Nudist-Resorts.Org - Naturist Discussion Forum / Bulletin Board


Nudist-Resorts.Org - Naturist Discussion Forum / Bulletin Board
Username:
Password:
Save Password


Register
Forgot Password?

About Us | Active Topics | Active Polls | Site News | Nudist News | Online Users | Members | Destinations | N. A. I. R. | My Page | Search
[ Active Members: 0 | Anonymous Members: 0 | Guests: 666 ]  [ Total: 666 ]  [ Newest Member: dild0 ]
 All Forums
 Nudism and The Law
 Nudism and Children / The Law Concerning Children
 Are nudist or naturist videos of children legal?

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

 Posting Form
Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert EmailInsert Image Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List Spell Checker Insert Flash
   
Callouts: Insert Speech Icon: duh! Insert Speech Icon: oops! Insert Speech Icon: sigh! Insert Speech Icon: ugh! Insert Speech Icon: wow! Insert Speech Icon: yeah! Insert Speech Icon: ok! Insert Speech Icon: yes! Insert Speech Icon: no!
Message Icon:              
             


Smilies
Angry [:(!] Approve [^] Big Smile [:D] Black Eye [B)]
Blush [:I] Clown [:o)] Cool [8D] Dead [xx(]
Disapprove [V] Eight Ball [8] Evil [}:)] Kisses [:X]
Question [?] Sad [:(] Shock [:O] Shy [8)]
Sleepy [|)] Smile [:)] Tongue [:P] Wink [;)]

   -  HTML is OFF | Forum Code is ON
   Insert a File
 
  Check here to include your profile signature.
Check here to subscribe to this topic.
    

T O P I C    R E V I E W
devildave25 Posted - 08/01/2003 : 12:14:09 PM
Hi, I'm new to this message board. I have a legal question for you legal types.

I have watched the Foxnews channels "The O'reilly Factor" just the other day July 29, 2003 to be exact. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93309,00.html
In an article titled "Uncovered: Is a Former Nudist Leader Dealing in Child Pornography?" where this former nudist leader is selling video tapes and DVD's of Nudist adults and children in nudist camps and beaches. Showing children's beauty pagents and things of that nature. This former leader says that all the videos were taken in Europe and Eastern Europe, and not in the United States.

My questions are:

1. Are these videos legal to sell/buy? (they are said to not show the pubic/genital regions of the children/adults, nor sexual situations)

2. Are these videos considered to be child pornography?

3. Where can I find legal advice on this subject <Nudist Issues>?

4.. As Nudist what are your thoughts on this subject (the selling and purchasing of these videos)?

One site that I found on a google search on nudism is one such site that sells videos/DVD's and books on nudism. These videos are of adults and children nudists. On the site itself it says it's legal to purchase these videos with nude adults and children on it because they don't show close up shots of the pubic/genital areas on the children or the adults or sexual situations and content. It also states the names of 4 lawyers here in the state of California that all say it's ok to sell and buy these videos.

5. If a person were to purchase these videos what would be the legal issues that one needs to take into account?


That's all for now. Any and all information will be greatly appreciated. I await your replies. Please be easy on me as I only want information on this matter.

Thank you,

Dave

15   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
McNigel Posted - 05/17/2011 : 03:29:45 AM
Warning. If you clicked on that link, your 'Temporary Internet Files' will now contain images you would rather they didn't.

Ricki00 Posted - 05/16/2011 : 7:12:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rappy

Maybe a dozen years ago, there was a case of a single mother in Ohio who had trouble conceiving her child, and only expected to have one child. So she documented her child's life through photography - lots of photography - including the usual bathtub shots, which were only a small percentage of the total. Apparently, at a certain age, her daughter did some things that might be described as the beginnings of sexual self-discovery, and the mother recorded those events. The famous supposed "discount store" photo developing personnel referred the situation to a politically ambitious DA, and you can all guess what happened - and the mother lost her job as a school bus driver.

Now I would defend the mother in that case (as long as she didn't sell any images, which she didn't, and the daughter had the right to decide who got to see them), because what she was creating could be considered a tremendous work of art in documenting the ordinary life of a child growing up. I felt the DA horribly disrupted the bond between the mother and child. They later came to an agreement that certain negatives and images would be destroyed, and the mother fulfill some other obligations to have the charges dropped.

