Texas Cops Seized Photographs From a Museum and Launched Child Pornography Investigation

"It's shameful that government officials would use the criminal legal process to censor art and expression."

Police in Fort Worth, Texas, seized photographs from an art exhibit in November after local politicians decried the images as pornographic. The photos, from artist Sally Mann's 1992 collection Immediate Family depict intimate details of Mann's family life, including several images of her young children nude. This week, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas spoke out against the seizure, arguing the images are non-sexualized works of art protected by the First Amendment.

"It's shameful that government officials would use the criminal legal process to censor art and expression," Adriana Piñon the legal director of the ACLU of Texas said in a Wednesday statement. "This is a clear violation of the First Amendment and of the guardrails against abuse of the criminal justice system. Artistic expression should not be subject to the whim and punishment of government officials' personal taste."

Mann's photos were being exhibited at The Modern Art Museum of Forth Worth, as part of an exhibit called "Diaries of Home," which featured photographs from female and nonbinary artists that "probe preconceptions about domestic, familial, and communal spaces in the United States, which are often considered feminine spheres."

Intimate Family contains 13 photos depicting children in the nude. Some of the images displayed at the museum included "depictions of Mann's daughter jumping onto a picnic table in a ballet pose, Mann's daughter lying in bed with a stain from a nighttime accident, and Mann's son with a melted popsicle running down his body," according to the ACLU's press release.

The exhibit went up in November 2024 and was quickly met with controversy. In December 2024, Tarrant County Judge Tim O'Hare told The Dallas Express that the photos "should be taken down immediately and investigated by law enforcement for any and all potential criminal violations." State Rep. David Lowe (R–North Richland Hills) also told the paper "it is crucial that our legal framework leaves no room for predators to misuse the realm of art to display child nudity." In early January, the Forth Worth Report reported that four images had been seized and were now subject to an investigation. Weeks later, the images were still being held in a police storage facility.

"The images of children reported in the media at the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth are deeply disturbing," O'Hare posted on X in January. "Sexual exploitation of a minor, including under the guise of 'art,' should never be tolerated. I have full confidence in law enforcement to thoroughly investigate this matter and take appropriate action. I will always be committed to protecting the most vulnerable members of society, our children."

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), and the ACLU of Texas teamed up to send a letter to the Fort Worth Police Department demanding that the investigation be stopped and the photos returned.

"The Supreme Court has expressly rejected the suggestion that every depiction of nudity appeals to the prurient interest. Mann's images are not sexualized," the letter reads. "Like much art, the images' meaning may be ambiguous or controversial, there is no question they are intended to provoke thought and challenge viewers to engage with ideas, not to satisfy their sexual desires."

The letter also highlighted the clearly censorious nature of the police's decision to remove the photos from the museum. "It is hard to escape the conclusion that the Fort Worth Police Department seized the photos— removing them from the exhibit for the back half of its duration—at least in part to block their exhibition. Seizing the works was not necessary to preserve them as evidence, as the police could have easily accessed them online or photographed them in the museum. And the seizure came on the heels of complaints about the art by local officials and politicians," the letter reads. "Courts do not look kindly on bad-faith prosecutions that target artistic expression under the guise of combatting child pornography." 

Comments

[Longtobefree]

" . . . which featured photographs from female and nonbinary artists . . . "

The Modern Art Museum of Forth Worth:
I'll bet there is tax money in there somewhere, and the exhibit should have been shut down entirely for illegal discrimination.

[Mark U]

Looking at their tax returns, I don't find any evidence of government grants. Some of their revenue may have been for services, such as rentals, provided to government entities.

Their current building, designed by Tadao Ando, appears to have been financed through private fund raising.

[f7b155e]

"the exhibit should have been shut down entirely for illegal discrimination."
You seem to be missing literally the ENTIRE point. We don't shut down free expression in the US.

[mad.casual]

"depictions of Mann's daughter jumping onto a picnic table in a ballet pose, Mann's daughter lying in bed with a stain from a nighttime accident, and Mann's son with a melted popsicle running down his body,"

At this point it almost seems like the magazine and/or FIRE is desperately trying to do something, anything, to get any sort of actual political traction.

Because the above reads like the testimony from the sex cultist who, when the FBI showed up at her door, effectively said "You're here about the sex cult aren't you?"

