No they are not pornographic but Australia has very weird laws as to what defines child pornography.

Recently in South Australia a man was convicted of possession of child pornography when the pictures were of children but were not naked nor in sexually provocative poses.

Now I'm not making comment on the offenders previous convictions or whether the images were used for prurient purposes.

This is about the definition of pornography and illegal pornography.


link

Photos of nude kids should not be considered pornography unless there are lewd acts depicted.

I went to summer camp were bathing suits were not worn.

Dirty politicians have dirty minds.

A few years ago, I was dating a 40 year old, divorced Thai woman. The first time she came to my place, she brought her personal family photo album with her. We sat down and she proudly showed me pictures of the people in her life in rural Thailand. Most of the photos were the typical "here we are at the zoo together", "here we are at the beach together", stuff...and of course, "here we all are eating Thai food together". The last group of photos in the photo book caught me off guard. They were naked pictures taken of her 7 or 8 year old son. He was standing in the middle of her family home with lots of people surrounding him at a large gathering of family, friends and neighbors. Each person was smiling at the camera and pointing to the kids tiny, naked penis. Some of the other women had their faces close up to his gentials and were holding his wee dick with their fingers. When she got to those photos she was laughing so hard in remembrance that tears were rolling down her cheeks. The boy had a big, shit-eating grin on his face in each one.

Had anyone been "caught" with those same photos in their possession by "authorities" in the West, or had them posted online, there is no doubt holy hell would have been unleashed. Possessing images like that would result in scandal, jail time and a "sex offender" label placed on the accused for life. I breathed easier when she later went home and those pictures were no longer in my room.

The problem with the OP's (and many others, I'm sure) stance on this issue is that it becomes impossible to draw a firm line on what is acceptable and what is not. Everyone has their own opinion and thinks they are fully justified in their stance. But the next person who goes a bit further with his photos of naked children (which the OP may find "over the line" and criminal) is also adamant that their photos are their "artistic expression" and not kiddie porn. Everyone can't be allowed to draw their own line on issues like this. When it comes to adult's behavior towards children, harsh rules have to be enforced. One can choose to be a libertarian rebel and attempt to stretch societal norms all they want, but anyone pushing the envelope in this arena can't act surprised and offended when the hammer comes crashing down upon them.

I also have just a couple of photos of [my ] kids on my computer. Both innocent and nothing one could call pornographic but I am very weary about how certain people [ NGO's and church groups ] would react to even seeing a older white guy holding hands with a brown skin child. So for those reasons, I keep very few of those types of photos . The world is so overregulated and crazy that in Australia, I read that in some schools, teachers were told not to use black pens as it may cause controversy between the native and white students .

Duncan wrote:The world is so overregulated and crazy that in Australia, I read that in some schools, teachers were told not to use black pens as it may cause controversy between the native and white students .

I remember this, but was not aware of the reasoning behind it - a distinct point in time when blue pens were the only acceptable colour in high school. A later aversion to having to use black pens (only) to mark computer-graded forms... weird.

Specifically to the OP, according to US law (which is state-governed), from Police Practice and Research, 8(3) 269-282:

US federal law defines a youth under the age of 18 as a 'child' and includes in its definition of child pornography photographs and films of conduct that are sexually explicit. Sexually explicit conduct may include sexual intercourse, bestiality, masturbation and 'lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area'.
DOI: 10.1080/15614260701450765

This is interpreted and applied per state and argued per case. The US as self-appointed justice for the world seems to be the global reference in such matters.

So here, straight-up nudity is not a factor, unless the genitals are given focus - such as the example given above with adults highlighting a small boy's junk. I imagine a prosecutor would argue that a collection consisting only or mainly of nude children would demonstrate a perversion, but if part of an otherwise balanced family album, would have a hard time arguing pornography. However, in countries where agencies or the government would happily stitch you up, holding any such photos would be a risk.

phuketrichard wrote:back in the early 90's David Hamilton came out with his book, "The Age of Innocence": http://www.scribd.com/doc/22806097/The- ... ilton-1992
it was entirely of young teenage girls semi and fully nude,
it was art
an is sold on Amazon
many cried PORNOGRAPHY, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_o ... on_book%29

Why would a father's photos of the daughter he loved be deemed immoral? I feel more the people that criticized hos book and branded him are then ones that need serious help.

recall when Huslter magazine broke down the barriers with the first shot of a naked open .... it was mind blowing and so sharp

yes, its a fine line with a child but

You'd probably be arrested for that in Australia.

I see no need for "art" of that nature.

Digg3r wrote: You'd probably be arrested for that in Australia.

I see no need for "art" of that nature.

Cover the young girls' nipples in each photo and that book/collection doesn't sell one copy or get lauded as "art" by anyone. It is the very definition of "titillation". That book should have been titled "For those who like looking at very young girls' tits but don't want to get caught downloading such pics from a dodgy website that might be an FBI sting operation".

Exactly