Rancid Meat

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

“My uncle Billy didn’t do anything wrong. Why are they talking about him?"

This is a story that I find nearly impossible to believe, but it's apparently true.

A soldier in Afghanistan, Spec. Billy Miller of Galesburg, Illinois, has been charged with possessing child pornography after his family sent him photos of his 4 year-old niece in a bathing suit, taken on her birthday.

The pictures were on Billy’s laptop, which the Army has confiscated.

Terri and her husband Rodney are angry with the way they and their son have been treated by the military. They said they are worried about the toll the allegations have taken on Billy. Terri said Billy recently told her, “I know how I can come home quickly. There’s nothing a bullet can’t take of.”...“My uncle Billy didn’t do anything wrong. Why are they talking about him?”, Terri said the little girl told her.

The photos of the little girl are shown as part of the news story, but her face is blurred out, as if she were posing for some real porn. Such censorship only further distorts reality and creates the impression that the image of a child in a bathing suit is lewd.

Perhaps there's more to this story than has been reported so far, but on the surface this appears to be a horrific miscarriage of justice and a further deepening of the public misunderstanding as to what really constitutes child pornography.

What do we do next? Ban anyone under 18 from going to a pool or the beach? I'm at a total loss of words on this one.

Landmark Sexting Case Set for Friday

Story here.

The controversy began in October 2008 when Tunkhannock school officials confiscated five cell phones and discovered the boys who owned them had been trading digital images of scantily clad females, including Miller, Kelly and Doe.

The image of Miller and Kelly shows the girls standing together in their bras. The image of Doe shows her just getting out of the shower, topless, with a towel wrapped around her waist.

Skumanick’s attorney, Michael Donohue of Scranton, said the case before the Third Circuit Court pertains only to Doe. That’s because Skumanick determined after the court challenge was filed that he would not seek to file charges against Miller or Kelly. He based the decision on testimony at the hearing on the restraining order.

Donohue said Skumanick has pressed on with the case because he believes strongly that “sexting” is dangerous.

“He was motivated by his desire to protect children. The transmission of photos of naked children draws predators,” Donohue said. “The entire basis of the juvenile code is to save children from their own bad judgment.”

Wrong. The juvenile code was developed so that prosecutors could have the option of treating those under 18 differently than adults when crimes are committed. If a 16 year-old kid is involved in a bank robbery, the law provides some basis for mercy, allowing for the consideration of mitigating circumstances, such as parental abuse, poverty, etc. The code also allows for the teen to be tried as an adult if the crime and circumstances are serious enough.

Juvenile codes are not written to make criminals out of kids who do not commit crimes and merely exercise bad judgment. Teens make bad decisions all the time, it's called "growing up".

Hopefully the judge will throw out this frivolous and destructive case.

Don't Judge the Demarees Based Upon the Police Report

Trish Kinney has read the police report on the case of the Arizona parents arrested for taking nude photos of their kids, and she has all but convicted them in her column today, even though she has not seen the photos herself, and the parents were cleared of all charges.

DO NOT judge these people based solely on a clinical and biased police report. Any image featuring a nude image of a child can be made to sound perverted when written like a script for a porn shoot. For example:

The image shows a nude baby boy looking into the camera. His penis can be clearly seen. He has his right hand on a woman's bare right breast, and he is sucking on her nipple. The woman is looking at the naked little boy with an approving glance. See the image here.

Another example:

The little girl in the image appears to be about 4 or 5 years old. She is on a public beach wearing no top. She has a coy expression on her face and her buttocks are thrust out in a suggestive manner. Her buttocks are nearly fully exposed by a dog who has grabbed her bathing suit bottom. The dog's right ear appears to be tickling her naked flesh. A fully clothed little boy has his right hand placed on the little girl's bare left buttock. See the image here.

Another:

The image shows a young girl about the age of 8 or 9 holding a little boy who appears to be about 1 or 2 years old. Both children are completely nude in the outdoors. The girl appears to have her right hand on the little boy's nude buttocks. His penis is not exposed. Part of the little girl's vaginal area is visible. See the image here.

And one more:

The image shows a seated woman, who appears to be approximately 20 years of age. Her right hand is pulling open her top to expose her right breast and nipple to the nine young children who are surrounding her. Seven of the children are completely naked, one is wearing some sort of fur, and the last child is mostly concealed except for a head and nude arm. Two of the nude children are climbing on the woman in what appears to be an attempt to get closer to the exposed breast and nipple. One of those children has his or her legs spread apart. Two other children appear to be kissing and are in a sexually suggestive embrace. See the image here.

I think you get the point.

Is AANR Overstepping Its Bounds?

AANR Executive Director Erich Schuttauf in a blog post today addressed two hot button issues - the case of the nude coffee guy in Virginia, and the parents arrested for taking nude photos of their children in Arizona.

I’ll acknowledge that with most such cases, AANR faces a significant obstacle that must be overcome to respond to the news story properly: like all “merely mortal” readers, viewers, and listeners, we often do not have first-hand knowledge of the facts. Did the parents of the young girls take photos that came too close to the line? Did Mr. Coffee simply stumble around the kitchen preparing brew, or did he stand spread eagle in open doorways and a large plate glass picture window at 8:40 in the morning-and were mother and son taking only a small shortcut between two very public sidewalks from which one could have just as easily seen a purposeful display as has also been alleged?