[soldiermedic76]

Even if it's not child porn (and the daughter jumping up nude onto a picnic table in a ballerina pose smells suspicious) it's definitely child exploitation.

[mad.casual]

and the daughter jumping up nude onto a picnic table in a ballerina pose smells suspicious

Emma's take is like a comedic double-reverse Uno to Robby's "It's not that the painting is devoid of gay content" take on the Herrin Massacre mural (where a handful of strike breakers are depicted being stripped naked and beaten to death by an angry mob).

[Roberta]

Except that the children are probably long since grown up and consented to the exhibition — I hope!

[Vernon Depner]

That's usually irrelevant to the legality of images. People have been prosecuted for sharing images of themselves as children.

[Ed C]

More likely than consent is that the kids simply hadn't been infected with guilt regarding nudity. People who are objecting would be better served by looking into themselves. Like beauty, sexualization is in the eye of the beholder.

[soldiermedic76]

So, sexual exploitation of a minor is okay if they don't feel guilty about it? Muh puritanism is a bullshit argument used to excuse decadent and hedonistic lifestyles.

[mad.casual]

People who are objecting would be better served by looking into themselves.

Do you have evidence that they aren't looking into themselves or are you just assuming without evidence that they're not because that's what you would(n't) do?

[soldiermedic76]

They're still minors from what I understand. She claims they, as minors, consented. Which is a circular argument, since minors, by definition, can't consent.

[TLoro]

No kids, I bet.

[Incunabulum]

1. This does sound like a bunch of idiots over-reacting.

2. Just because its in a museum doesn't make it art.

3. Just because its art doesn't mean its not a crime.

[Longtobefree]

Artfully stated - - - -

[mad.casual]

1. This does sound like a bunch of idiots over-reacting.

Given Emma's reporting history I expect the description of three of the 13 photographs to be handpicked for being the most benign and then further sterilized by Emma's reporting*, while the other 10 are explicitly pornographic.

* It's interesting that Emma describes it as "jumping onto a picnic table in a ballet pose" leaving the "naked" to be both objective and implied as though she *knows* naked ballet/dancing is commonly understood to be erotic and is specifically trying to avoid it.

[Incunabulum]

I am entirely willing to accept that the pictures might just be pictures of kids doing kid things and nothing more - I don't accept that because an adult might possibly get aroused by a nekkid kid running around that that makes it pornography or even that taking a posed picture of a nude child is automatically pornography.

But I am not with the idea that something is less 'crimey' because its 'recognized' as 'art' because its in a museum. Thus if the pics are CP they don't get any protection because of that.

[mad.casual]

See below.

When the law doesn't actually say gay and is rather overtly aimed at all nudity and sexualization of children *in K-3 school*, Emma and Reason are solidly in the "It *really* means 'Don't Say Gay' anywhere in the State (trust us bro)!" But when the picture *actually* depicts naked children in a manner that people in public can/do/would find offensive and/or sexual, even just by description, suddenly Emma develops an aversion to the word 'naked'.

She's lying. Maybe not with her mouth, but she is, and she knows it. Even if she's not lying, as usual, the insane level of bad faith "My side, but a pox on both sides, but the other side a little more." makes her story a straight up Op-Ed rather than any sort of objective reporting.

The 1A protects religious expression *as well as* free speech and is explicitly applied to Congress. All manner of strip clubs and *adult* nudity all over the country is, in many cases rightly and justly, restricted by proximity to alcohol and schools, etc., etc., etc. The idea that this is somehow an unequivocal and exceptional abrogation of the 1A is beyond disingenuous.

So the Fort Worth police took them down because the pictures themselves were pornographic. So they took them down because they thought it might attract perverts who would jerk off outside the gallery. Who gives a shit? There is an Amendment forbidding Congress from abrogation of religious expression *and* free speech, there is no Federal Law enshrining the right to display pictures of naked children in Fort Worth, TX nor is there Federal Law forbidding the Fort Worth PD from taking such photos down.

But, again, Emma doesn't care about any of this. It's about whipping up socio-political unrest for clicks.

[Mark U]

I'm guessing you're not familiar with the 14th amendment.

