On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 8:49 AM, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux(a)free.fr>wrote;wrote:
One problem is that all these distinctions are highly
context. Let me give you examples.
I don't see how that's a problem, since I believe that all ethical decisions
are dependent on context.
If a parent takes one photograph of a little boy or girl doing silly
things half-naked, this is "cute".
If, however, a whole series of such photographs is sold online, then
it's child porn.
If one sees "Venus chastising Cupid" in a museum, this is classical art
and they take groups of children to see it.
If one sees a manga drawing of a naked, buxom woman, spanking a naked
child with the buttocks turned to the eye of the viewer (which is an
exact factual description of the above classical art), then this is
I'm not sure that you're correct with regard to UK law in either of those
situations. In any case, I don't see the point of this. A photograph (or,
in the UK, a pseudo-photograph) of child sexual abuse is child porn. "A
little boy or girl doing silly things half-naked" is not child sexual abuse,
and a manga drawing is neither a photograph nor a pseudo-photograph.