I strongly feel that strangers who don't know the subjects should not create a market for "child nudist" pictures on either the production or consumption side. The kids probably have not granted a knowing permission to be exposed in that manner. Heck, I don't even like the commercialization of the female body in our culture. (yeah, you, Victoria's Secret)

On the other hand, the most beautiful scene I ever saw in my life was of a 8-10 year old girl playing on the mud bank of a slough at a state park near where I used to live, totally oblivious to the fact she wasn't wearing stitch of clothes (and it wasn't a clothing optional area). She would crouch down to use a stick to write in the mud, and then jump up and run through the edge of the water. I don't exactly know how to describe it, except to say I was struck by a very palpable aura of freedom surrounding the child, unbound by all the baggage that too many of us have. If that aura could somehow be recorded, I think it would certainly fall in the category of art.

But I would prefer that it wasn't recorded except for the memories of those who saw it.

It is a fine line.




Are you talking about that story as it was mentioned on Frank Cordelle's Century Project story.

rappy Posted - 05/09/2011 : 11:23:00 PM
Maybe a dozen years ago, there was a case of a single mother in Ohio who had trouble conceiving her child, and only expected to have one child. So she documented her child's life through photography - lots of photography - including the usual bathtub shots, which were only a small percentage of the total. Apparently, at a certain age, her daughter did some things that might be described as the beginnings of sexual self-discovery, and the mother recorded those events. The famous supposed "discount store" photo developing personnel referred the situation to a politically ambitious DA, and you can all guess what happened - and the mother lost her job as a school bus driver.

Now I would defend the mother in that case (as long as she didn't sell any images, which she didn't, and the daughter had the right to decide who got to see them), because what she was creating could be considered a tremendous work of art in documenting the ordinary life of a child growing up. I felt the DA horribly disrupted the bond between the mother and child. They later came to an agreement that certain negatives and images would be destroyed, and the mother fulfill some other obligations to have the charges dropped.

I strongly feel that strangers who don't know the subjects should not create a market for "child nudist" pictures on either the production or consumption side. The kids probably have not granted a knowing permission to be exposed in that manner. Heck, I don't even like the commercialization of the female body in our culture. (yeah, you, Victoria's Secret)

On the other hand, the most beautiful scene I ever saw in my life was of a 8-10 year old girl playing on the mud bank of a slough at a state park near where I used to live, totally oblivious to the fact she wasn't wearing stitch of clothes (and it wasn't a clothing optional area). She would crouch down to use a stick to write in the mud, and then jump up and run through the edge of the water. I don't exactly know how to describe it, except to say I was struck by a very palpable aura of freedom surrounding the child, unbound by all the baggage that too many of us have. If that aura could somehow be recorded, I think it would certainly fall in the category of art.

But I would prefer that it wasn't recorded except for the memories of those who saw it.

It is a fine line.

tgg Posted - 02/06/2011 : 05:57:41 AM
"One man's meat is another man's poison". We don't ban selling meat just because some people can't handle eating it. Same goes with nude kid videos. The producers are not to blame just because there are some f*cked up people who buy them for less than noble reasons.
They are legally advertised for sale in the Australian nudist magazines and are not illegal because the kids are not engaging in any sexual behaviour whatsoever. Some people get their knickers in a knot over nothing. And I hate child pornography just as much as every decent person out there.

'Fear wraps our bodies in clothing, love allows us to stand naked' - Neale Donald Walsch (Conversations With God 1)
tgg Posted - 05/25/2010 : 05:45:30 AM
Hi all,

First of all, Chelsea, could you please brush up on your punctuation on here?

If these videos can be constituted as child porn, the companies would have been liquidated years ago. Technically, child pornography is taking photos and filming pre-pubescent people engaging in sexual activity.

The [deleted re: photos of minors] videos do not contain sexual activity, but there are some elements of it which are designed to sexually arouse guys. For nudism to be portrayed as a family orientated activity, you need to be filming both the children with their parents together at the same time, or both boys and girls together. Focusing solely on sub-teen girls is sexist and dishonest towards naturist ideals that it is meant to be an egalitarian activity.

Even though they are legal to sell, the integrity of the film companies need to be brought into questioning by both the nudist and textile worlds alike.