[mad.casual]

I'm guessing you aren't familiar with strip clubs or alcohol regulations or the 14th or Federalism and are just a dumb shit saying "MUH 14th" because you're so stupid as to assume every last judge between any local district and the Supreme Court would say "Well, since the 14th exists, no depictions of naked children could possibly be child pornography... or a public nuissance... or otherwise obscene or publicly indecent... or unacceptably defammatory/slanderous... or exploitative... etc."

Keep in mind, I've said this before, I don't think second hand owners of actual, no shit child porn should be criminally convicted. Paying for, soliciting, and producing CP is absolutely a crime, send those perpetrators to the boats. They guy who has a third-hand copy of a 30 yr. old photo taken before he was born of someone who couldn't be identified today and that he didn't pay anything for? I don't see how there's a reasonable crime there. However, if he starts putting posters of that shit up, yeah, he sure as shit can be guilty of a crime.

So, the question is, do you actually hate the 1A, 14A, the Federal and Judicial systems created by the Constitution or do you just have an unflinching support for any/all depictions of naked children?

[Mark U]

You appear to have quite a fetish about children and the human body.

I am very concerned about actual sexual abuse and assault of not just children, but of anyone.

[mad.casual]

You appear to have quite a fetish about children and the human body.

And you seem to have a penchant for openly and willfully misinterpreting the plain English meaning of words and destroying systems of good and bad faith that have nothing to do with you in order to suit your own social and political ends. Even pedophiles could be slaked or imprisoned, children could be guarded against, but truly grotesque monsters like yourself would torture people whimsically and without reason to your own ends.

As you've clearly indicated, you don't care about the 1A or the 14A or the judicial system or The Constitution or the state of TX or the City of Fort Worth, you care about people bending their knee to you.

[TLoro]

It's Texass Everything that does not involve carrying a gun is suspect.

[Roberta]

3.

Just because it's art doesn't mean it's not a crime.

Well, yeah, if the issue is whether it's obscene, in US jurisprudence its being art lets it off the hook. Seriously, the issue can boil down to expert testimony in court about whether content is "artistic".

[Longtobefree]

Alternative headline:
Fort Worth respond to citizen complaint, details to follow after the investigation is complete.

[Brandybuck]

Correction, Fort Worth Police overreact to citizen complaint. FIFY.

[soldiermedic76]

Uhm, nude ballet has long been considered an erotic art form, and if one of the pictures is of a minor performing ballet in the nude, as Emma contends (and what were the other four pictures of that they confiscated), it's your opinion they are overreacting, it's also entirely possible that Emma is lying (which she has been caught at multiple times, giving only one partial side of the story to advance her narrative and once the real facts are presented it turned out Emma was lying like a rug).

[Sarah Palin's Buttplug - Jan 6 = 9/11 (same motive)]

Denny Hastert conservatives are pulling up their Lazy Boy to watch.

[Don't look at me! (No longer muted!)]

You are fapping to the pictures.

[Bubba Jones]

Why didn't Reason use one of the controversial pics as the illustration?

[mad.casual]

SFW images to illustrate my point.

[Mark U]

Here are some of her photos.

https://www.sallymann.com/new-gallery-1

[soldiermedic76]

Maybe not porn (though some are definitely questionable) but the artist does seem to be rather fond of taking pictures of her kids naked, and in somewhat suggestive poses in a couple cases, and then exploiting them by showing them to the public.

[Nobartium]

Well thanks for failing the duck test.

I appreciate that you don't give a shit about child porn, but the rest of us do.

[mad.casual]

OK, litmus test, since you retardedly invoked the 14th:

You walk into a co-worker's cube and a copy of the most explicit photo with a different boy or girl is up. The guy says he's not married with no kids of his own. Is it still just a photo to you? If corporate fires him because the photo of a kid that's not his is making co-workers uncomfortable, do you stake your job on defending him? 14A, you should give him the same deference you give any other artist you don't know, you should insist that your employer do so.

Or maybe, just maybe, do you admit that that would be absolutely retarded for your coworker to do that but, more importantly, you aren't responsible for them or your corporate employer, and they and/or any courts can sort that shit out without you?

[Mark U]

The 14th Amendment places restrictions on what States can do, effectively applying the 1st Amendment protection of freedom of speech to the States. It does not apply to corporations.

