Censoring the Forum Gallery??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Linda Gregory

Again, I know the management of such a forum is not easy, but it is OURppa, are there ways in place for us to help define how the list is managed? Is our only input to be our vote of President of PPA?

---

Linda,

Excellent point....at the outset of this forum, there was this great option with posting on the forum. You may remember it was a poll, where a member could post a "poll" question, where responding members input their answers and the stats were tracked and appeared in graph form... It was really cool...but, hmmm.. for some unexplained reason this function disappeared.. It was a great way to get quick opinions...

But to your point.. yeah, it would be great if this association of members were more of a democracy and could vote on specific issues along the way. As you say, "we get to vote for PPA president", et al.... where I usually don't know enough about anyone to cast a confident vote, but don't get a voice on decisions about print competition rules, gallery posting guidelines, etc...

Let's keep on hoping for more voice from "the people"!

HR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KirkDarling

Actually, 18 USC 2257 and 18 USC 2256 provide a reason to stay far, far away from it at all.

---

Yes, after having a meeting with the committee we discovered that there is a federal law concerning having pictures of fully exposed breast and/or gentilia. The two laws above go into more detail about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Herman Robert

But to your point.. yeah, it would be great if this association of members were more of a democracy and could vote on specific issues along the way. As you say, "we get to vote for PPA president", et al.... where I usually don't know enough about anyone to cast a confident vote, but don't get a voice on decisions about print competition rules, gallery posting guidelines, etc...

Let's keep on hoping for more voice from "the people"!

---

Herman,

I believe that I can answer this one for you. The reason that we don't have more of a "democracy" is because we have a little over 7,500 members on this forum. If we were to run a democracy where everybody was able to vote on any decisions made about this forum then we would never accomplish anything. Everybody has their own agenda, and having 7,500 opinions it is assumed that not everybody would have the same views on every subject.

Example: Congress is relatively split 50% democrat and 50% republican, look how many things get passed successfully there...

Democracy is great for a country to follow, but not for a forum.

If however, anybody does have any ideas as to what could make this forum better then please feel free to share your thoughts with a committee member, they would be more than happy to then discuss the matter with the rest of the committee on your behalf.

A lot of the concerns with showing nudity on the site are summarized here:
http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/primer.html

Without proper record keeping, I could be personally liable for felony charges with both monetary fines and 5 years in prison. Additionally, if one of the images turns out to have been a minor, I believe I could face up to 15 years.

There was Absolutely no talk of "censoring" images in the galleries. It is a business concern first and foremost. In retrospect, I realize I should have posted information about this before we removed those images. So, please accept my apologies for the confusion.

We will include some info in the next forum newsletter, and the committee is looking at updating some of the rules of the forum so this issue will be more clear to new users as well.

Quote:

---

Without proper record keeping, I could be personally liable for felony charges with both monetary fines and 5 years in prison. Additionally, if one of the images turns out to have been a minor, I believe I could face up to 15 years.

---

I don't understand that interpretation. You are not producing the materials; furthermore, they are not depicting "actual, sexually explicit conduct." Note that "mere nudity or simulated sex" are not covered by the act. Obviously this is not an adult site, as in "adult entertainment", and accordingly we don't have ANY depictions of actual, sexually expicit conduct. (Not even simulated!)

This decision appears to be based on fear and ignorance, and seems an overreaction. The government does not need to censor in fact so long as it intimidates people into self-censorship. Certainly it's "safer" in the short term to engage in wholesale deletion of perfectly lawful, artistic images. "Now we can't even be accused!" But if everybody cows so willingly to absurd extrapolations, then the censorship becomes de facto, even if no de juro. Sometimes, standing up and saying "this is BS; we are doing nothing wrong" is not only the brave thing to do, it's the right thing to do.

If you wish to display your nudes on your own website, then you are free to intrepret the laws and take the precautions that you see fit.

Personally, I have no problems with nude photography. I have shot nudes, and I have volumes with the nudes of Edward Weston, George Platt-lynes, Andre KKertesz, and Duane Michals on my bookshelf.

Without having all the documentation I have absolutely no way of knowing if a model on the site is 15-16 or 18 years old. In order to protect myself and ppa, it is recommended that we have proper records on file. And with minors the image doesn't have to involve erotic acts.

With adults I believe that if the pose "suggests" erotic acts, then it also must have proper paper work on file.

Ours is just one of many sites that have moved in this direction. I know of another magazine that pulled all of their artist galleries off of their website, because there was some nude content, and they didn't want to have to deal with the record keeping.

here is some additional cautionary information from the summary article I mentioned earlier.

