AFAIK the law in the US prohibits photos, drawings, and paintings depicting child porn (one of the few restrictions on our freedom of expression); you can read/write all the child porn you wish. However, I am sure that I am not the only one here who wonders why you would want to.

A lot of art has since been hidden away. Both due to these laws forcing them to be so and due to risk of art being misinterpreted .. or did I already say that.

I remember a newspaper photo of a young girl in Vietnam, I think her village had been bombed, her family killed, she was a refugee, she had nothing, no clothes, but this photo represented the desperate state of many people in Vietnam of the time. In those times, such a picture was freely used in newspapers and television to represent what was happening. This was an expression of desperation and told of a story of what war does to *real* people that said so much in just a simple photo. Such a photo would not be allowed now. But this photo was a form of art. The photo itself told a deep story. This was not about nudity or pornography.

Do not get me wrong, I am not pro underage pornography, but when art is used to represent something to speak a special message. uh .. art is something many people would not understand so I will not even attempt to try. But I do not generally like the concept of children being used .. but has been used so effectively in art to tell a story, perhaps of innocence or of the pains and struggles of the young as they grow into society or a multi-million other potential meanings. This is totally different to the concept of child pornography where young ignorant children are 'forced' or coerced into the pornography scene. Such photos are intended for sexual stimulation whereas Art is not unless it is obviously set to be so. Nudity in art does not represent sexual stimulation unless the artist intended it to be so. If a person who views art with any nudity sees it as sexually stimulating then they may even see a drawing of two kittens playfully wrestling as being sexually stimulating/intended. (duh what century was I born in)

Hi Guys

It's been a long time since I have graced this hollowed forum, at this stage I just want to voice an opinion or two:

Here we go, first I believe I know what pornography is when I see it and I also know what art is but I do not know the point where art becomes pornography or vice versa. So, I believe, like most normal people, that there can be a fine line between the two but have difficulty in distinguishing that line.

Second, there are some people who regard all forms of human nudity as pornographic and there is no reasoning with such people.

Now my main point, the little girl from Vietnam, whose village was napalmed, I believe that under current western legislation it is highly unlikely that such a picture would have been published. After all, she was definitely under aged, around about 8 - 12, she was nude and in obvious pain, the skin on her back was hanging off in tatters. However, the current laws would have censored the pictures of this girl and so the full horror of the Vietnam war, and it's affect on the ordinary Vietnamese people, would have been hidden from the western world.

Finally, I would like to say that I personally do not believe in censorship as a rule, simply because governments and powerful organisations use it as a tool to hide their illegal and morally dubious actions and as an aid to promoting their own brand of propaganda.

However, I do believe that all vulnerable people, whether young, old, disabled, etc., should be protected from unscrupulous people exploiting them. And, unfortunately, one area of protecting vulnerable people is through the blunt, catch all instrument of censorship.


UK Bob

Had South Viet Nam won the war your Vietnamese language classes my have had a southern rather than a northern "twang"

The photo mentioned was an atrocity, accident or not. I served 13 months in a combat infantry battalion in central RVN,1968-70. I witnessed child pornography (atrocities) commited by Viet Cong forces upon villagers who had cooperated with US and ARVN forces. We returned to the village during these actions and photographed these incidents before we killed these criminals. The photos were to be used as evidence of the atrocities, but alas we left the country having failed the people with the " southern twang".

I will not show these pictures nor portray the atrocities vividly in writing. I will not attempt to publish the story deemed pornographic or not. I cannot afford to take the chance.













I am not about to show you pictures of these atrocities (child pornography),
but I could vividly explain what the photos depicted and what I saw. Either way my novel will never be published. At this let date I cannot afford it.

vividly portray what took place