As it happens, I used to work at a large corporation where the HQ offices housed a large art collection. I expect that you would not have approved of some of this art, but the corporation didn't just approve, it acquired the art works.

Here's a masterpiece by Edvard Munch on display in the Oslo National Gallery. Would you also have this art seized?

https://www.edvardmunch.org/puberty.jsp

[mad.casual]

OK, between this post and the one above, you utterly failed. You're rather evidently between an utterly retarded trolling shitposter or an actual psycho-sociopathic authoritarian narcissist.

I was pretty clear above that I don't give a shit about 50+ yr. old depictions of nudity even of children. Similarly, my query about a hypothetical co-worker specifically didn't involve law enforcement or The Constitution to avoid the question of law... if you saw or strongly suspected someone (e.g.) stabbing a child to death would you intervene or even query out of some commonly understood social/moral imperative or would you shrug your shoulders about some perceived difference in cultures that you manufactured to rationalize your position? If your employer fired someone because *they* suspected an employee of (e.g.) stabbing a child to death would you defend the employee or would you assume your employer knows what they were doing and/or that it's none of your own business.

As indicated, you replies specifically reinforce my point. The ability of any given community to choose their own acceptable standards of artwork isn't specifically or necessarily to oppress whatever the subject of the artwork is. Quite the opposite, they typically manage to compromise and designate space for such activity, because the outright sociopathy was agreed upon and purged long ago. The standards, after the agreement, are to ferret out real sociopaths like yourself that would willfully misinterpret even relatively benign interactions that don't affect them in order to leverage the bad faith interpretations to their own, or any, more detached and immoral ends. People who don't actually care about children or the law or nudity or what people say or do, just as long as people, everyone, behaves according to their expectations.

I flat out stated above that I'm not opposed to nudity in art, even of minors, specifically pointing out 50+ yr. old images. You interpreted that as me having a fetish. Now, despite what I wrote above and you asserting that I have a fetish, you question what *I* would do about a century-old painting in a private gallery in another City... State... Country. To any normal person this would be plainly evident. You've demonstrated that you are every bit as willing to try and walk people into a no-win situation as the police in Fort Worth, the only distinctions being that the police in Fort Worth actually have to live there, serve the people in their neighborhoods, answer to their elected officials, and are doing what they do under the auspices of defending children. Whereas you, you're doing it for no other reason to lie, deceive, and aggrandize yourself on the internet. Nobody believes you worked for a corporation that housed their own private gallery, they recognize that as every bit the fantastic/delusional answer a 13-yr.-old "Navy SEAL turned stockbroker with an underwear model wife" would give. They recognize because you've made it plainly clear, that you don't care about the real world or actual laws or communities or children or The Constitution, it's all about you and how you think other peoples' behavior should conform to your expectations.

[Mark U]

For now I will limit my response to your statement "Nobody believes you worked for a corporation that housed their own private gallery".

Here's an article from 1987 about the art at corporations. In addition to the art collection at Frito-Lay, see the last paragraph where at ARCO one employee did not like a half dollar sized drawing of a naked child.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/1987/february/business-modern-day-medicis/

The PepsiCo Sculpture Gardens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_M._Kendall_Sculpture_Gardens

A recent update on moving a sculpture at Frito-Lay
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCMVTX7QPZI

A book on Amazon about the Frito-Lay Collection
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=selections+from+the+frito-lay+collection&i=stripbooks&crid=2TRJVMG7SOVI&sprefix=selections+from+the+frito-lay+collection%2Cstripbooks%2C4763&ref=nb_sb_noss&tag=reasonmagazinea-20

[mad.casual]

For now I will limit my response to your statement "Nobody believes you worked for a corporation that housed their own private gallery".

You're not proving your aren't a dishonest sociopath. I didn't say "Nobody believes corporations house their own private galleries." or "Nobody believes that information about corporations private galleries can't be found on the internet." I said, "Nobody believes you worked for a corporation that housed their own private gallery."

More critically, I had answered your questions about what I would do about artwork in a private corporation's gallery, practically before you asked them and for which you backhandedly and oxymoronically accused me of having a fetish, but you have yet to answer my question(s).