"Because the penalty for knowing publication of child pornography starts at fifteen years imprisonment on the first offense, and because even the successful defense of such a charge is likely to have absolutely catastrophic effects on any producer or webmaster, legal, economic, and emotional, the webmaster should firmly, aggressively, and resolutely take every possible step to ensure that his site does not depict persons under the age of eighteen in any manner that is arguably suggestive or erotic. Harvesting that information in every case of erotic imagery protects the content provider from taking and distributing erotic, nude images of minors, which, even without sexual activity, is among the most seriously viewed crimes. Insisting on those records from the provider keeps the webmaster reasonably far from the same harm: The maximum penalty for distribution is the same as that for creation. The five-year Section 2257 offense acts as an outer perimeter to keep the sincere and law-abiding adult content provider and webmaster far away from the more dangerous fifteen-year child pornography offense under Section 2252A."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Levesque

I don't understand that interpretation. You are not producing the materials; furthermore, they are not depicting "actual, sexually explicit conduct." Note that "mere nudity or simulated sex" are not covered by the act. Obviously this is not an adult site, as in "adult entertainment", and accordingly we don't have ANY depictions of actual, sexually expicit conduct. (Not even simulated!)

---

Mark,

First of all "sexually explicit content" is, as is defined by article 2256, shown in our gallery. They define it as:

(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

(10) “graphic”, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person.

As for us not actually "producing" the images, you are correct because distributing the images is not seen as breaking the law.

Article (2257) Paragraph (h) section (3)

the term “produces” means to produce, manufacture, or publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape, computer generated image, digital image, or picture, or other similar matter and includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted

In that matter then yes you are correct that we are not directly liable for the distribution. However, do you think that it is appropriate that we not take these actions and let the law come down on the photographers who posted the nude images in the first place? There are some gray areas of this and we did our own research to determine if we were actually at risk. It is one of our main concerns as PPA to protect you, the photographers, from all legal issues. We have decided to take the action of removing these images to prevent a legal issue from arising, NOT to censor the photographers images.

If you want feedback on your nudes then post them on your own website and refer the forum members to them. Just keep in mind of all the legal matters that are involved in posting those kinds of images.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregory Aide

please accept my apologies for the confusion.
[/COLOR][/COLOR]

---

Apology accepted Greg. And while I'm at it I'd like to thank you and Matt for your other overlooked contribution to the management of the gallery. For those of you who don't know the images posted to the gallery must be approved after you upload them. In the past this process was slow. With the addition of Matt to the administrative team the approval time has been greatly increased. I see that an image uploaded yesterday at 9:37 a.m. was in the gallery by the end of the day yesterday! I hope all of you will take time to explore the galleries and learn to navigate them. I think they are the single most overlooked and possibly powerful tool for an individuals further education on this forum. None of us has really spent enough time there to realize it's potential. The more images posted there the slower the approval time will be but thanks to Matt and Greg it should never be as slow as it was in the past. Please take a look around and share any shortcuts, tips and tricks you learn for using the gallery. It's a very underutilized resource, mostly because few of us have explored it's potential. Also I'd like to suggest that if you post an image in a thread for quick consumption it would be helpful to also post that same image in the gallery for future reference. Finding them there is much simpler than trying to remember when and in what thread they were posted here. Thanks:)

Quote:

---

First of all "sexually explicit content" is, as is defined by article 2256, shown in our gallery. They define it as:

(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

(10) “graphic”, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person.

---

I believe you are misinterpreting the statute in both cases cited above. The first requires "lascivious" exhibition, which means the intent of the display is to provoke sexual arousal, especially of an obscene nature. The photographs in question having already been deleted, one can't point to any in particular and say this is demonstrating such a thing, but I can say that I've not viewed anything remotely so in the galleries. As this is a matter of judgment or interpretation, I suppose we can agree to disagree. But in the matter of the second, your misunderstanding seems plain. "When used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct" is the independent clause, upon which graphic is being defined. This is plain english that means that graphic means you can see all or part of the genitals of a person engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct. The mere display of genitals is insufficient. The subject must be engaged in sexually explicit behavior. Again, I never saw any depictions of actual (or even simulated) sex acts in the gallery, and remain skeptical that any such images were ever approved for posting. Indeed, I'd be shocked if any were even submitted.

This is all academic, of course, as this is a fait accompli. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to discuss the subject, even belatedly.

I understand where you are coming from with all this. I don't really know much about laws, all I know is what I take from reading it. I don't see in section 10 where it says anything about the genitalia being involved in some kind of action.

What I get from it is:
When we are using the word "graphic" as a description of the sexually explicit content, means that any part of the genitals can be seen.

Again, I am agreeing to disagree with you on this topic because I don't want it to evolve into an argument. I believe that enough has been said about this situation and from now on it has been made clear that photos that show partial breasts or buttocks is allowed, however full on breast and/or pubic area will not be approved if submitted to the gallery.