Responding too quickly, without knowing all the facts for certain, brings peril if initial reports and assumptions turn out untrue. Yet the early innings of a story are usually the stage where our blood is boiling at its hottest. DAMN IT. If AANR knows about this it should be DOING something.

The media likes to hear us say “damn it.” “Damn it” makes us buy newspapers. “Damn it” keeps us listening over the commercial break.

I want all our members and clubs to be assured that AANR hears the frustration in your phone calls and e-mail messages. I cannot promise you that we will be goaded into premature action because doing so can all-too-easily detract from a reputation of providing a credible voice of reason for nude recreation.

But I do promise you that AANR will continue to track events, to take the extra time that it takes to research the facts, or find out what the jury determined so that we can continue providing reliable guidance. And that we WILL speak out in cases of clear injustice to nudists.

Yes, news stories like these have an affect on nudists and naturists because they are reflective of public perceptions and societal shifts, and they should be discussed openly and frankly by all concerned. This is why I write about strip club ordinances, child pornography, sexting and other issues involving the human body and sexuality, which are not directly related to nudism, but speak to trends and attitudes.

And I'm glad that the powers-that-be at AANR are also concerned about these issues, and keep track of laws and ordinances.

BUT (and you knew this "but" was coming), I think it's disastrous public relations for the Executive Director of The American Association for Nude Recreation directly linking his organization with potential crimes involving indecent exposure and child pornography. While it's perfectly OK for bloggers like me to raise these issues, or even for AANR members to discuss them in a forum, it's a huge mistake, in my opinion, for Mr. Schuttauf to take them on himself.

It's a good thing that AANR has not taken an official stand on these stories, but by even discussing them in an official capacity associates nude recreation with crimes involving nude people.

The public perception can only be that AANR is open to defending flashers and pornographers. Yes, when all the facts are known and the issues are found to have a direct bearing on nude recreation, issue a statement, but open speculation and "thinking out loud" is not wise. When contacted by the press about these sort of news stories, it's best to issue a "no comment" on the basis that there is no evidence that these people are practicing nudists, belong to any nudist organizations, or that their alleged crimes have any relationship at all to nude recreation.

[UPDATE: Clarification - when I recommend a "no comment", that's what it should be, just "no comment". The bases I described are reasons for keeping mum, not meant to be given out as part of the "no comment". Otherwise the "no comment" becomes a "comment." See my previous post on this issue, where spokesperson Carlyn Hawkins declined to comment on the specifics of the naked coffee guy case, but added some general defense of nudism in general. By making her "no comment" into a "comment", her words got into the news, and linked AANR with a guy arrested for indecent exposure.]

My guess is that members of the Naturist Action Committee cringed when they read Mr. Schuttauf''s public post, which devoted 15 paragraphs to these current news issues, while a post made on 10/24 about the San Onofre lawsuit defeat was only two paragraphs. There's plenty of work to be done on the public lands issue, and valuable time and resources should not be wasted in chasing down every hot button story that comes along. The NAC chooses its battles wisely.

In addition, there is no evidence that the story of Naked Coffee Guy or the one involving the parents in Arizona will result in any changes to any laws. If anything, the public appears to be far more sympathetic to the people arrested in these cases, and outraged that they would be charged with crimes over things we've always taken for granted. Chances are these already overblown cases will quietly go away on their own.

Again, I'm glad that AANR keeps up to date on current events involving nudity issues, but unless there is some direct affect on nude recreation, nudist rights, or changes to anti-nudity laws and ordinances, officers in the organization should avoid making unnecessary public comments, in my opinion. The general population is already confused enough with the merging of swinging and nudism at some clubs, and AANR needs to remain focused on promoting positive nudist family values, and not be distracted by every viral story that comes along.

How nuts are we, really?

All airline passengers in the UK under the age of 18 will be exempt from full-body scanners until Manchester airport authorities can "clarify the law on indecent images of children."

Well, I guess that opens the door for terrorists to plant bombs on children. And if the scanned images are judged to be "indecent" for those under 18, would they not also be indecent for those above 18, too? What is it about turning 18 which magically makes nudity "decent?"

Alisdair Gillespie, an expert on the law relating to indecent images at Leicester's De Montfort University, said there was a theoretical possibility that an image taken by the scanner could be considered indecent.

"Usually an indecent image would be one where there was something overtly sexual about it," he said.

"But if this machine can produce an image of a child's genitals then there is a theoretical possibility that it might be classed as indecent."

I'm speechless.

UPDATE: Another story here reports that the drive against using airport scanners on children is by the Action on Rights for Children (ARCH) activist group.

Making an indecent image of a child is an offence under the Protection of Children Act - the fact Manchester Airport scans will not be stored is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

ARCH has sought and been given government assurances during past trials that the scanners that can see under clothes will not be used on children.

"It's completely unlawful. Manchester Airport haven't got a leg to stand on," the group's spokeswoman Terri Dowty told The Register today.