You repeatedly demonstrate the exact sort of dishonest, bad faith, unprincipled, self-defeating psycho-sociopathy that these sorts of laws and enforcement, even if not this specific iteration of them, are constructed, repeatedly, in communities around the world to prevent.

[mad.casual]

Once again, I encourage everyone to try posting the phrase Fzzzoundation fzzzor Izzzndividual Rzzzights and Ezzzxpression (FIRE)

Without the 'zzz's to see exactly how hard and fast everyone around here cleaves to other peoples' free speech rights. These people are not libertarians. They are not your friends. They aren't even good faith, democracy-loving Westerners. They are narcissistic, self-absorbed ghouls that will exploit children and throw you and them under the bus for some clicks and a paycheck. You cannot hate them enough.

[Think It Through]

photographs from female and nonbinary artists

Were there also unicorn artists?
Fairy artists?
Klingon artists?

Why must Reason still use the language of an increasingly marginalized thought-group that most libertarians do not share?

[Don't look at me! (No longer muted!)]

Those people are special.

[Social Justice is neither]

Emma takes the prize from Suderman for most blatant "Libertarian case for kidde porn" article.

[tracerv]

I've never had kids,so I'd like to ask the parents in the audience; did/do you take nude pics of your children?

I'm not trying to judge but seems fucking sketchy to me.

[NM Dave]

We and almost every parent I know of in my generation has pictures of their kids playing in the bathtub, or running around bare-assed in the back yard. They comprised a very small proportion of the total, but they do exist and no one thought much of it. This was before pervert cops convinced us that the world shared their sick view of what is sexual.

[soldiermedic76]

But we didn't put them on public display and post dozens of them, all of them nudes of the kids, in what in other context could be considered erotic (e.g. adult nude ballet is generally considered an erotic art form).

[tracerv]

Exactly. An innocent bath pic is one thing. A staged nude that you then show to the public is an entirety different matter.

[Nobartium]

And with the advent of digital photography, there isn't an excuse that "someone else did something bad".

Anyone who puts material like this out is certainly into it.

[mad.casual]

There's a contextual issue regarding the ballet as well.

There are 40-some year old pictures of myself naked in the tub as a child. There are pictures of my children naked in the tub. Two generations, none of us were old enough to write or intelligibly recognize or otherwise note our nudity. Still largely in the phase when we would remove clothing in public, inappropriately, of our own accord.

Generally, at the point of obvious/recognizable ballet poses, a child is of the age to write down whether or not they showered naked with their Dad in their personal journal. A point at which even if it is completely platonic, the adult should have the wherewithal not to openly subject their kids and/or family to such behavior publicly.

Even if there's a 'lost in translation' cultural disconnect, that's not illegitimate, Roman Polaski actually did rape a 13-yr.-old girl. Teri Shields did start selling naked pics of a then 10-yr.-old Brooke Shields to Playboy (which the Shields were unable to revoke the rights to later on).

[Roberta]

But what if, now, you told your parents, sure, post those old pix? Or posted them yourself?

That's one thing I may have missed in the article: Were the children grown up by the time the photos were displayed, and did they object?

[mad.casual]

That's one thing I may have missed in the article: Were the children grown up by the time the photos were displayed, and did they object?

But this gets into the whole point about this not being an existential 1A crisis* above. The Fort Worth PD can't know this information a priori. "We" generally don't want cops going around ignoring naked photos of 10 yrs. olds owned by people like Jeffrey Epstein. The courts are there for that purpose and, in true libertarian fashion, the police can absolutely say, "We don't appreciate this here but we don't want to make a case of this, try the gallery just the other side of the City/County line." and the artist reply "OK." or any similar "As long as your adult kids said it was OK, maybe make a footnote about it in a program somewhere in the future, wouldja?" understanding.

The gallery owning the police and running the community isn't any more clearly constitutional, or not, than some conservative businessman-politician running it in the opposite direction.

*Does it seem like people have stopped saying, "No need to make a Federal Case out of it!" to you?

[Ben of Houston]

No. Absolutely not. We had pictures of my daughter in dresses, cuddled up in blankets, or anything else. However, I never had the first thought of taking, much less publicizing that sort of photographs.

[NM Dave]

"Nonsexualized" is a vague term. Cops are almost all perverts to begin with, that's why they go into law enforcement, so it's quite possible that they see innocent nude photographs of children as sexual. After all, if it arouses them, it's definitely sexual, right?

