Nude Children photography as Protected Free Speech
sportbug
of the Constitution of the United States. The Grand Jury refused to
even indict Sturges for tasteful nude art of children and adults as
naturists in the url link provided below. This is art, not sexual
art.
For Sturges, these changes are part of the continuing saga of legal
challenges and controversy surrounding his work. On April 25, 1990,
FBI agents and San Francisco police officers raided his studio,
seizing his cameras, his prints, his computer--everything relating to
his occupation as an internationally recognized fine-art photographer.
Art communities, both in San Francisco and nationally, rallied around
Sturges, his work and the legitimacy of respectful nude photography of
children and adolescents. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors
denounced the raid and a San Francisco grand jury refused to indict
Sturges on any charges.
Interesting quotes by Jock Sturges:
"This is pretty chilling language because, in fact, the people in my
pictures are not engaged in any acts at all. They are living in
contexts that are naturist, which is to say that when it's warm and
people feel like it, they don't wear clothes."
"It's laughable, and we'll win these cases, however far it has to go,"
Sturges continues. "If it gets to the Supreme Court, I'll have the
directors of every museum in the country as expert testimony that my
work is legitimate art. If obscenity is simply a matter of somebody
being without clothes, then there are so many other things that would
be inherently obscene--medical books, the National Geographic."
URL Link:
http://www.masters-of-fine-art-photography.com/02/artphotogallery/photographers/jock_sturges_01.html
sportbug
bottom
again url link:
http://www.masters-of-fine-art-photography.com/02/artphotogallery/photographers/jock_sturges_01.html
MsFrustum
What's being missed in Sturges' brave talk is that he's famous, has
immense support, and is far from broke. Yet even he can be severely
hassled, and those who seek to harm him are not penalized for trying.
In fact, they get much praise and are almost always re-elected.
Ordinary folk, like parents who takes pics of their kids in the bath
tub, have none of Sturges' advantages. Their life can be totally
ruined for acting within the law, and those who harm them get away
without penalty.
---
LOP
Stuffed Tiger
His civil rights were violated. I hope he sues.
Zee
>
> His civil rights were violated. I hope he sues.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
only a pedo would think so...non pedo men do not seek out children to
photograph naked....i could be slightly impressed if a female like
sally mann did so...but even then homosexuality..and whoredom comes to
mind...and all the opinions about this being art is still only an
opinion considering that 99.9 figure it is child sexual
exploitation....deal with it you perverted lying pedos...jz
sportbug
>
> - Show quoted text -
when you are calling names, you will not receive a response from me,
and anyone else. duly noted. I could comment on your post and I
could have something to say in response, but your name callings out of
line. Not worth my time. people, everyone on this board already
know your kind since a long long time ago. I do not need to put up
with your crap and defend myself. bye
sportbug
Zee
> and yes, the slander
ahh man...talking about slander..your header is slander....reality
says that behavior is not protected speech..but a pacifier to the
gullible like nudist and artist to provoke litigation by the justice
system seeking business...they are all attorneys that do just
that...and now your ignorance says but you are wrong...no the
equalizer is the reality of COMMUNITY STANDARDS...which means that the
USSC HAS HELD THAT THEY INTEND ON RESPECTING>>>>>which means that a
naked child in any form cAN BE SEEN AS PORNOGRAPHIC....so what the
heathens of san francisco might find ok might be held to be
pornographic in peoria...dumbass....jz
stinso...@hotmail.com
>only a pedo would think so...non pedo men do not seek out children to
>photograph naked....
Oh, sure. Only gay men would take pictures of naked men, only florists
would take pictures of flowers, and only geologists would take
pictures of mountains.
>....deal with it you perverted lying pedos...
Oh, mybad. I didn't see the name calling. That means you ain't got
jack!
-T.
stinso...@hotmail.com
> the
>equalizer is the reality of COMMUNITY STANDARDS...which means that the
>USSC HAS HELD THAT THEY INTEND ON RESPECTING>>>>>which means that a
>naked child in any form cAN BE SEEN AS PORNOGRAPHIC....
Not in the eyes of the law.
-T.
Zee
> On 17 Mar 2007 06:36:55 -0700, "Zee" <jonZ...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> > the
> >equalizer is the reality of COMMUNITY STANDARDS...which means that the
> >USSC HAS HELD THAT THEY INTEND ON RESPECTING>>>>>which means that a
> >naked child in any form cAN BE SEEN AS PORNOGRAPHIC....
>
> Not in the eyes of the law.
>
> -T.
and i see that capitalism is hard for you to understand...some groups
do have that problem...jz
stinso...@hotmail.com
Apparently writing with your Caps Lock on qualifies as capitalism for
you.
>..some groups
>do have that problem...jz
Some ain't any. End of story.
-T.
Richard C.
news:bn4ov2lsn6dnocav9...@4ax.com...
Actually, hasn't the US Supreme Court upheld that nude
photography of children (and nude children themselves) are NOT pornographic?
Several times.
D. Kirkpatrick
"Richard C." <post...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Actually, hasn't the US Supreme Court upheld that nude
> photography of children (and nude children themselves) are NOT pornographic?
>
> Several times.
Simple nudity.
And both the 1st and 3rd Circuit Courts of Appeal have issued similar
decisions since 2000.