"There was children nude"

Anthony and Lisa Demaree had their children taken away for a month in Arizona after a Wal-Mart employee called the police when she saw the couple's vacation photos, which included nude photos of their children. Although the Demarees were cleared of all charges, they filed lawsuits against Wal-Mart, the state of Arizona, the Attorney General, and the city of Peoria for punitive damages for defamation and outrage.

Now the Peoria police department has released an audiotape of a conversation between officers and Wal-Mart employee Lisa Cage in a bizarre attempt to further defame the Demarees.

"There was children nude, and I know that's normal at some point, you know, children in the bath tub, stuff like that, but this was beyond that, which is what brought my attention to it," she tells the officer.

Since the state already completely exonerated the Demarees, this seems to be some sort of lame attempt to sway public opinion prior to the trial. It's frightening that this one employee could not only be an arm of the law overseeing public censorship issues, but an expert witness as well.

UPDATE: Another story here, which has excerpts of conversations between the police and the Demarees.

"We take pictures of their little naked butts all the time. It's nothing," Anthony Demaree, the father, told police.

His wife, Lisa, was asked in a separate interview about naked shots of one of the girls.

"She's just a nudist," the mother responded. "We teach her all the time that she's going to live in a nudist colony. There's no like, pornographic, nothing..."

"I guess it could be perceived, I can see where it would be alarming to you guys if you're seeing all these naked pictures," she said. "But, I encourage you to contact anybody you want and ask them about us and our family."

Pennsylvania Sexting Case Reaches New Heights of Absurdity

Chambersburg Police Chief David Arnold is investigating about 30 high school students for sending nude photos with their cell phones, the the number could grow as the investigation proceeds.

"Currently, my understanding is what they could be charged with is felony child pornography. They would be on the Megan's list as a sex offender for the rest of their lives," said Eric Michael, Assistant Superintendent, Chambersburg Area School District.

Michael says he's now revamping the school district's Internet safety education program and extending it everyone.

"It's something that can't be solved by schools. It has to be solved by all of us," said Michael.

You can solve this problem right now by dropping the investigation and staying out of the private sex lives of teenagers. Nobody seems to care that these kids are actually having sex with each other, it's all about the images, which seem to have taken on some sort of power to sap the sensibility out of authorities.

This is about as absurd as the Supreme Court debating the legality of depictions of animal cruelty, when every night on television human beings are depicted as being raped and murdered under the most horrible of circumstances.

Do we really believe that the banning of images somehow makes the root of the problem magically disappear? In the case of sexting, does anyone truly believe that putting 30 high school students on a sex offender list will solve anything? It's truly stunning to hear a police chief and a school superintendent be so ready and willing to destroy the lives of perfectly normal teenagers in order to pursue some warped version of "justice".

These individuals have been given the task to protect and educate our children, not to ruin their lives.

Censors and Sensibility

The Times has a thoughtful article on the Brooke Shields nude photo flap in London, and how the spread of the Internet has shifted our viewpoint, making us as a society tend to view all nude images of children as sexual. Why is it perfectly acceptable for the Tate Modern gallery to display "sex and gore", but unacceptable to exhibit a photograph of a young girl standing in a bath?

“If all art is doing is being provocative, that’s not very interesting,” said Matthew Kieran, professor of philosophy and the arts at Leeds University. “There is a kind of puerile tendency in some contemporary art where being shocking for its own sake is thought of as quite valuable.”

Purpose and context are vital, he argues. It would be morally repugnant to post a picture like that of Shields on a paedophile website because the intention would be to excite sexual interest. By contrast, argues Kieran, the same image in an art gallery invites the viewer to confront and explore issues of child sexuality and morality.

“It’s the visual equivalent of the novel Lolita,” he said. “Do we think Lolita shouldn’t be read? No. Do we think it is deeply morally troubling? Yes. Why is it so good? Because it is deeply morally troubling.

“It starts to explain it and then you have a much richer understanding.” Such understanding, he says, can be beneficial in our broader approach to the problem the art addresses.

“Instead of treating these people [with paedophile tendencies] like freaks and monsters — of course they are ill and it’s morally problematic — you start approaching them as human beings.”

That's going to be hard to swallow for the general public, who have been bombarded by the 24-hour news media with horrific stories of child abductions and murders, and programs which turn the capture of online predators into fodder for commercially paid entertainment.

According to the Crimes Against Children Research Center, while arrests of online predators is increasing, especially due to law enforcement stings, the Internet does not appear to be facilitating an epidemic of sex crimes against youth, victims are adolescents rather than young children, and "there was no evidence that online predators were stalking or abducting unsuspecting victims based on information they posted at social networking sites."

The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute estimates that while 20% of girls and 10% of boys are sexually abused by the time they reach the age of 13, most of those will be abused by a family member or close friend, not a stranger. The institute also recognizes that 95% of the sex acts against youth are committed by people with an ongoing sex drive directed toward children.

So there is no evidence that a nude photo of a 10 year-old Brooke Shields, the sight of a toddler running nude on a beach, some family photos of naked children in the bath, or children at nudist resorts, contribute in any way to the pedophilia problem. Like airport security, which is designed more to make people feel safe rather than actually be safe, the removal of the Shields photo from the Tate is a public relations stunt to placate the masses into believing the problem of pedophilia is being properly addressed.