[soldiermedic76]

Or you know, this woman has no problem exploiting her children for her own gains and some of the pictures very well are lewd and Emma is once again lying by ommission, which she does rather frequently.

[Dan S.]

How old are the children shown in the pictures now, and how do they feel about the public display of those photos? I certainly don't consider the photos, as described, to be pornographic, but I do still think they could be considered invasions of privacy, unless the subjects clearly consent to their public display.

[mad.casual]

unless the subjects clearly consent to their public display

You're talking about a child's ability to consent for or against their parents' wishes.

Teri Shields put Brooke Shields in front of a playboy photographer's camera, naked, at age 10. Almost a decade later, they sued for the rights to the photos back and lost.

Once again, as always/usual with this subject, akin to abortion there are layers of stupidity that are safeguarded against and that have to be violated before we get to the point of this story. Maybe somebody's kids can consent at 10, most can't. Police can't tell from a photo and we really don't want them to try identifying age (Even ENB notes this), 18 is hard enough. As I said akin to abortion, the people doing this aren't libertarians, they are either just plain idiotic wishcasters or authoritarian libertines every bit as harmful and uncompromising as "I'll know it when I see it." anti-pornographers.

[Roberta]

No, not a child's ability to consent, an adult's ability to consent regarding their own baby pictures.

[mad.casual]

Again, this isn't and can't be known a priori. As indicated, there are cases where children are outright exploited, there are cases where minors "consent" as minors, there are cases where they later regret it, there are cases where they don't. Naked photos of a minor are well afield of "Congress shall make no law." even if they are eventually found to be non-pornographic or, as you indicate, circumstantially non-exploitative (I keep referencing 50+ yrs. after the fact in similar euphemism elsewhere). Possessing a picture or depiction of a naked child isn't any more a crime than possessing a dead body, but we still investigate both, even if no crime has been committed.

Exploiters will exploit even if Mann isn't one. A few days to figure it out, try the next gallery down the road, get your kids to file an affidavit with the FBI or let us know or something is not clearly "Congress making law to abridge free speech".

[Vernon Depner]

Adult consent is irrelevant. If images meet the law's definition of illegal child pornography, that you are are sharing images of yourself does not make them legal.

[Restoring the Dream]

Sally Mann is an art photographer of some reputation. I have known her work for some time. To think that she is some kind of pornographer or exploits her children is beneath contempt. They are essentially partners in her work, and are asked if they are uncomfortable with the pictures before they are displayed.

[soldiermedic76]

Like children will tell their mother no. That is exploitation of children. Just because she has their permission does not mean she isn't exploiting them. What an illogical argument. Minors can't consent for a reason. Adults, especially their parents, have power over them and they strive to win their parents affection. So fuck off with the 'she has their permission'.

[mad.casual]

Even if your kids consent to the photos at 10, your job as a parent is to ensure you don't compromise them morally or socially in *exactly* this fashion.

Again, Teri Shields (a model) sold the rights to nude photos of Brooke Shields, then 10 yrs. old, to Playboy photographer Gary Gross. By the time Brooke was 20, both she and Teri had reconsidered ownership of the photos and sued Gross. Gross won because the Shields was identified (by her mother) as a model rather than a child performer.

This is like the abortion issue, you have to fail several times serially on a social level to get to the point where this is a news article. The fact that Mann couldn't possibly have foreseen this demonstrates a frankly incredible lack of judgement and social awareness. A CBS editing fiasco situation where, even if everything was just a misunderstanding and on the up-and-up; the fact that it didn't occur to anyone that this interpretation was possible when displayed to the public is just as bad as if they were doing it on purpose.

[AT]

The Modern Art Museum

Of course.

which featured photographs from female and nonbinary artists

Oop, you gave it away. Yep, that's kiddie porn.

State Rep. David Lowe (R–North Richland Hills) also told the paper "it is crucial that our legal framework leaves no room for predators to misuse the realm of art to display child nudity."

Which is absolutely a thing the alphabet people do.

"The Supreme Court has expressly rejected the suggestion that every depiction of nudity appeals to the prurient interest. Mann's images are not sexualized," the letter reads.

Well, see, you undermined that notion when you emphasized the LGBT Pedo crowd being "featured."

