- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Society
Is Nude Photo of 10-Year-Old Brooke Shields Art or Child Porn?
London's famed Tate Modern museum has temporarily pulled a controversial nude photo of actress/model Brooke Shields that was taken when she was just 10 years old (the photo at left is a movie still from Pretty Baby when Shields was 12). The decision followed a visit by a police unit that deals with obscene publications.
The photo is part of an exhibit called "Spiritual America" that features many sexually explicit images. The museum was obviously concerned about the Shields photo from the start, considering the image was placed in its own separate room behind a closed door. A sign on the door warned people about the content on the other side.
While well intentioned, one child activist says that precaution is actually an invitation for trouble. "Putting a sign on the door like that means every pedophile in the land will head straight to that room," Michele Elliott, founder of children's charity Kidscape, told the Daily Mail.
The photo in question shows Shields standing naked in a bathtub. It was taken in 1975 by photographer Gary Gross, reportedly with her mother's consent, according to the Mail. But when Gross tried to republish the photos in the 1980s, Shields and her mother launched a legal fight to stop him. But Gross won the case.
Artist Richard Prince included the photo in his exhibit because he wanted people to respond to the "eeriness" of the image, according to Jack Bankowsky, the exhibit's co-curator.
A spokesman for the Tate says officials thought long and hard before including the photo. "As with any artwork that contains challenging imagery, Tate has sought legal advice and evaluated the situation. Tate has taken measures to inform visitors of the nature of the work, providing information outlining the intentions of the artist."
The Tate is working with London police to figure out what to do next.
Brooke Shields is no stranger to controversy. When 12, her appearance in Pretty Baby elicited claims of sexual exploitation. A few years later she made the infamous "Nothing comes between me and my Calvins" Calvin Klein jeans television ad that many critics thought was innapropriate.
So what do you think about this latest controversy. Is a photo like this highbrow, complicated art or is it a case of child pornography?
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
I remember seeing this movie
I remember seeing this movie when I was young. Yeah its about as close to child porn as one can get given the context and intent of the film. Anyone saying otherwise probably hasnt seen the film itself.
hmm...
If you took a picture of your kid taking a bath when they were little, thinking "oh how adorable" or "aww it's their first bath we should take a picture" would that be considered child pornography ?
Of course not
But that's why the problem is intent and context, and why it's impossible to simply legislate.
This picture is not porn if it was not produced for erotica purposes. ANYTHING is porn if you just poll the internet .
I have not seen the photo, but I am sure it would change my mind about what kind of law would make even a large minority of the people happy; that is no kind.
Cameron was accused of child pornography for Titanic by some sectors. Those japanese porno cartoons are called child porn by some. A family recently lost their kids in one of the dumber states for pictures of their kids (all under 10 as I recall) running around the house naked. This kind of thing is counter-productive, and undermines serious attempts to protect actual victims of pornography , the sex industry in general, and other forms of exploitation.
It's another arena where clueless "citizens" think hollering alot makes up for real work on solving problems.
Haven't seen it
I haven't seen it, but if I found the pic on a 40 year old man's computer, I would be very critical of that man's intent. In that context, I would deem it inappropriate and potentially actionable. I know, that's not really fair, but it's the state of today's society where children are seen as vulnerable and under close watch.
That said, if I found the same image on some woman's hard drive, the woman being a fan of Brooke Shields, I would find it hard to make the same judgement.
In short, I think this is a very grey area of law , and anyone with some common sense would err on the side of caution.
It's an interesting question
Is something pornography because we define it as such? What was the quote: "I'll know it when I see it?"
It's being displayed alongside "sexually explicit" images, so it's unlikely that they didn't mean for it to have any sexual connotation.
I haven't seen the picture, I'm not sure if it's an overly sexualized picture or just one of a naked ten year old. If it is overly sexualized, it reaches the second criteria of the Miller test.
The problem with most child pornography and the Miller test, though, is criteria 1 and 3. Depending on your interpretation of the sexual response system, the AVERAGE American would see child porn and not find it arousing. So, it'd be a no-go. Now, I guess, the issue is with the 3rd criteria--whether it has serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Naked kids photographed CAN be artistic--there was a HUGE art movement in the late 19th\early 20th century that had naked children symbolizing innocence and whatnot. Applying modern standards to it would probably lead to the average person deciding if it's a sexualized image or just an image.