Making criminals out of artists, photographers and parents because of something someone else "might" do is the easy way to deal with the problem. You can't prevent rape by forcing women to wear birkas, you can't prevent shoplifting by outlawing malls, and you cannot prevent crimes against children by outlawing innocent nude photographs. Law enforcement officials and legislators are impotent to deal with the real problems, so in order to convince the public that they are doing their jobs, they tend to arrest victims, prosecute children, and pass unnecessary laws and ordinances to create a smokescreen for their own failures.

Such is the case in England, where some "horrific" recent cases of pedophilia have been in the news, and heightened public awareness of a problem in need of a solution, so authorities have gone after the Tate Modern gallery in order to put on a show for the media. Wag the dog.

Personally I find the Shields image to be discomforting, much in the same way I find these child beauty pageants to be creepy, exploitative and sexualizing. Check out the beauty pageant portfolio of photographer Colby Katz - his photographs of children being made up, dressed, spray-painted and displayed are bound to elicit a gut reaction from anyone who views them.

Sometimes we need to be confronted with the uncomfortable in order to maintain intellectual balance. Government censorship is tantamount to what happens to Alex in Anthony Burgess' "A Clockwork Orange", where his despicable criminality lands him in a scientific experiment designed to make him physically ill whenever the thought of murder or rape crosses his mind, rendering him ultimately into a human jellyfish, a piece of mechanized flesh, completely unable to function in society. Ultimately his conditioning is reversed due to political backlash, and society is forced to embrace Alex for his perversity.

Instead of dealing with the societal and cultural reasons for Alex's penchant for crime, the government opted for the easy fix, to sanitize his body and mind from the evils of society, while neglecting the fact that the evils of society were still flourishing.

Ironically, Stanley Kubrick's film of "A Clockwork Orange" was banned in Britain for 27 years because it was believed to have inspired real violence, but the truth of that claim remains unclear, and the film is now readily available in the UK.

So now it's a photograph of a nude 10 year-old girl in the bath which is endangering British Society. Perhaps the powers that be will determine that the image is not pornographic, and perhaps they will rule that it is indeed obscene. Whatever the outcome, censorship is rarely sensible.

14 Year-Olds Are the Most Sexually Dangerous Group in America

America is turning its children into sex offenders. The chart above, from the US Department of Justice, illustrates how we are criminalizing what was once a normal part of adolescence - experimenting with sex. Via Andrew Sullivan's blog comes this essay.

In our new bizarre world of sexual offender legislation each child is a victim and a perpetrator. As the victim, they get no help, of course. The victim status is the excuse needed so that the sledgehammer may be used on the other child. So each becomes a perpetrator. They will be arrested; they will be forced into court. They are likely to be convicted and sentenced. They may be placed into the various prisons for children that have been established—places where they will learn what unwilling, sexual attacks are really like. They will be tortured by therapists and eventually released—maybe. Even that is no longer guaranteed under our sex panic. Today, someone who has served their sentence can then be held in preventative detention for the rest of their natural life because the mob demands it. And the politicians give the mob what it wants.

As any reader of this blog knows, I've been railing against the criminalization of "sexting" and other youthful sexual indiscretions for some time now. Teens have been having sex since long before recorded history, but it is only now in the age of technology and information that there is hard evidence that such activity exists. Where once a heavy petting session in the back seat of an automobile yielded merely some boastful claims and the hushed passing of secrets, now there are cell-phone photos, text messages, and Internet postings, all flowing in the trough for overzealous prosecutors, Christianist lawmakers and panicked parents to feed off.

It takes so little for this happen to a child. A girl in school has oral sex with a boy in school. She becomes a sex offender for the rest of her life. Streaking a school event, as a practical joke, becomes a sex crime in the new America. Two kids “moon” a passerby and are incarcerated in jail as sex offenders, where they may well learn a lesson or two about rape. A teenager, who takes a sexy of photo of him, or herself, is paraded around the community as a “child pornographer” for the rest of his or her life. Two kids in the back seat of a car have fumbling sex. The law says one is an offender because the other is a “victim.” One week later, a birthday passes, and it is no longer a crime. One week’s difference and a life is ruined. In other cases an act that is legal on Monday is illegal on Tuesday because the older of the two turned one year older. That becomes enough to qualify him, or her, as an offender.

The magnitude of this perversion of natural and man-made laws cannot be underestimated. Recently The Economist ran an editorial on the harsh punishment of sex offenders.

Because so many offences require registration, the number of registered sex offenders in America has exploded. As of December last year, there were 674,000 of them, according to the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children. If they were all crammed into a single state, it would be more populous than Wyoming, Vermont or North Dakota. As a share of its population, America registers more than four times as many people as Britain, which is unusually harsh on sex offenders. America’s registers keep swelling, not least because in 17 states, registration is for life.

So the rounding up and persecution of sex offenders is the new red scare, the new witch hunt, the new crucible in which to burn our fears. I recently received a postcard telling me that a sex offender moved into the neighborhood, giving his name and address. I'm sure everyone in the area got one, too, and everyone is now living in a certain amount of fear. I do not know what this man did, but I do know that I have never in my life received a notice when a bank robber, murderer, embezzler or violent criminal ever moved into my neighborhood.