Hey, don't shoot the messenger. Maybe one day in the far-flung future, there will be a day where you don't scratch a homo and find a pedo. But, as it is today, scratch a homo, find a pedo. And even if they're not out there Zulocking kids, it's amazing how many times their hard drives turn out to be filled with kiddie porn.

[JeremyR]

I was thinking this was ridiculous until you brought up the "nonbinary" bit. Those people are pretty commonly into child pornography. So I can now understand.

[Mickey Rat]

Taking nude photos of your children and displaying them in public seems, at the very least, creepy, and not appropriately protective of one's children. If not illegal, it is evidence of poor and self-serving judgement.

[GroundTruth]

Please tell the cops to stay away from any Renaissance art exhibits or books. The number of nude cherubs is pretty much beyond measure.

[mad.casual]

Do you think police officers drive by a cemetery and automatically think "Holy Shit! All the murder victims!" too? I understand it might be a joke, but this is the internet and Poe's Law applies, if you're earnest, you're every bit as sociopathically detached as, if not more than, the police you're criticizing.

[AT]

Unlike here though, I doubt the Renaissance Masters took small naked children and captured them in various poses while they painted.

[Ben of Houston]

Those cherubs also don't exist. And that's not an atheist talking point. Literally they don't exist.

There is a strong difference between drawings or statuary and photographs. This has been recognized repeatedly.

[Roberta]

Not that I have the slightest sympathy for criminalizing family photos, but,...

Mann's daughter lying in bed with a stain from a nighttime accident

...who gets up at night to attend to a mundane peeing-the-bed accident and, instead of going ahead with business to make the child comfortable, says, "Hold it! I'm going to take a picture."? Was it some attempt to shame the girl, like, "You're too old to be having accidents like this."? Or was it actually staged? I mean, it's not like one of those spectacular messes where you're mad at the child for smearing cold cream all over the room but can't resist documenting it, this is just a common accident.

Could it have instead been her first menses? OK, that's something families commonly celebrate. But usually don't spread the pix around!

[mad.casual]

And, again, like INS teaching third world adult children, who themselves may be the product of rape gangs, that "No means no", *somebody* with some social representation or gravitas should pull them aside and at least say, "You do know how fucked up that is or seems, right?"

If they destroyed the art or charged and imprisoned her, I (would) *mostly* get the outrage. The outrage over 'take it to the next gallery down the road' is exceedingly benign.

Along the lines of "The one thing I may've missed:" point from above, is DCFS involved? If so, I similarly agree that that would be too far (but DCFS gets involved for much more benign reasons), if not, that could be more evidence that it's strictly about opposition to depictions of naked children but, still to my point, is more of an exceedingly libertarian "We don't want to make a federal case out of this (it's not like you're trying to read blowjob books at the local library's children's story hour), just take your art to a different gallery please." situation.

[Vernon Depner]

State laws regarding child pornography are often draconian. In my state, possessing ANY image of a naked child, or even written descriptions of child sex, is a felony. Although enforcement tends to be lax, technically, if you own a copy of Houses of the Holy or Catcher in the Rye, you're a felon in our state.

[mad.casual]

Houses of the Holy or Catcher in the Rye

Nevermind, Boomer.

But this is how it is with all laws/everything. Watching I Spit On Your Grave or Faces of Death or even 2 Girls, 1 Cup is not itself a crime, but if you put those on public display for money or artistic acclaim you shouldn't be at all surprised if the neighbors turn up, even with torches and pitchforks to tell you to knock it the fuck off. That's not really/exactly a free speech issue, Congress didn't make a law, that's a "Go be a sociopathic weirdo asshole somewhere else." issue. Stuff that, as indicated, gentlemen's clubs, freak shows, and even just some people have had to deal with for decades if not centuries.

Some people rightly enjoy the idea of Bikini Baristas, some people, equally rightly, don't see having pubic hairs in shitty coffee as outweighing the cost of having to deal with dudes jerking off in the drive through.

[Vernon Depner]

I can never figure out what you're trying to say.

[mad.casual]

Do you know anyone or, hell, internet bullshit hall pass... even know of anyone *who knows of* anyone who was convicted/charged/arrested/investigated for possessing a copy of House of the Holy?

