Photographer prosecuted.. what is the world coming to?

mattograph wrote in post #6095851
Wait a minute. My wife told me we only mate once every 25 years....... What does this mean?!@?!?!

It means you're civilized, that's all.

mattograph wrote in post #6095851
Wait a minute. My wife told me we only mate once every 25 years....... What does this ean?!@?!?! (INVALID EMAIL)

'ready' is not the same as 'willing', is what that proves. 'Ready to shoot a wedding' vs 'willing to shoot a wedding', for example.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #6088073
I thought in US the women are allowed to be topless because of the gender equality thing? No?

Wilt wrote in post #6092969
Yet at the same time, some airline flight attendants (female ones) had a female passenger ejected from the flight (fortunately they were not yet in flight!) for breast feeding her infant!

In Canada women have the right to go topless under our Charter of Rights' anti-discrimination clauses.

A situation similar to the airline one happened here recently with the flight attendant telling the woman to cover up with a blanket or got to the washroom to feed the baby, since the sight of a bare breast was making other passengers uncomfortable (no one else was sitting in her row). (http://www.cbc.ca …up-west-jet-.html?ref=rss)

We also had a case in the last week where a woman was escorted into a change room at a clothing store when she began to feed her child. (http://www.cbc.ca …rotest-h-m-vancouver.html)

I guess we've still got a ways to go before everyone's attitudes catch up with the law.

silverhalide wrote in post #6102472
In Canada women have the right to go topless under our Charter of Rights' anti-discrimination clauses.

I was at an outdoor concert shortly after this law was passed and some security guard was harassing some young ladies to put there tops on. I feel very proud to have done my civic duty and defend them. The guard backed down and the girls continued to bounce around in their natural glory.

silverhalide wrote in post #6102472
In Canada women have the right to go topless under our Charter of Rights' anti-discrimination clauses.

A situation similar to the airline one happened here recently with the flight attendant telling the woman to cover up with a blanket or got to the washroom to feed the baby, since the sight of a bare breast was making other passengers uncomfortable (no one else was sitting in her row). (http://www.cbc.ca …up-west-jet-.html?ref=rss)

We also had a case in the last week where a woman was escorted into a change room at a clothing store when she began to feed her child. (http://www.cbc.ca …rotest-h-m-vancouver.html)

I guess we've still got a ways to go before everyone's attitudes catch up with the law.

As I was passing by in the Eaton Center I saw a woman starting to feed her child. I didn't understand what she was trying to do at first, but at the very least she didn't have a problem with doing it in the middle of a packed mall.

Regardless of the law, few women practice the right AFAIK.

Quad wrote in post #6102913
I was at an outdoor concert shortly after this law was passed and some security guard was harassing some young ladies to put there tops on. I feel very proud to have done my civic duty and defend them. The guard backed down and the girls continued to bounce around in their natural glory.

Such a truly selfless gesture should be commended. lol

Interestingly enough, I'm on a business trip to Phoenix, Arizona this week. This morning when I was leaving my hotel I noticed the cover of the Phoenix New Times (a weekly alternative newspaper in this area), feature a large photo of a nude girl of about 8 or 9 years old on the cover. She was lieing in a small blue tub of water with toys and other children's items arrayed on the grass around the tub.

Now, note this was on the cover of a free, rather popular, newspaper is a very large metropolitan area in a rather conservative state. The article inside told the story of a photographer, Betsy Schneider, who takes photos of he children naked (much like Sally Mann with whom she apprenticed after graduating from art school) and presents them to the world in art shows.

I've only skimmed the article so far this morning, but it appears she has had the shows without incident here in the states, but when she did a shows in London, she was investigaged (and cleared) twice.

If I can find an online version of the article, I'll provide a link if others want to read it.

^^
I can believe it Mark. Political correctness is pretty much at the lunacy level over here in the UK.

cheers
Bill

Mark_Cohran wrote in post #6106834
Interestingly enough, I'm on a business trip to Phoenix, Arizona this week. This morning when I was leaving my hotel I noticed the cover of the Phoenix New Times (a weekly alternative newspaper in this area), feature a large photo of a nude girl of about 8 or 9 years old on the cover. She was lieing in a small blue tub of water with toys and other children's items arrayed on the grass around the tub.

Now, note this was on the cover of a free, rather popular, newspaper is a very large metropolitan area in a rather conservative state. The article inside told the story of a photographer, Betsy Schneider, who takes photos of he children naked (much like Sally Mann with whom she apprenticed after graduating from art school) and presents them to the world in art shows.

I've only skimmed the article so far this morning, but it appears she has had the shows without incident here in the states, but when she did a shows in London, she was investigaged (and cleared) twice.

If I can find an online version of the article, I'll provide a link if others want to read it.

A quick Google search turned up THIS.
Article in upper left of the page. Fixing to read it now.

Bill Roberts wrote in post #6106936
^^
I can believe it Mark. Political correctness is pretty much at the lunacy level over here in the UK.

cheers
Bill

Hard to imagine that a coworker of mine -- who is from the UK -- made a comment to me (ten years ago) about the lunacy of the Political Correctness that was so pervasive in the USA, compared to the (then) free expression outside the USA!

Shutterbug Doug wrote in post #6106976
A quick Google search turned up THIS.
Article in upper left of the page. Fixing to read it now.

Yes. That's the article.

There is more info on the article mentioned above here.

http://www.abc15.com …bf-4051-ba78-3842f38dd6cc

For anyone who is interested.

I think out of all my nephews and my niece there is only 1 nude shot I ever took and it was one of those shots you take, so that when they are older and you break out the photo album, you can embarrase them infront of a girl friend.

I had one copy printed out but covered it a bit, as I was not sure the legalities in printing it. It was not done in a bad way, like I said, just something to say "look when you were little you ran around naked."

It's unclear what you can or can't do no a days. Can you take embarrassing shots of your kids to get them back when they are older for all the hair they make you pull out when they are growing up? lol

imagious wrote in post #6120013
...Can you take embarrassing shots of your kids to get them back when they are older for all the hair they make you pull out when they are growing up? lol

That is the question, isn't it?

hitmanh wrote in post #6056641
The poor sod got 150 hours community service for that? I despair of the world sometimes...

I only despair of this country and the way it's infested with Social Workers and "Charities" like the NSPCC who spend more on Admin than they do on taking care of kids.

The Judge had other options, such as a Conditional Discharge. i.e. Don't do it again for X Months / years or you'll be in bother sonny. The Photographer was stupid, no doubt about it but the parents are equally responsible. Still, if he'd mugged someone's Granny he'd be on holiday in Jamaica with a team of Social Workers by now

Incidentally, this law is very wide-ranging. If you take (for example) Samantha Fox's early page 3 shots, it is now technically illegal to possess copies of those as she was under 18 at the time. Even though the pictures are over 20 years old the law applies as it's retrospective.

I go out of my way not to point the camera at kids a) Because parents are paranoid and b) because kids are generally annoying little brats and i want nothing to do with them