wierd query about US censorship laws...

[The Yosemite Bear]

does the photo of Kim Phuc (now a canadian citizen) qualify as obscene material under the current US laws?

[Molyneux]

does the photo of Kim Phuc (now a canadian citizen) qualify as obscene material under the current US laws?

...Who the bloody heck is Kim Phuc, what age, and what is this person doing in said photo?

[Elheru Aran]

does the photo of Kim Phuc (now a canadian citizen) qualify as obscene material under the current US laws?

...Who the bloody heck is Kim Phuc, what age, and what is this person doing in said photo?

It's the picture of the little Vietnamese girl running screaming down a road, all naked because her village was napalmed and she stripped off her burning clothes.

[Civil War Man]

I've seen it in American history textbooks, so I'm guessing no.

[Elheru Aran]

Falls under the 'National Geographic' syndrome I suppose...

[Glocksman]

My guess would be 'no' because it clearly has 'redeeming artistic, moral or political value' (paraphrasing a SCOTUS decision on obsenity).

[wolveraptor]

How could it? They don't ban nat geo boobs, and this particular case is, I'm assuming, pre-pubescent, and obviously not being used in any pedophillic manner.

[LongVin]

Unless it was taken for sexual purposes it wouldn't be censored.

Kinda like how if a movie/documetary has artistic nudity it doesn't get censored or can be exempt from an R rating.

[LadyTevar]

I don't even see how a picture of a child with her clothing *burned off* could in any way be seen as 'sexual'

[The Yosemite Bear]

taking the extreme of the current laws, and using it to supress information that the current admin. wouldn't like discussed (like comparisons between two different guerilla campaigns.)

[wolveraptor]

I don't even see how a picture of a child with her clothing *burned off* could in any way be seen as 'sexual'

You'd be appalled at what people can jack off to. It could easily have appeal to some sadomasochistic paedophile.

[Plekhanov]

I don't even see how a picture of a child with her clothing *burned off* could in any way be seen as 'sexual'

You'd be appalled at what people can jack off to. It could easily have appeal to some sadomasochistic paedophile.

Or a hardcore US Nationalist/anti-communist militarist type, atleast they do seem to get very, very excited by napalm and the like and it’s effects.

[Nova Andromeda]

--I'm surprised noone thinks it is inappropriate to publish photos of naked children when it isn't necessary (unlike a medical text for instance). The child was never asked for permission and isn't old enough to give it in any case. Furthermore, even if the a gaurdian was consulted and gave consent it strikes me as exploitation.

[DPDarkPrimus]

--I'm surprised noone thinks it is inappropriate to publish photos of naked children when it isn't necessary (unlike a medical text for instance). The child was never asked for permission and isn't old enough to give it in any case. Furthermore, even if the a gaurdian was consulted and gave consent it strikes me as exploitation.

Holy shit dude, so the war photographer is just supposed to stop all the villagers running from their village that was napalmed (including the girl in question, who was running naked BECAUSE HER CLOTHING HAD BEEN BURNT OFF) and say "Hey, sign this so I can publish the picture, please"?

That gets a big right there.

[wolveraptor]

Exploiting? Please explain how the girl gets screwed over by this deal? She's anonymous and probably unrecognizeable from her photo, and the picture itself has real use: it shows very graphically the horrors of war and what people go through, in a way a bullshit sanitized version with no nekkid chillun can't.

[Nova Andromeda]

--I'm surprised noone thinks it is inappropriate to publish photos of naked children when it isn't necessary (unlike a medical text for instance). The child was never asked for permission and isn't old enough to give it in any case. Furthermore, even if the a gaurdian was consulted and gave consent it strikes me as exploitation.

Holy shit dude, so the war photographer is just supposed to stop all the villagers running from their village that was napalmed (including the girl in question, who was running naked BECAUSE HER CLOTHING HAD BEEN BURNT OFF) and say "Hey, sign this so I can publish the picture, please"?

That gets a big right there.

--Practicing for strawman of the year?

[Nova Andromeda]

Exploiting? Please explain how the girl gets screwed over by this deal? She's anonymous and probably unrecognizeable from her photo, and the picture itself has real use: it shows very graphically the horrors of war and what people go through, in a way a bullshit sanitized version with no nekkid chillun can't.

--She's obviously not anonymous since we know who she is dipshit! In any event it would be easy enough to edit the picture and still keep its "impact" for those who need such pictures to understand that naplaming a village leads to horrible shit.
-If you can't understand why someone might not want nude pictures of themselves published all over the whole fucking planet then I can't help you.

[wolveraptor]

Her name's at the top of the thread. Damn. That was a fuck-up. In that case, people should need her consent now to publish it, at least with her name attached.

