Re: PAW

[Peter J. Alling]

Sounds about the way US law can be interpreted.  Some states are harsher 
than Federal.

William Robb wrote:

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: PAW

 

On 1 Mar 2004 at 13:20, William Robb wrote:

   

I was thinking that as well when I looked.
That picture may well be kiddie porn under Canada's laws.
     

Talk about anal, a similar thread scared my baby sister off the
   

list a few
 

years back. You may recall the discussion Bill, something about
   

photographing a
 

17 year old girl semi-clad? The problem was that the photographer
   

whos project
 

it was and who was asking for advice was an art student, a girl and
   

only 16 at
 

the time herself. In any case the shoot proceeded, it was
   

academically assessed
 

and publicly displayed and all went well, in fact no one landed in
   

jail.

I don't know about how the Aussie law is written, but the Canadian
one is written in such a way as to cause as many transgressors as
possible.
Our law is not even based on fact (IE: the person is, in fact, below
an arbitrary age) but is based on appearance.
If the person looks to be below an arbitrary age, according to the
judge, then that part of the law is satisfied, no matter what the
model's true age may be.
William Robb