymous
>>191192
Nobody said it's been to the supreme court.
>> Anonymous
>>191194
(forgot something)
>> Anonymous
>>191066
So pictures of darkies are never CP? -10 for European condescension, -10 for the whole argument.

>>191108

You're assuming I want to go through the hassle of a court trial. Some D.A. would cum buckets (at the career opportunity, not the pictures) and try me. And, as per legal precedent, I would rightfully be found innocent.

>>191184
Americans aren't always right. I thought everybody knew that?


Question to everybody, I agree it's immoral, but for the sake of argument: why is bona fide child pornography immoral, and what aspects of it make it immoral?
>> Anonymous
>>191187
>If you don't like it - don't look at it. End of fucking story. This stuff has been seen in court and deemed appropriate.

What court, when?
>> Anonymous
>>191192
Take it to the supreme court then if it's such a big issue for you. Personally, I see no harm being done to the children in any of this - and that's the reason why laws need to exist against child pornography - to protect children.

A conservative court would likely see it as an obscenity case where laws would be enforced to protect our feeble minds from seeing stuff like this which I believe is absurd. Obscenity law is an archaic idea.
>> Anonymous
>>191197
>Americans aren't always right. I thought everybody knew that?

AMERICAN WEBSITE.
AMERICAN PHOTOGRAPHER.
AMERICAN LAWS APPLY.

Go back to your $9 USD gas and lack of fresh produce, Eurofag.
>> Anonymous
>>191200
>an obscenity case where laws would be enforced to protect our feeble minds from seeing stuff like this which I believe is absurd.

No. Issue is that this is abusive to children. Portraying their nude bodies for public use when they are too young to give consent.
Pedophiles share this kind of shit on the internet and it encourages them since the courts haven't cracked down on it.

B&W "art" photography = CP loophole
>> Anonymous
>>191207
You didn't read the first part of my post did you?
>> Anonymous
>>191213

I did, however I don't agree with you since I'm not a pedophile.
>> Anonymous
>>191215
I'm not a pedophile either and I don't particularly like Jock Sturges' work but I do not feel that it harms children. I do enjoy Sally Mann's work a lot though and it certainly does not harm her children.
>> Anonymous
>>191205
You're missing the point. American culture is notoriously loopy when it comes to sex, among other things.

And I'm an American, too, by the way.
>> Anonymous
So apparently>>191139is the only worthwhile post in this thread. Adequately represents both sides, the paranoid skin-is-sin one and the hippy free-love one.
>> Anonymous
>>191224

Erring on the side of caution is usually the best policy.
>> Anonymous
This is fucking stupid.
>> Anonymous
>>191132

can someone please post this without the queer edit?
i can't seem to find the original.
>> Anonymous
I don't have anything against her art but I do wonder if photoing the children naked was a good idea. I mean children the age of the ones in these photos tend to be at the age where they don't want other people to see them naked really and especially not take pictures of them. Maybe some of the younger ones are ok. Younger kids like three or four and younger like to run around naked.
>> Anonymous
>>191258
Go to your local huge book store and see if they have a copy of "New Work." It's in there.
>> Anonymous
>>191264

I'm not going to buy a book just for one photo.
I don't even like this guy's work, I just want to see if the nonedited version "crosses the line" or what ever.
>> Anonymous
>>191296
Nobody said you had to buy it. Point is that any major book store like a Borders or Barnes & Noble is going to have Sturges work on hand.
>> Anonymous
>>191302

I asked at Wal-Mart on my way home and they said they don't carry "that kind of stuff" in their stores.
>> Anonymous
ITT: the two guys on 4chan who aren't Pedo try to make everyone else feel bad
>> Anonymous
>>191310
lol walmart
>> Anonymous
google.com images: jock sturges
for god's fucking sake turn your SafeSearch OFF!
>> Anonymous
>>191258
Fucking Google search Jock Sturges it's right there on the fucking front page!
>> Anonymous
>>191371
lawl safesearch
>> Anonymous
Seriously. People are fucking screwy in the head. Soccer mom or religious zealot attitudes. Mankind really has lost the plot. Everything has some hidden meaning or agenda. Your damned if you do and damned if you don't. You know what? Mankind is evil when allowed to form groups that are meant to govern or police or act as go betweens (Read media). They become corrupted. They no longer represent what is right and just anymore. They pass dumb laws in order to show that they are actually doing something instead of sitting on their fat asses serving no real purpose other than to leech off the people who gave them power in the first place. The biggest sin is we did this all to ourselves. The human race really is a miserable pile of secrets.

Naked child = CP. Send the thought police in now.
>> Anonymous
>>191371

if you have to turn safesearch off then it's porn
>> archive archive
archive this thread for epic win
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>191399
THIS
>> Anonymous
>>191395
yeah because we should trust google to decide what is and isn't porn and I'm sure their algorithms get it right 100% of the time.