Best idea is to ask Ms. Shields what she wants to do with it. If she's okay with holding it up and asking the average person what they think, which is what the Miller test requires, then we can go with that.
That's not how it works
Setting aside that the incident happened in a different country, even if it wasn't, the Miller test does not apply here.
It's a test for obscenity, not pornography . Obscenity is illegal, pornography is not. But child pornography is always illegal, whether obscene or not.
With regard to your last point, Brooke Shields is NOT happy about the picture circulating. She unsuccessfully sued to prevent it from being republished, saying it caused her embarrassment. I do find it troubling that her wishes were not respected.
What is the legal difference
between child pornography and a picture of a naked minor?
Child Porn is... Porn
Well basically child porn is... porn, with a child. If it's not porn, it's not child porn.
The law is actually fairly straight forward, at least at the federal level. Child porn is an image that features a child and sexual conduct. Child is defined as under 18, and sexual conduct is defined as any of the usual sex acts (vaginal, oral, anal or masturbation) or "lascivious exhibition of the genitals". Unfortunately that last bit can be more than a little subjective. But in the picture we're talking about, you can't see her genitals at all, so they clearly aren't "lasciviously exhibited".
Note that there isn't any specific exemption for artistic, scientific or other value, as is the case with obscenity.
Legally, not much
There isn't much of a legal difference as of now. Which is just terrible. I mean, is mother taking pictures of their children in a bathtub to be considered a pornographer? A 14-year-old distributing naked photos of themselves on Facebook, is she a child pornographer? What about a doctor taking photos of an infant with a birth defect that can only be viewed when naked? These have various legal protections, but they are completely arbitrary and individualized going back to the whole notion of "I know it when I see it" and we still run into issues of "well, does THIS have scientific merit or not etc.?"
The issue is truly a mess and right now it's really just up to responsible prosecutors to prosecute based on whether obvious exploitation took place (a phrase that should be placed in all legislation regarding this in my opinion).
When I was 15 I took a law class and we came upon this issue and I tried to craft a test that tried to address, essentially - "what should be the legal difference between child pornography and a picture of a naked minor?". Personally, although perhaps out of bias, I thought my definition handled it better than current law - but the issue will likely never be addressed.
For example, let's say a new painter named John Smith got consenting parents to present toddlers to him, naked, for him to paint. Let's say his paintings are beautiful. Still, he would likely be arrested (even with the so-called "artistic merit" protections which are NEVER used). Under this standard, you would've never seen many of the works of Peter Paul Rubens.
So, in this instance
PROBABLY it would fall under ART, as it was done for an artistic purpose, but is now viewed as child porn because, well, people who are into 10 year old Brooke Shields will flock to it.
I thought about that--Does it have prurient interest? part of the Miller test. The problem is of course that we're on the internet , and there is someone who finds ANYTHING erotic. Including the period at the end of this sentence.
Oh, yeah...
Comma Sutra
http://www.sackwear.com/product_info.php?products_id=34
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
I can almost see Jon Stewart
Leaning in toward that period as if he is going to kiss it. Good for a laugh.
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
nude = porn?
Without seeing the image, or the exhibit I'm not sure how it can be unilaterally declared child pornography ?
Having seen the image It does not appear pornographic, just strange.
I deemed it child pron because of context.
Included with other sexual-in-nature artworks, a naked child cannot be reasonably deemed as wholesome art.
Imagine a whorehouse. 10 women lined up by a madame before a prospective client. If there was a donkey in the line with the women, what would you infer by context? That the donkey was used to plow the fields out back? Not likely.
The same thing goes here. A display of art. Art with a sexual theme. In the exhibit, you see picture of a nude 10 year old girl. The inference is not a leap. It is taking the picture in context.
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
Who says it can't be both?
Nothing in the definition of either child pornography or art precludes a photo from belonging to both categories. Now, having seen the picture--it's just a google away--in my opinion it does not meet the legal definition of child pornography in the US. However it does appear intentionally suggestive and may violate the UK's stricter laws. As for art or not, well that's a silly question.
Ten years old + Nude =
Child porn... This one was simple.
Creepy
I've seen the photo - I didn't find it at all arousing, but very creepy for some reason.
-- Data Ferret
Child Porn
Its child porn plan and simple.Ten year old Brooke Shields nude photo is child porn.
Child porn.
Why is this even a question?
Who is suggesting this might be art? Roman Polanski?
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.