to quoute from Citizen's Guide To U.S. Federal Law On Child Pornography

"Images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law.

Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive. Additionally, the age of consent for sexual activity in a given state is irrelevant; any depiction of a minor under 18 years of age engaging in sexually explicit conduct is illegal."

Question: does Bottecelli's Birth of Venus --- (note from the title Venus must be under 18) constitute child pornography?

What ever happened to "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it?"

Ask a 15-year-old boy if he finds it arousing. If he says "yes," well, that's your answer.

quote:

Originally posted by senza nome:
...(note from the title Venus must be under 18)...

It is a depiction of a Mythological goddess, the title is just the title. It is commonly accepted (pick your search engine and search the title, then pick any or all of the results) that Venus was born in adult form, thus not a minor.

To answer the question: No

No, it’s not

If Pretty Baby and The Blue Lagoon weren't, then that surely isn't.

No, its a painting in the Uffizi.

quote:

Originally posted by armme:

quote:

Originally posted by senza nome:
...(note from the title Venus must be under 18)...

It is a depiction of a Mythological goddess, the title is just the title. It is commonly accepted (pick your search engine and search the title, then pick any or all of the results) that Venus was born in adult form, thus not a minor.

To answer the question: No

Age is determined from date of birth ... I don't see how being born in adult form changes that.

^^^
If you’re going to be technical about a “date of birth”, I’ll point out that not only was there no birth, in addition this is not a real person.

The birth of Venus depicts a fully grown woman, not anything resembling a child. It has nothing at all in common with child pornography.

I have no opinion on the subject at hand but I’m wondering what is an undeveloped video tape?

Is this a serious question, or just rhetorical? What made it even come to your mind?

quote:

Question: does Bottecelli's Birth of Venus --- (note from the title Venus must be under 18) constitute child pornography?

It's no more porn (child or not) than Michelangelo's statue of David or any other art depicting a nude person (real or not).

This message has been edited. Last edited by: egregore,

Conaider the following

"The story of Ganymede typically comes up in every conversation about pedophilia in ancient Greece.

According to the myth, Ganymedes was born in Troy. As a young adolescent of exceptional beauty, he caught the eye of the gods, and more specifically, Zeus. The latter then transformed himself into an eagle and abducted Ganymedes, bringing him to Olympus.

There the young man served as a cupbearer of the gods. Zeus ensured that Ganymedes would remain immortal and eternally young.

In Vergil, Hera, Zeus’ wife, considered Ganymede as an adversary who has erotic relations with Zeus."

So if someone uses AI to generate a Hera's view of Zeus and Ganymede and puts in a hidden folder then it's kiddy porn but if Bottecelli paints same and it's hung in the Louvre then it's art? Where do you draw line?

I'm pondering the difficulty of crafting legislation which has to deal with cultures that have morphed over time - child pornography is merely one example.

Explain how a painting of a full grown woman in Birth of Venus equates to kiddy porn. And saying she was just born is not relative when she is not depicted as an infant, child, or young teen.

quote:

The Birth of Venus

I'm assuming everyone knows what the painting in question looks like, but for convenience here it is:

With the above noted, I'm filing this under "Some Questions Answer Themselves"

There is more nudity in many lingerie catalogs than that painting.

I worked those cases for several years. Your answer is no under both Federal and every state law I am aware of. Mere nudity does not constitute pornography. The "you'll know it when you see it" rule is still very much alive and in this case appropriate. We do not want to start prosecuting grandparents for those uncomfortable pictures of us as toddlers in the bathtub that they love to pull out and embarrass our high school girlfriends with for example. For anyone wondering, no, you do not ever want to work those kinds of investigations. I worked CSI for 5 years. I've been on literally hundreds of death scenes. Never had so much as a bad dream. One month into ICAC and I had seen things that will haunt me the rest of my life. I'd never let my pre-teen have unmonitored internet access...

Well obviously that is not child pornography but I'm pretty sure I've seen numerous classical paintings with naked babies in them.... but I will admit it never aroused me... now there is a painting in the Princeton Art museum that got me and embarrassed a 1939 graduate a few years back. We were both admiring it and then both bent down and looked at the title and it was something like, "young boy looking out a window"

quote:

"The story of Ganymede typically comes up in every conversation about pedophilia in ancient Greece.

According to the myth, Ganymedes was born in Troy. As a young adolescent of exceptional beauty, he caught the eye of the gods, and more specifically, Zeus. The latter then transformed himself into an eagle and abducted Ganymedes, bringing him to Olympus.

There the young man served as a cupbearer of the gods. Zeus ensured that Ganymedes would remain immortal and eternally young.

In Vergil, Hera, Zeus’ wife, considered Ganymede as an adversary who has erotic relations with Zeus."

So if someone uses AI to generate a Hera's view of Zeus and Ganymede and puts in a hidden folder then it's kiddy porn but if Bottecelli paints same and it's hung in the Louvre then it's art? Where do you draw line?

Okay that cartoon had me laughing out loud!! LOL