[Plekhanov]

Exploiting? Please explain how the girl gets screwed over by this deal? She's anonymous and probably unrecognizeable from her photo, and the picture itself has real use: it shows very graphically the horrors of war and what people go through, in a way a bullshit sanitized version with no nekkid chillun can't.

--She's obviously not anonymous since we know who she is dipshit! In any event it would be easy enough to edit the picture and still keep its "impact" for those who need such pictures to understand that naplaming a village leads to horrible shit.
-If you can't understand why someone might not want nude pictures of themselves published all over the whole fucking planet then I can't help you.

I heard the girl in question (now a woman obviously) being interviewed on the BBC world service a few years ago and she was glad that the photo had become so well known as it put pressure on the US to stop burning the clothes off vietnamese children and destroying their villages.

Think about it or a second her which do you think caused her the most ditress?
a. the US destroying her village and burning her clothes off to 'save her'
b. a journalist taking a picture of her without any clothes on.

-If you can't understand why someone might not mind nude pictures of themselves published all over the whole fucking planet if that would help stop people bombing her village then I can't help you.

[wolveraptor]

If she gives consent, then everything's hunky-dory. What's the fucking debate about? She doesn't give a shit that she's being displayed in such a maneer; she admittedly likes it.

[Nova Andromeda]

I heard the girl in question (now a woman obviously) being interviewed on the BBC world service a few years ago and she was glad that the photo had become so well known as it put pressure on the US to stop burning the clothes off vietnamese children and destroying their villages.

Think about it or a second her which do you think caused her the most ditress?
a. the US destroying her village and burning her clothes off to 'save her'
b. a journalist taking a picture of her without any clothes on.

--Nice red herring. Try again...

-If you can't understand why someone might not mind nude pictures of themselves published all over the whole fucking planet ...

--A a young kid isn't mature enough to make decisions that they may or may not seriously regret for the rest of their lives (what she thinks now is a separate matter) and those decisions should not be made for them unnecessarily. In this case circumstances certainly didn't require that such a decision be made since there were perfectly acceptable alternatives.

[wolveraptor]

Making her anonymous by blurring the face and discluding the name would preclude the need for any consent given by the child.

[Plekhanov]

I heard the girl in question (now a woman obviously) being interviewed on the BBC world service a few years ago and she was glad that the photo had become so well known as it put pressure on the US to stop burning the clothes off vietnamese children and destroying their villages.

Think about it or a second her which do you think caused her the most ditress?
a. the US destroying her village and burning her clothes off to 'save her'
b. a journalist taking a picture of her without any clothes on.

--Nice red herring. Try again...

How is it a red herring? You seem to be under the impression that protecting the privacy of children being napalmed is more important than showing the world that children are being napalmed. The right to privacy is by no means absolute in this case the public interest in seeing the picture outweighed any privacy concerns.

If you can't understand why someone might not mind nude pictures of themselves published all over the whole fucking planet ...

--A a young kid isn't mature enough to make decisions that they may or may not seriously regret for the rest of their lives (what she thinks now is a separate matter) and those decisions should not be made for them unnecessarily. In this case circumstances certainly didn't require that such a decision be made since there were perfectly acceptable alternatives.

Are you fucking touched? This isn’t a case in which somebody has taken a picture of some girl naked on a beach or in her back garden and sold it around the world without permission. It’s a picture of a girl whose village has just been napalmed and who suffered severe burns over much of her body; in such circumstances quibbling about issues of privacy rightly seems rather trivial.

Incidentally the photographer responsible for ‘violating Kim Phuc’s privacy’ took her to hospital immediately after taking the photo (but before delivering the film) and undoubtedly saved her life, I suppose your going to complain that he didn’t get permission from her parents before doing that too aren’t you

[Plekhanov]

Making her anonymous by blurring the face and discluding the name would preclude the need for any consent given by the child.

Blurring the face would also take away much of the power of the photo as we could no longer see the anguish so clearly etched on her face and would really be exhibiting bizarre priorities the girl in question had just suffered 3rd degree burns over much of her body. Showing the world that this had been done to her in the name of democracy was very powerful public interest.

Incidentally here’s the photo in question for anybody who’s wondering what we’re on about:

[wolveraptor]

Well blurring her face should hardly be necessary with that shoddy quality. As an adult, she'd not be recognizeable in that photo by anyone other than close family members or friends who'd know anyhow. Still, withholding her name till she gave consent as an adult or her parents did for her would've been appropriate: nobody needs to know her name to see the power of the image, and she may not have wanted to be identified as the girl whose clothes were napalmed.