Is this statue "child pornography", and if it isn't, why not? Because it is old? Or famous? Or because it is "only nudity" but not "sexual"? Or...??
Could you use current artistic methods to produce a similar image today without running afoul of "the Law" and it's rabid supporters?
What about those "artistic" creations that depict no actual children (cartoons) yet end up with the "artist" being arrested? Yes, it happens.
I think that coercively exploiting children, in any way- not just sexually- is disgusting and evil. Yet I also am able to recognize that "the Law" has gotten completely perverted over the witch-hunt (no offense to actual witches) to catch child pornographers.
It's a puzzle to me.
(No actual children, or humans of any age, were harmed or exploited in the creation of this post.)
No comments:
Post a Comment