I cannot state enough that true child pornographers, rapists, kidnappers and other violent criminals who would take the innocence, health or property of any other human being deserves to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Human vermin like Phillip Garrido, if found to be guilty of the heinous crimes with which he is accused, deserve no mercy from the courts.

But to take a teenager who is only fumbling around and experimenting with sexuality, and turn that kid into a sex criminal, is doing precisely the opposite of what the law intends. Thankfully people are beginning to wake up to this bastardization of justice, but it's too late to help so many of the kids who ended up behind bars, kicked out of school, found themselves unable to secure meaningful work, or ended up living in the streets.

These kids are criminals, not necessarily because they violated the life, liberty or property of another person. They are criminals because the politicians defined them as criminals. These damned “family values” conservatives, and compassionate feminist Leftists, who banded together to “save the children,” turned America’s kids into sex offenders by fiat. And they feel good about it. They are satisfied by it and only wish more had been rounded up earlier. The Left wants everyone in therapy and under the perpetual care of the state, and the Right wants everyone in prison, or in fear of the law, and under the thumb of the police. And that is what is happening. [Classically Liberal]

Phoenix Family Sues Wal-Mart Over Nude Photo Incident

Beware. Wal-Mart photo technicians are censors, and their photo departments are merely extensions of local police, because any photos taken there for development are screened under their secret "unsuitable print policy".

That's what happened to a Phoenix couple who took their vacation photos to the big box retailer, and since some of the images showed their three daughters in the bathtub, naked, the kiddie porn flag was raised.

In short, the police were called, and the three children were separated, placed in foster care, and had their genitals examined for signs of sexual abuse.

Although parents Lisa and A. J. Demaree were completely cleared, they have filed suit against Wal-Mart, the Arizona Attorney General and the city of Peoria, seeking punitive damages for "defamation and outrage".

According to the complaint against the state, Wal-Mart reported the photos to the Peoria Police Department, then Arizona Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Hunter "published defamatory remarks to more than 35 family members and friends of plaintiffs, falsely stating that plaintiffs Lisa and A.J. Demaree 'sexually abused' their children."

A Peoria police detective named Krause "made false and defamatory statements to agents and employees of the defendants, medical providers, and others, including, but not limited to, accusations that plaintiffs had sexually abused their children, sexually exploited their children, took pornographic photos of their children, and/or that said parents were engaged in illegal actions by taking bath and play time photos of their children," according to the complaint against the state.

Another stinging example of how fucked-up we are as a society when it comes to matters of the human body. Good luck to these folks, I hope they get a bundle of cash for this completely idiotic mess.

An opinion column on the Demarees is here.

Worst Case Scenario

Image via Wikipedia

I've been doing a lot of thinking about the storm surrounding Jasmine Trail Nudist Resort in North Carolina, and I have a lot of questions. You can refresh your memory by reading my takes here and here, and the news reports here and here.

Why hasn't Johnny Clevinger been charged with manufacturing child pornography?

What was the nature of the complaints which called police to the Clevinger home a dozen times, and who were the complaintants?

In the "hundreds of photos" found of other children, were they nudes? If so, did Clevinger take these photos, or are they from books and magazines?

The reports say that Clevinger was planning on making a visit to Jasmine Trail, but that he was arrested before he could go. Was Clevinger a member, and had he visited there in the past? Did he visit other nudist or naturist venues?

Why did Jasmine Trail remove all nude photos of both adults and children from their website? Were they advised by an attorney, or by AANR, or did they just panic?

Why was Clevinger's bond increased from $50,000 to $250,000?

Why is Jasmine Trail the subject of an investigation if there have been absolutely no complaints?

Since there have been no complaints, why does Department of Social Services director Bob Johnson say that parents who take their children to Jasmine Trail should be charged with neglect and that it would be "a very easy case to prove?"

Since there have been no complaints, why is District Attorney Scott Thomas planning on asking lawmakers to place age restrictions on nudist resorts?

One possible answer to all these questions comes to mind.

The DA and police were probably frustrated with the numerous complaints against Clevinger, which were likely over nude photos which didn't rise to the level of real child pornography, which is probably why he was never arrested before now, and why he has not been charged with kiddie porn.

Instead, the DA decided to charge Clevinger with "taking indecent liberties with a minor and first degree sexual exploitation of a minor", focusing more on the man's behavior rather than on the photos themselves.

Knowing that this would be more difficult to prove in court, the DA decided to ratchet up his investigation to include Jasmine Trail Nudist Campground, even calling in the FBI in order to lend a sense of urgency to his crusade.

If he can convince the public that naturism is a sexual behavior, and that naturist parents are guilty of neglect, and that nude photos on a resort's website are exploitative, then that strengthens his case against Clevinger, who is described as a naturist parent.

To me, this appears to be a classic witch hunt, in concert with a local television station which has provided sensationalism and a bias against naturism designed to rouse the rabble to stand behind this DA who promises to protect the children of North Carolina.

He's also planning on consulting with the Attorney General and lawmakers to write new legislation against naturists. This guy is covering all the bases, hoping at least something will stick so he can use it against Clevinger.

