Fantastic news article hon, I'm so glad you addressed this. I wish there was some way to get it to EVERY deviant out there (particularly those are are abusing the system).

--
Immersing myself in the imagination of art frees me and gives me wings to fly.
~~ [link] Sacred Dreams Custom Beadwork
~~ [link] My Etsy Beadwork Site

Thank you for the information.

I believe we as a community are all responsible for protecting our children. If we all take an active roll when we see things that are not appropriate and report it things will be better off. We are the eyes and ears of DA.

I have a problem with some of the parents letting their 10 to 12 year old come on the site because they are members. I know the parents probably monitor their children closely but there still is content that gets through and this is quiet a 16+ site.

I have come by some nudes that I swore have been under 18 but the photographer has claimed that the subject was 18. When these issues come up where there seems to be a smudge of doubt I think it should be taken down.

There are so many predators out their and this is their new playground we need to be vigilant

--
Life is an adventure in forgiveness.

Oh, thanks for mentioning my point.

I'm really glad you put this article together. I really feel very strongly about a lot of the subjects you mentioned. I have found several pedophiles here on dA and thankfully there was enough evidence against them that they were banned. People that would threaten the innocence of a child or harm one in any ways is a very disgusting and fucked up person

--
SMACKABITCH: It prevents Drama :B - =IBinsanity

I ~BigT912

excellent article , very well written
note and viewpoints, opinions:

i gotta say that the kim possible "fan-art" of nude or sexual stuff was rather umm much... (im very openminded (and hardcore Freespeech )
but dude.. there can only be so much of one thing before its old , and annoying especially when you're just browsing out general fan-art or comic character's and get inundated with adult/non adult Kim in variety of explicit pose's ...)
Now ... if we could just get this b.s signature tutorials better filtered.. the world will be a better devArt place

...besides if people don't follow the rules for the site.. the dA gods themselves could smote thee , and eliminate a lot from here
soo

also side note-- emoticon's??? c'mon thats a weee bit much
its an emoticon , i havent personally seen one an emoticon that was offensive - seriously.. there is such a thing as tooo PC (politically correct).. they're emoticons for a reason and they're tiny lil animations in some cases , as for the pee'ing thing.. we really must thank lil Calvin and Hobbe's for that.. lol.. though i see some humor in it..
you dont actually see the mechanics of whats happening just the end result..
a stream of liquid that appears to be coming from the emoticon , with the emoticon's back to you ... nothing immorally depicted than what some may see at a summer camp , or if they're stranded on the side of a roadway with no facilities in a good distance ..or availablity..

I think that the prohibition against depictions of nude minors should be modified. Just as there is a difference between adult nude art and pornography, there's a difference between a picture or drawing of a naked child and child porn. In fact, the difference is much more pronounced with children: child porn is very very wrong (as opposed to most porn with adults, which is merely distasteful), while the image of a young person playing without the burden of clothing can, in my opinion, convey an unparalleled level of innocence and purity. As far as I know, the laws regarding child pornography in the US and most other countries do not ban simple nude depictions. There are various content criteria which are used to determine if the image is pornographic and/or harmful to minors.

Given a depiction of a minor, photographic or otherwise, nude or clothed, consider the following questions:
* Is the minor subject engaged in any sexual activity?
* Is the minor subject portrayed in an erotic or seductive pose, or in a sexually suggestive setting?
* If the minor subject is nude or partially nude, does he/she appear upset or embarrassed about the lack of clothing?
* Is the minor subject restrained, bound, or otherwise participating in S&M activity?
* Is the minor subject being seriously traumatized in any other way?

If the answer to any of those questions is "yes", then there's a good chance that the image is pornographic, distasteful, and/or illegal. If it's a photograph we're dealing with, it shouldn't exist and the photographer and/or whoever arranged the scene should be punished severely. If it's a fictional depiction, I'm not sure how harmful it is, but because it can be hard to tell for sure (and because US law no longer makes that distinction) it makes sense to be judged as if it were a real child.

