3 ms·
> that would probably be considered child pornography. What on earth are you talking about? Is there anything even vaguely sexual about this photograph? Did
by jMyles 10y ago
> that would probably be considered child pornography.
What on earth are you talking about? Is there anything even vaguely sexual about this photograph? Did I miss something?
- xapata 10y agoI was not talking about the photograph in the article, but a hypothetical recreation. Even if a photographer were to explain such a recreation were a satire or had some artistic value, I think many people would feel uncomfortable with it. Certainly most would not want their children to pose for such a photograph. From that thought experiment, I'm deducing that it's the historical context which makes the original photograph acceptable to distribute, and not anything intrinsic to the image.