This is all my opinion, of course, but it seems to make some sense. Take note that the stories never refer to Clevinger as a pedophile, child molester or a pornographer - instead, words like "inappropriate", "indecent liberties", "exploitation", and "intent" are thrown around.

Worst case scenario is that this district attorney succeeds in hanging Clevinger for having non-sexual nude photos of a child (or children) by taking down Jasmine Trail and legislating nudism in the process. While Mark Foley failed in demonizing nudist resorts in Florida, this DA could succeed because he's creating a climate of anti-nudism - witness the recent online unscientific poll which found that nearly 70% of respondents support age restrictions at nudist venues. The poll proves nothing since it could have been bombed by a mobilized effort to skew the results, but anyone watching the TV station or reading their website will now believe that the vast majority of people want children out of nudism altogether.

The first shots in the public relations war over this particular case have been fired, all from one side. Do nudist and naturist organizations have the mettle and means to fight back? Time will tell.

The Daily Newds 5/20/09

• Porn stars are getting more parts in mainstream films.
• A Colorado Springs attorney is asking a judge to declare the city's ban on nudity in licensed liquor establishments unconstitutional.
• The saggy pants proposal in Tennessee is likely dead.
• Red Moser, PA, PhD, chronicles his life in nudity.

  One of my strangest experiences in 1975 was a nude graduate school interview! I applied for a master's program at UC Davis. In order to save me the travel time, three of the faculty members offered to interview me at their home in Sonoma County. I arrived promptly, clad in my interview suit and tie. There was no answer at the door, but I heard them call me from the back yard. As I entered through the gate, I couldn't help but notice that I was a bit over-dressed for the occasion. I don't really know, but I think I am the only person ever to be interviewed for graduate school by three nude faculty members.

• "The Sex Education Show" in Britain tackles the issue of pornography and how it is affecting young people today. Episodes can be viewed online here.
• The lawsuit over the death of Luis Andrew Martinez, aka Berkeley's Naked Guy, has been settled.
• The media is finally waking up to the fact that people are being virtually strip-searched at airports, due to the fact that privacy advocates are calling for a suspension in the use of the imaging machines.
• John Zammit, candidate for the European Parliament, is running on a platform which includes the creation of nudist beaches.
• A costly legal battle looms in the UK over the protection of a nudist beach from an apartment complex which threatens to look out directly onto the sunbathers.
• A columnist takes on the naked vs. nude debate.

  In the context of his argument, it seems better to be naked than nude; the former implies a choice, whereas the latter implies that a female is being unwittingly, unfairly dominated by a male gaze. Other critics would argue almost the opposite, however. Kenneth Clark, a critic who is often credited as the source of the debate, believed that nude forms are the admirable equivalent of Titian’s Venus; they are ideal forms of art, while naked bodies are just their embarrassing, real-life counterparts.

• The owner of a BBQ restaurant in Reading, Ohio, has been ordered to "cover up a bit" a female mannequin standing outside the establishment. The mannequin has been wearing a bikini top and shorts, and some people complained that it was "too sexy". The owner plans to appeal.

Debunking Myths About Child Nudity

Must reading from Dr. Paul Rapoport.

The prime myth is that all photographs of child nudity are illegal. This is no longer in the background but considered a specific "fact." In early April, Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post left no doubt: "Nude photos of minors -- even if the minor is you --are child pornography." Not only is there no basis for that absurdity in jurisprudence in North America, it maligns family snapshots as well as photos in the arts, medicine or naturism; and it declares the sole purpose of a lack of clothes to be immoral, harmful sexuality.

The Daily Newds 5/5/09

• The Martin Schreiber nude photographs of Madonna are taking England by storm.
• Once again, a nude calendar has raised thousands of dollars for charity.
• Here's more on British Naturism's Nudefest event.

  Dr Elletson, a direct descendant of Geoffrey the Crossbowman – the original Lord of the Manor of Preesall-with-Hackensall – is said to be very enthusiastic about the area's first naturist weekend and is keen to include the local community in the provision of services and entertainment.

• A couple of Congressional Democrats have jumped on the prude bandwagon and are sponsoring a bill to ban "indecent" advertising on television during prime time viewing hours. Erectile dysfunction ads are specifically targeted. It's somewhat ironic that one of the chief spokespersons for ED drugs was former Senator Bob Dole.
• The "Models as Muse" exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art celebrates beautiful women and how ideals have evolved. The topless bathing suit is included.
• Here's a more detailed local story on the grandmother busted for taking a nude photo of her granddaughter.
• Outside Magazine explores places to get naked in the great outdoors.
• A columnist declares that sexting is this generation's streaking or skinny-dipping. I don't think that's quite accurate because streaking and skinny-dipping are still happening, and sexting is not quite as innocent. As I've stated before, sexting is an electronic extension of teen sexuality. Kids are out there having real physical sex - oral, anal, and vaginal - and sexting is merely evidence that this activity is occurring. The issue is whether or not teens trading nude photos of themselves constitutes child pornography. My stand is that is is not child pornography, that it is freedom of expression, and adults need to come to terms with the fact that criminalizing the sexuality of children is an abomination.
• A city councilman attempted to pass an ordinance prohibiting nudity in the Lake Edun Foundation's four nights of one-act plays.