On the other hand, if all answers are "no", then I don't see the problem. Many people argue that, because pedophiles are aroused by images of nude children, then images of nude children are always pornographic. I reject this argument. A lot of people -- specifically, those who don't see nude people very often -- are aroused by images of nude adults, even in an artistic context like that which is allowed on deviantART. That's probably why even artistic, non-sexual nude images are required to be marked as "mature." So if that doesn't make us consider all nude art to be porn, then why should we let the existence of pedophiles make us classify all underage nudes as pornography? Could it be that, were child nudity more common, fewer people would find it arousing? A nudist would say "yes" to that one.

Beyond the experience of being photographed or posing for a drawing, a child depicted in art cannot be harmed directly by that art. Indirect harm can occur, but this should not necessarily reflect on the value or legality of the art. For example, imagine a nudist family: a mother, father, and young daughter. The parents take a photo of their daughter playing nude in the back yard. Maybe they share the photo with friends, as parents often share photos of their children with others. Maybe later in life, the girl is teased by her friends who find out she used to play nude. Does that make the photo itself harmful or immoral? I don't think so. The girl might be better off with different friends. A less likely, but much worse situation: maybe the photo winds up in the hands of a pedophile who lives nearby. He then approaches the young girl, and tries to abduct and/or proposition her, or worse. That's a serious crime, yes. The pedophile should be punished severely, yes. But the pedophile is responsible for his own actions. Just as he can't blame his actions on the existence of the nude photo, neither can we. (He might have committed the crimes anyway...) Any harm that later comes to the girl as an indirect result of her nude photo is entirely the responsibility of those who bring the harm, and does not make the photo itself harmful.

There has been much legitimate art throughout recorded history depicting nude children. Are we to declare that no new depictions of nude children may be considered art? It's not that hard to distinguish between innocent portrayals and pornography: it's about the experience had by the child portrayed, not whether some pervert can derive arousal from it, nor whether the child is clothed. Furthermore, it's not hard to write rules to objectively and consistently make this distinction. In fact, such rules essentially already exist. If the rules were simply re-written so as not to make any reference to clothing or what body parts are visible, child pornography would still be very clearly against the rules, as FAQ #565: You prohibit the submission of 'pornographic material'; what do you consider this to be? adequately prohibits all pornography, regardless of the age(s) of the subject(s).

Some further reading:
"Nudity in art", section titled "Children", on Wikipedia
"Nudity in the home" on Wikipedia mentions possible benefits of nudity
"Why Nude Recreation?" on ClothesFree International website; section titled "Family Naturist Values" bears some relevance to this issue
" Photos of Nude Children Spark Obscenity Debate" from the NY Times, originally printed July 23, 1990 is very relevant to this issue, and quotes an FBI spokesperson saying "Nudity is not obscenity."

--
Feel free to check out my gallery.
Feel free to get naked.
Feel free to ignore these suggestions, though frankly I think they're good advice.

Wonderful and well written article. Thanks for doing all of this.

--
Pyro burnin' mah biscuits!

Ah, first of all thank you for your viewpoint on Kim Possible art, I couldn't agree more.

As for the emoticons, even though I find nothing offense about them (and use them often) they are still a depiction of body fluids and by dA's current guidelines, it is not allowed. I just think that little technicality is interesting.

hehe

--
QUEEN OF SPANK-TORIA.
<sub>If you'd like, I'll get you a green card.

FAQ #565: You prohibit the submission of 'pornographic imagery'; what do you consider this to be?</sub>

This is a very good point.

Likewise, a pornographic or obscene photo of a child does not necessarily need to involve nudity.

I feel there needs to be more clear set boundaries and definitions here, than to just ban everything with nudity of minors. Many master paintings of old, some of them in the Sistine Chapel, involve naked children as cherubs. We shouldn't be bound from doing a master copy, as an example, just because there's a naked child angel in it!

To me it's refreshing to see a naked child out playing and having fun. If only we could all be so oblivious to these deadly ideas of beauty and body types that we've placed upon ourselves.

Well put.

--
"no sword strikes as deep as the one wielded by a friend...." - the Book of Ages in the Altadorian Archives