Nan Goldin 'Porn' Photo
Here's the top part of Nan Goldin's alleged child porn photo seized by Northumbria Police from Gateshead's Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art on 20 September. The allegation of child porn arises from the fact that the little girl lying on her back is starkers with her legs open. It is clearly a snapshot of uninhibited young girls having innocent fun, not pornography. The question for the police is whether or not it violates the Protection of Children Act 1978. The Crown Prosecution Service is taking its time mulling over this question.
posted by Unknown @ 30.9.07
4 comments
4 Comments:
Yes, this is child pornography, even though Goldins intention was not such. Children should NEVER be placed in compromising positions, there are sick individuals in the world who will use this a sexual tool. An artist should not place their artistic freedom over that of a child; children who can be easily exploited.
Common sense folks, but then again, common sense is not so common after all.
Don't let Sir Elton John catch you saying that, because he's well known for suing and has the wallet to back it up. Legally, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on, because for the second time the CPS has decided that this photo is not pornography. So that's the law as it stands.
I know what you mean, but I think the Telegraph (where I found this cropped photo) made a good point when it wrote that a paedophile would probably get turned on by leafing through the Mothercare catalogue! Where do you draw the line?
Our society has gone from innocence to paranoia over child abuse in little over two decades. (Remember all that satanic abuse stuff in the 1980's, none of which was ever proven, but it got averyone twitching.)
Now, parents aren't allowed to photograph their children at school sports days! Brownie supervisors aren't allowed to cuddle a distressed or injured brownie, in case the move is misinterpreted. And a friend of mine whose young son fell off the patio and bumped his head was furious when a hospital doctor was more interested in interrogating him about the injury than in actually treating the child!
Neither naivity nor paranoia is a healthy state, and society has lurched from one extreme to the other. Except where women are concerned. Did you know that therapists on both sides of the Atlantic estimate that 25% of child sexual abusers are women? That figure isn't represented in the courts, because women are rarely prosecuted, let alone convicted. So we are still naive about female perverts.
What I find worrying about this story is that the BBC is happy to show film of African children or Amazonian Indian boys and girls frollicking in the nude, but baulks at showing a photo of two white girls frollicking.
It reminds me of early BBC TV, when it was quite alright to show naked black breasts (e.g. On Safari with Armond and Michaela Denis), while it remained taboo to show naked white breasts!
A double standard, methinks.
I don't believe this was intended to be a publicly viewed photo, but a family photo. In which case it's an embarassing photo, but no where near porn, as it was not created for the purpose, or meant to leak out (in my belief) in any way, therefor would not qualify as porn.
Aside from this, merely looking at the photo if it was not meant to be shown in a public matter, makes you guilty of being a peeping tom.
Nan Golding is a famous photographer well known for taking intimate, unposed photos, so I doubt this was ever intended as a family photo.
Post a Comment
<< Home