  While there is a city ordinance and state law prohibiting publicly exposing a sex organ with “intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of the offender or another,” local prosecutors said the plays didn’t violate those laws.

If You Have a Nude Photo of Your Baby, the Government Might Consider You a Child Pornographer

This unsettling story from Reason Magazine tells the sad tale of a grandmother who was roughly arrested after taking a photo of her granddaughter with "bare butt showing".

...if you don't want to get arrested and charged for taking nude photos of your infant or toddler, make sure you know what criteria your local prosecutor uses when navigating that "gray area" between a cute butt and a criminally alluring one (note: you probably don't want to actually pose this question to him). Also, if you find yourself under investigation after dropping off a roll of film at the CVS, you might want to bake the prosecutor some cookies, since it appears that his "gut" will be the final arbiter of whether you're a doting parent or an accused child pornographer.

The Daily Newds 4/2/09

• In order to circumvent the right to freedom of expression, Texas lawmakers approved an admissions fee tax on all sexually oriented businesses. The state plans on taking 10% of the gross receipts. Organized crime and government have now become one and the same.
• A judge in Virginia has dismissed child pornography charges against a school official who had an "inappropriate" photo of a student on his cell phone, which was sent to him by another student. It was ruled that the photo was not sexually explicit and did not meet the definition of child pornography.
• Police in Wisconsin are recommending juvenile disorderly conduct charges against four 15 year-old kids for sharing a nude photo of a student. How this constitutes "disorderly conduct" beats me.
• "Show us your best bits" is some sort of ad campaign which encourages people to strip naked on stage. NSFW video here. [via AdRANTS]
• The question of the day is "if Germans want to be nudists, why did they invent trousers?"
• The powers that be at McDonald's are all in a titter over a Swedish strip club which has ripped off the famous golden arches on their sign.
• Apparently not an April Fools story (but don't bet the farm on it), students at Bellevue Community College near Seattle are fighting for their rights to hold their nudist club meetings on campus.

  Repeatedly told to put clothes on, the recently chartered Nudist Club has been asked not to hold meetings in public locations on campus. Denied what they call the basic right to adorn themselves with whatever they wish or wish not to, the club’s members have appealed to the student government for help, asking for construction of a club Garden on campus for the specific use of their protected engagements...The Nudists formed out of an anthropology class here at school. According to Freddy Smoteson, anthropology student and founder of the group, his Anthropology instructor, who prefers to remain nameless, did a week long segment about the role of nudity in human culture...Feeling inspired, Smoteson and several of his fellow classmates decided those born nude should stay nude. They formed a “group for people who are enthusiastic and ego less about nudity”.

• Nude male models were brought into an English school as part of a sex education class.

  “I learned more from this than from my previous sex education classes,” said student Tom Harvey, 16. “It was really interesting the way they taught us about everything. It was practical and made it more understandable.”

• The Palm Beach Post has an editorial denouncing the criminal prosecutions of teenagers who engage in sexting, but a columnist for the Times Record News in Wichita says "With parents, councilors (sic) and clergy seemingly unable to convince teens that emulating porn stars is a bad idea, maybe sheriff’s deputies with arrest warrants can."
• A University of Texas student throws herself into the world of social nudism.

  I had been worried leading up to the event that I’d arrive to find some massive middle-aged orgy, or that I wouldn’t be able to stop looking at all the penises on display. But no orgies (at least in front of me) and I only sometimes glance at the penises, a little. The ceviche and empanadas are divine, and the atmosphere is relaxed, friendly and respectful.

• The mayor of Auckland is powerless to stop the Boobs on Bikes parade.

  "In a perfect world we wouldn’t have Boobs on Bikes in Queen St, but we don’t live in a perfect world," he says. "I’m very aware that in these post-Christian times, in this slack and ill-disciplined society, holding up a bylaw around what is decent and what is not will be very difficult."

• Here's a guide to Melbourne's best nude beaches.
• The Village Players in Oak Park, Illinois, are giving the full monty treatment to a production of "Driving Miss Daisy".

  The Pulitzer Prize-winning play involves the relationship between an elderly Jewish woman in Atlanta and her African-American chauffeur. Occhipinti explained, "By the last scene Miss Daisy is 97 years old and Hoke, her driver, is 85. What could better express the common humanity of these two lovely characters than seeing them in the buff?"

• AMC TV has a list of sex in movies which challenged the ratings.

People Don't Know What They Are Talking About

A report that an 18 year old boy is facing up to 5 years in prison and 10 years on the Illinois sex registry for taking a nude photo of his girlfriend when she was only 16 and he was 17, includes the following statement:

Obviously nude photos of a minor clearly fall under the legal definition of "child pornography."

This is a common misconception. Nude photos of anyone at any age are not pornography. From the U.S. Code, pornography is defined by images which show "sexually explicit conduct", further defined as "sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or; lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person." Read the entire code. None of these "sexting" stories appear to meet the definition, yet prosecutors keep threatening kids with child pornography charges and sex offender lists.