/sarcasm
>> Anonymous
>>191079
Yeah, same here, seriously...

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/03.19.98/cover/sturges1-9811.html
Sturges defends his works.

Seriously though, if the child isn't harmed and there's parental consent, I don't see how any of this can be wrong. Even if it is seen by most as sexual, there is no victim except for claims of "morality" and I don't think any of us (save a few idiots) think that morality should be dictated by law.
>> ken-t !wQS5KmrMzU
I, personally, think they are works of art and nothing more.

but here's a thought:
when these kids grow up/grew up to find that they have been photographed naked, and that some consider it to be illegal pornography, what are they supposed to think?
Surely, a 16 or 17 year old can't appreciate the artistic features of the photographs, so what's left but for them to believe that they were exploited?
>> Anonymous
>>191426
Wow. I don't personally like the work of his I've seen (that is, by the way, obviously art), but he's an amazing person.
>> Anonymous
>>191433
1. Why don't you think teenagers could appreciate the art?

2. Jesse Mann, far from feeling abused, has defended her mother and has gone on to do her own work, still with herself as the actress in front of the camera. If you read the interview, Sturges gives his subjects absolute control, legal and otherwise, over their images.
>> ken-t !wQS5KmrMzU
>>191442
sorry, I didn't mean teenagers won't understand art. Of course, some will. But there must be at least 1 of the photographed that feel like they were tricked or exploited, at a certain time in their life (maybe when they turn 16 or 17 when they understand the legalities of child sex and child pornography, but not so much the artistic ideas of the photos they were in.)

Sturges: I've had a number of American adolescents who, when they hit high school, said, "I really don't want to see these pictures published right now," and they were immediately pulled. I took them out of the galleries. They completely ceased to exist as far as the public perception of the images went. But when the kids were finished with high school they said, "Don't worry about that; I just went through a stage, and it's fine now."

I didn't really mean it as a question to be answered directly, but more of an issue that belongs in this discussion.
There's the photographer,
there's the accusers,
there's the law,
and there's also the children who were photographed.
>> Anonymous
>>191468
See, I read that as discomfort not with being photographed in and of itself, but teenage anxiety over what peers would think of it.
>> ken-t !wQS5KmrMzU
>>191475
Yes, I read it as teenage anxiety over what peers would think.. which stems from discomfort over being photographed, as, if they could change their choices of the past, they would choose to not be photographed, although that phase is only temporary.

The children, when they reach some age, realise that, even if they do not believe it themselves, others consider it to be illegally pornographic, and so ask to have the pictures removed.
But once they mature, they truly realise and appreciate the artistic nature of the pictures.

So there are two main issues here:
1. Child model exploitation
2. Child pornography claims

and no.1 is definitely ruled out.

number 2 is completely up to interpretation but its only a minority group accusing and protesting over this who have brought the issue up.

It's like this main road near my house.. one bitch complains so they built a set of lights and a pedestrian crossing. Slowing traffic for thousands of commuters everyday so one bitch can walk across the road once a week.
>> Anonymous
You're all like drunks staggering around the deck of the Titanic wondering why everybody is headed for the lifeboats. You still believe the dinner meal will be served after they clean the ice off the deck.

Amerikwans don't get it. Nowadays, they never get it.

You are all going to die screaming eating baby meat. Of course, that's the feelgood hit-of-the-summer upbeat optimistic outlook. In reality, it is going to be much worse.

There is a tacit acceptance worldwide that a third world war is coming and Amerikwa is going to be razed down to bedrock when it gets here. Everybody has figured it out save the 'kwans, who just keep masturbating to interracial porn and wondering when the next boom is going to start.

It's over. Last man turn out the lights. The United States of Amerikwa is finished, it's going to die soon and it's going to leave a very messy crater behind. If you manage to land a job blowing a hundred chinese soldiers a day in a comfort camp it's going to be a one-in-a-million opportunity so take it. Surviving WW3 plus a job in an occupational comfort camp, it will be like all your Christmases come at once.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
To me, it looks like those who are saying photos of naked children are child porn, are themselfs a paedophiles.
Just like you can't understand China unless you are Chinese (well, it is learnable, but who says sexuality isn't too, in some degree anyway?).
>> Anonymous
>>192850

Very much this.
>> Anonymous
>>192850

You learned to appreciate the naked bodies of children for your sexual desires? I think you are the pedo in this case.
>> Anonymous
an interesting link :
http://www.sssswr.org/prog99/steinberg.htm
>> Anonymous
i think this picture has nothing to do with pedos or porno, all it shows is a girls smoking a cigg and another girl looking at a ghost with her hands on her hips.