Because, as indicated, there's a massive gulf between "Ugh, our laws are so draconian it's like you can't even own an album cover with vaguely nude children on it (despite reality repeatedly churning out similar or even more explicit album covers every couple of years) and 'We certainly against girls serving coffee in bikinis, personally we love it. But, objectively and/or without any personal judgement, this isn't good for anybody."

[Vernon Depner]

As I said...

[mad.casual]

The "I can't even own a Houses Of The Holy" neuroses is just as insane and way more intractably complex than either the "I see pedophiles everywhere." or the "Woman with a penis" neuroses.

At least the latter two groups actually have pictures of naked children or simple definitions of 'man' and 'woman' that conform to reality even if their particular neuroses don't.

Still too many words for you?

[Vernon Depner]

OK, back in the grey box for you.

[mad.casual]

So it's not that you didn't or don't understand what I was saying, it's just that you don't like it.

And this isn't hockey any more than Twitter is an airport, penalty box and departure notifications are not required for anyone except self-absorbed/self-righteous idiots like sarc. Especially if you're putting people "back".

[Saint Sabazius]

Continuing on the trend of 'pedofinders being as much of a danger to society as actual pedofiles', I see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCywGhHQMEw

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

Rather clear that this article misses the point. So pictures in one setting are art and in another child pornography., So who does not see this? I would not post in any public forum such pictures. NEVER.

This and several articles by Elizabeth on Orgasm cult make me ask: Does REASON have a non-folly moral bone in its body. 80 Christians beheaded in Africa but this is important !!!!! Of course the main editorial guidelline is not to use the words 'moral' and "immoral' or good and evil or religious and non-religious

[f7b155e]

"Does REASON have a non-folly moral bone in its body. 80 Christians beheaded in Africa but this is important !!!!!"
If you're looking for moralism, check out the Baptist Quarterly or a magazine from the Taliban.

There are probably pictures of me naked in a bathtub somewhere when I was a toddler. It doesn't mean that my parents were child predators.

Oh and by the way this is more important than "80 Christians beheaded in Africa". People get beheaded in Africa all the time. I don't care what religion they are.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

REASON might be gone in 5 years, 10 years at most , if it keeps painting Biden's Presidency as the the Golden Age of Freedom. I know it mightily pisses many would-be Libertraians.
So I've seen this attitude in 4 articles over the past week. The Orgasm Cult (like anyone would want to defend them or even allow them near their kids), The "tarrif" articles, so-called because your anti-drugt-law stance won't even support stopping even one more death, your DOGE posts about how if you can't make everything right and quickly you are being foolish, and finally your continued applause of net-zero and climate spending. What will it take for you to examine this wholesale acceptance of yours? The approval for that is falling

Not one dollar: One-third of voters unwilling to spend anything to counter climate ....--OH !!! and the Ukraine...IF Biden sent $350 BIllion and Zelensky says over $175 BILLION he never saw , what can you possible find so attractive

[AT]

They're confusing Libertarianism with Libertinism.

It's my personal belief that most of them are too drug-addled to appreciate the difference. Drugs do that.

We want a small, limited, proper-purposed government of the people by the people and for a moral and religious people.

They want The Portrait of Dorian Gray. With bonus content (entitlements, handouts, and anarchy.)

Most of the writers here are also a lot more legit racist than they let on.

[n00bdragon]

Question for the folks here. Is the cover of the Nirvana album Nevermind child pornography?

[Vernon Depner]

In my state, it's technically illegal. Do I think it's porn? No.

[AT]

It was the 90s, when we still had the LGBT Pedo cult stuffed in the closet where they belonged. No pride marches or making the entire month of June absolutely miserable for everyone. They still had to slink down to the red light districts in trenchcoats, and pray that nobody at the glory hole recognized them or that the AIDS wouldn't husk them out by the same time next year.

It was a better time.

Even Cobain was only bothered by the thought of it teasing/antagonizing closet pedos. Everyone else would be, "Hey naked baby photo. Every parent has some."

It's only until the LGBT gained traction that mainstreaming child nudity became a problem. They just bring ruin everything they touch. I, for the life of me, don't know know why anyone ever tolerated them in the first place. There is not once single positive that they have brought to first-world society.

Except HIV+.