'Fear wraps our bodies in clothing, love allows us to stand naked' - Neale Donald Walsch (Conversations With God 1)
NAKED CHELSEA Posted - 04/12/2010 : 12:17:04 PM
I kind of agree with all of your comments. It IS just a Few (even though that FEW is MANY) Perverted People who give us a Bad Name. Kids LOVE Been Nude. They don't think anything of it until someone tells them It's Dirty. I grew up Naked and Unashamed, and I'm gonna let my kid's Grow Up Unashamed.
balataf Posted - 04/05/2010 : 01:54:33 AM
A few of the individual girls who were the photographic focus of this activity in the above referenced early 2000s fake nudism resurfaced in actively sexual porno later in the decade.

When asked by non-Nudist friends about photos of Nudism vs activbe sexual shots, I often describe one of my favorite "Old Nudist" pics. The scene is a beach area with a volleyball court. Each side has a similar makeup: "grandparent" (a 60-something man and woman,) "parents" (a 30-somethuing man and woman, and "kids" (boy and girl of maybe 13) The game is in play, and all participants are raptly focused on the ball while in action poses. But one of the things that really makes this pic is that the ball itself is directly over the center of the net. At this instant it is impossible to tell which side "served" the ball or which is "receiving."
First class photogography, it is a riveting picture and the nudity is incidental, while everyone is having alot of fun, including a partially seen audience group of a few shoulders and backs.
ev105 Posted - 04/05/2010 : 12:02:50 AM
I'll say this. I saw a lot of those Helios Natura videos, many of them repackaged as "eNature" and what my G/F and I saw was technically legal but emotionally disturbing. How so many adolescent girls 12-17 ended up in the company of men their grandfathes' and fathers' generation is suspect, given the lack of boys their own age or adult female guardians. Some of the things my G/F pointed out was how a girl who is being made to feel ashamed or put-upon will demonstrate body language consistent with humiliation. Several of the girls avoided "eye" contact with the camera and one only looked directly at the camera when obviously prompted to do so. In one video, a girl of 11 is washing the back of a girl 13 or 14 and is being told to reach around and scrub the other girls stomach in a manner which causes the front girl's breasts to jiggle gratuitiously. While the girls repeatedly attempt to smile, their eyes convey a vacant look of shame and embarrassment. I think a great deal of "nudist" videos shot in the former U.S.S.R. exploit the vulnerability of orphaned teens and a great deal of child porn is said to originate in the Balkans and former Soviet Union. If the child pornographers can "dial it back" from making the girls engage in outright sex and instead "go camping" and "cook hamburgers" in the nude, of course they're going to find a "legitimate", "nudist" clearing house to distribute the humiliation of vulnerable adolescent girls.
mummichelle Posted - 09/15/2009 : 07:30:55 AM
Interesting topic everyone!!

I am from the UK and I am a mum of two girls, 11 and 14. Over here the law is quite clear - they are legal as long as the video is not shot in an expicit way, ie, no close ups of the genetalia etc. Channel 4 tv got into trouble abut 10 yrs ago when they showed the italian film Maladolescenza which showed (all acting!) two 12yo's having sex (like I said, acting). Because it was acted and not explicit it was legal.

I think that is going a little too far, but basic nudity in videos I think is alright. A very good friend of mine, she owns her own small video company making corporate videos etc, and she once asked me and both of my daughters to do a nude video for her - nothing sexual, just messing around having a laugh together - nude. The youngest didn't want to, so that was her choice, I respect that. But my oldest and I did the shoot and we had a great time, the video was very artistic and looks great. Since then my oldest has done a lot more vids for her.

They are no different to going to a nudist resort, so where is the problem? Of course I draw the line not only at making them sexually explicit but by even implying any sexual aspect to it. But she is a beautiful girl and if people want to look at her then I don'[t blame them. Nudism is not something to be ashamed of and I think the reason a lot of people mis understand it is because it is seen as a 'taboo' rather than a perfectly natural thing.

People were on this planet a long time before clothes were invented!
nzadult Posted - 09/02/2009 : 9:57:01 PM
It is a shame that society has become so hung up about nudity and connecting it to shame and sex rather than a natural state of being. We have a family nudity album which sits on our bookshelf with all the other family albums - photos of children playing and bathing and what have you - the natural state of children - but we clearly mark it for visitors so they know it is not for general viewing. My children often get that and other albums out to look at and remember the good times and holidays we had. I refuse to be afraid to live life and enjoy memories of my children growing up because people are too hung up because of societal conservatism. Child pornography is an abomination that needs to be dealt to - recording your family growing up is a joy that needs to be celebrated!
Warmskin Posted - 02/25/2009 : 6:02:38 PM
It is vague problem. Is the child being forced into a nude photo, without the parent's consent? Are there unnatural aspects to this videotaping? It the child being exploited? Does the photographer show enough interest in the child's well-being?

