 james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA
2 edits | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: But Amazon.com knuckled under and removed the pic Well, I do suppose you're right in a sense, it's not really "unquestionable" by any means, otherwise you wouldn't be questioning it. My point is that a similar photograph of an adult could easily be accepted as art, and could hardly be considered be pornography.
While I hate those idiotic "artists" who do retarded things and call it "art", this photograph isn't the sort of thing child porn laws were meant to stop, in fact child porn laws aren't even about the pictures at all, they're about protecting children from abuse. Think about this: The amount of money and court time that has gone into prosecuting people for "grey area" child porn (ie cartoons or this album cover) could easily have been used to catch one of the people who actually makes REAL child porn, where a kid is engaging in very real sexual activity. Sometimes it's hard to imagine, but yes, there really is stuff that horrible being made and exchanged, and it's stupid shit like this that's taking resources away from catching those people. |