Paul Rapoport on his TERA website offers the following:

By the available descriptions, the photos have as much connection to child pornography as does a cement sidewalk...We don't comment much on this phenomenon, called "sexting" (transmission by cellular phone of photos of people partly or totally undressed). By bringing up child porn charges for such cases where no abuse or coercion is involved, American authorities often abuse their power and show that they understand neither the law they're supposed to uphold nor principles involving the body and teens. If there's a problem, making teenagers criminal pornographers and registered sex offenders for what are legal photos is no solution and is a horrible miscarriage of justice. It also furthers the body phobias and resultant psychological traumas that North America is famous for.

Dr. Rapoport also provides a link to this article by Tony Norman.

There's something of a "destroy the village" mentality operating in the Wyoming County prosecutor's office in the northeastern part of Pennsylvania. District Attorney George Skumanick Jr. believes child pornography charges are warranted for the three teenage girls who refused his generous offer of probation along with a five-week, 10-hour "re-education program" designed to put them on the straight and sexless narrow.

The girls are charged with the possession, manufacture and distribution of child pornography via cell-phone text messaging. It doesn't even matter that other than the exposed breasts of one of the girls, no genitalia or sexual behavior is seen in the cell-phone images. Two of the girls are wearing bras and one is flashing a peace sign, which is pretty perverted in some parts of the country, I suppose. There is no meaningful correlation between the photos, the intent of the photos or the law.

But in the eyes of the district attorney's office, there's something threatening about girls acting goofy in cell-phone photos, especially if they live where the county seat is a place called Tunkhannock, which sounds suspiciously like the punch line of a dirty joke.

Maybe people are beginning to wake up a little bit, as there are signs of victims fighting back.

One of three teens suing a Pennsylvania prosecutor says she does not want to be bullied by the district attorney, who threatened to charge the girls over racy cell-phone pictures.

Fifteen-year-old Marissa Miller said after a federal court hearing Thursday that she did nothing wrong when a friend took a picture of her and another girl in their bras.

Reporters who continue to use words like "racy" in their stories are editorializing, and passing judgement on the girls who took these photos. Nobody seems to be able to stick to the facts anymore when "reporting".

There are people out there who don't believe that this is a nudist issue, but it most certainly is. The cornerstone of the nudist and naturist movement is that being free and natural is the basic right of all human beings, of any age, race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual preference. This hysteria over what is perceived to be "child pornography" threatens to remove anyone under the age of 18 from participating in naturism. Once that happens, all that will be left is swingers clubs and resorts. Children are the balance to all life, they make adults responsible, caring, and nurturing.

If it's true that 20% of all teens have sent or posted online nude photos of themselves, then we are dealing with a cultural shift, not a crime wave. Fight for your kids, and don't give in to these renegade prosecutors who are perverting the law by using it against the very people it was designed to protect.

Australian Library Bans Innocent Photo of Children Playing

Reaching perhaps the peak of paranoia, a library in Australia pulled a photo from an exhibition fearing scrutiny in the wake of the recent controversy over Bill Henson nudes.

A mother herself the artists says "(...) if this keeps going in the same direction, it won't be long before our children will be required to wear concealing head scarves - whilst surfing obscene pornographic websites protected by the freedom of speech.

"As an artist, photographer and protective mother of two children I believe in protecting all children, but the law is silencing the wrong people and we are heading back to the dark ages."

UPDATE: The ban has been lifted after common sense prevailed.

Tags: nudism, naturism, nudist, nudists, naturist, naturists, nudity, nudes, bare, au naturel, nude, naked

The Weekend Newds 1/24/09

• Laure Redmond explains why life is so much better for women who feel good naked.

  It's about knowing and accepting yourself at your core. We don't get to choose Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt as our parents, so we have to come to terms with the shape we take and the skin we're in. And when we do, it's very powerful.

• "Exquisite Corpse", a theatre production in Providence, features two scenes involving nudity.
• A 19 year-old assistant scoutmaster has been charged with "possessing an obscene sexual performance by a child" after posting on Craigslist that he was looking for "young teen naturists."
• A woman ended up marrying a man after spending some time in a coed bath house. in part because feeling comfortable walking around naked with a guy and his family "is a good sign you'll be able to handle anything that comes your way!".
• There are good biological reasons that men like looking at women.

  "Like the masses of planets and stars, our bodies curve the space around us. We radiate signals constantly, radio sources that never go off the air. We cannot help being centers of attraction and repulsion for one another."

• Designer Jessica Rey has designed a line of swimwear which hearkens back to a time when

  "women valued their bodies...You don't have to be half-naked to look beautiful... in fact, most of us look better when we're a bit more covered up!"

• When asked what her reaction when a streaker ran out onto the court at the Australian Open, Serena Williams said, "I just thought, my eyes, my innocent eyes."
• What's the reason why the Senate pool is for "men only". Could they all be skinny-dippers?
• Gotopless.org has announced Sunday March 8 and Sunday August 23 as National Go Topless Protest days.
• 85 year-old nudism pioneer Muriel Howell still takes nude vacations.
• In San Rafael, life-size cutouts of breastfeeding women have been placed in public locations with the message "When breastfeeding is accepted, it won't be noticed."
• The widow of a man who drowned in 2007 at the Olympic Swim and Health Club near Pittsburgh is suing the nudist retreat for not supplying a lifeguard.

Tags: nudism, naturism, nudist, nudists, naturist, naturists, nudity, nudes, bare, au naturel, nude, naked