If the parents are taping their own children for their own keepsake type of thing, that would seem a better manner of doing so. Since a little child is not capable of judging what is going on, he or she cannot consent or refuse to consent. If the child is a teenager, wow, hold on!! LOL At least at that age, you are much more aware of what is happening with someone with a camera of some kind.

Common sense, and the welfare of a minor should rule this situation, in my opinion.

"'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world."

George Washington
RichNKaren Posted - 02/25/2009 : 1:49:47 PM
My only question is why? Why would anyone want to see a bunch of naked children? Maybe on a bearskin rug (or is that bareskin rug)

Nothing could interest me less

Rich&Karen
Admin Posted - 12/16/2008 : 12:50:19 AM
The best way we see it, is if enough well-informed people put the issue as eloquently as you gentlemen have, we'll have no need to take the law into our own hands. The courts will have access to our opinions right here for their research. In the meantime, more people can join us in expressing our distaste for sites that derive income from such practices as focusing exclusively on children simply because they are nude.

And yes, we do have certain sites blacklisted from here, to prevent the links being published on our site. The practice of blocking certain links, combined with your contributions of well thought out statements, can be a very visible and effective deterrent to these sites.
WillyNilly Posted - 12/13/2008 : 04:56:41 AM
You endorsed what I said, Newdfun. I was just trying to be a bit more conciliatory. So let's knock that on the head and get tough.

quote:
No one is going to go to jail for having pictures of their kids in a bathtub.


Nobody is going to prison for a group beach activity involving adults and kids either. But portraits of solo children or just children have to be taboo!

Defamatory sites such as pure nudism.com that drool over pubescent girls should be abolished. Why are we blacklisting it from script yet hypocritically doing nothing about it, exactly as Europe did over Nazism in the 30s? I won't just go away! Surely it is OUR responsibility to stand up and close it down! You don't need the law to do that.

Sorry about varying the topic!

Hugs
Will

FlCpl4NewdFun Posted - 12/12/2008 : 8:20:36 PM
What the heck does anyone need pictures of naked kids for? Seriously, are you people so rabid in your desire for your "right" to have pictures of naked children (who aren't your own) that you're willing to turn a blind eye to the fact that MOST people who take those pictures are for exploitive and deviant purposes. I'm quite comfortable forgoing my "right" to have such pictures knowing that most laws of that nature are designed to protect young victims who can't protect themselves. So step back from La La land and understand you live in the real world.

I would ask if you keep pictures of random kids in clothes? I can see it know, "Oh look Jane, here's that great shot of some kid we don't know walking down the street, what memories" The answer is likely no, so it is the nudity that is the compelling reason to have the photos.

No one is going to go to jail for having pictures of their kids in a bathtub. If you think that's the case you are totally delusional or have other pictures in your portfolio that would be more difficult to prosecute so law enforcement uses the innocent pictures in combination with the bad stuff. But all the sympathizers scream from the rooftops that the government in throwing people in jail for having pictures of their kids.

I've been to several nudist resorts that had children present and everyone somehow managed to have fun, behave in a civil manner, and somehow survive without their cameras.

Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches © 2002-2020 SUN Go To Top Of Page
This page was down to skin in 0.19 seconds.

 

General Rules and Terms of Service

Membership in the Nudist-Resorts.Org discussion forum is free, can be anonymous, and requires only a working email address. All email links to members are cloaked. You can disable your email link. Nude photos can be posted, if within our posting rules. No erotica, spam or solicitation is allowed here. References to sex or genitals in your username or profile will result in removal from the forum. Information and opinions regarding anything related to nudism are encouraged, including discussions concerning the confusion between nudism and eroticism if discussed maturely. All posts in this forum are moderated. Read our POSTING RULES here and here. All information appearing on this website is copyright and intellectual property of the Society for Understanding Nudism unless otherwise noted. The views expressed on these forums by participants are not necessarily representative of the Society for Understanding Nudism. Administrators reserve the right to delete anything outside the posting rules, or anything in their opinion not appropriate. To post, you must have cookies enabled and be at least 18 years of age.

Email the Webmaster | Legal Information

Copyright © 2002-2015 SUN - Society for Understanding Nudism
All Rights Reserved

Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000