<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with pornography and children</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/pornography+children</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'pornography' and 'children' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 25 May 2008 02:06:33 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Sun, 25 May 2008 02:06:33 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>Bill Henson&apos;s censored photographic exhibition.</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/71963/Bill%2DHensons%2Dcensored%2Dphotographic%2Dexhibition</link>
		<description> Photographs of esteemed Sydney artist &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.roslynoxley9.com.au/artists/18/Bill_Henson/&quot;&gt;Bill Henson&lt;/a&gt; have been removed by police from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.roslynoxley9.com.au/news/henson-statement.html&quot;&gt;Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery&lt;/a&gt;, and the debate over art vs pornography vs pedophilia heats up in Sydney this week.

Some of the debate is quite &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/move-to-protect-children/2008/05/25/1211653837337.html&quot;&gt;measured and intelligent&lt;/a&gt; while other sides are descending to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/naked-fury-cool-it/2008/05/25/1211653823602.html&quot;&gt;unruly levels&lt;/a&gt;. Even Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23745396-2702,00.html&quot;&gt;something to say&lt;/a&gt; about the whole debacle.

Unfortunately the offending artworks have been removed from both the gallery&apos;s website and walls, so we can not judge for ourselves.  Once again we&apos;ll have to leave it up to the courts to decide. </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2008:site.71963</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 May 2008 02:06:33 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>art</category>
		<category>bill</category>
		<category>censorship</category>
		<category>children</category>
		<category>henson</category>
		<category>photography</category>
		<category>pornography</category>
		<dc:creator>robotot</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/21516/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://body-n-mind.com/outdoors.htm"&gt;Is this naturism, photography or soft-core child pornography?&lt;/a&gt; If you search for photographers like Sally Mann or Jock Sturges you&apos;ll come across this entirely legitimate purveyor of naturist books and videos. In the Fifties and Sixties nudist magazines, like &lt;i&gt;Health and Efficiency&lt;/i&gt;,  were an excuse for looking at naked bodies.  Now that porn is legal, have nudist publications made a comeback as an excuse for looking at photographs of naked children?  Their website is itself well concealed - the &lt;a href=&quot;http://body-n-mind.com&quot;&gt;front page&lt;/a&gt; looks innocent enough but, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://body-n-mind.com/russia98.htm&quot;&gt;further&lt;/a&gt; you click &lt;a href=&quot;http://body-n-mind.com/sports.htm&quot;&gt;into it&lt;/a&gt;, the more &lt;a href=&quot;http://body-n-mind.com/athome.htm&quot;&gt;unsettling&lt;/a&gt; it becomes.  Or are we all becoming to paranoid for our own good? (&lt;i&gt;I&apos;d say NSFW&lt;/i&gt;)  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.21516</guid>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Nov 2002 18:50:29 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>books</category>
		<category>child</category>
		<category>childporn</category>
		<category>childpornography</category>
		<category>children</category>
		<category>JockSturges</category>
		<category>kiddyporn</category>
		<category>kids</category>
		<category>magazines</category>
		<category>naturism</category>
		<category>NSFW</category>
		<category>nude</category>
		<category>nudism</category>
		<category>nudists</category>
		<category>photographers</category>
		<category>photography</category>
		<category>porn</category>
		<category>pornography</category>
		<category>SallyMann</category>
		<category>videos</category>
		<dc:creator>Carlos Quevedo</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/14348/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.thedenverchannel.com/sh/news/stories/nat-news-121525520020131-110133.html"&gt;If the webmaster is a minor, does it count as kiddie porn?&lt;/a&gt; And &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.missingkids.com/html/ncmec_default_ec_chldporn_laws.html&quot;&gt;what&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://faculty-web.at.northwestern.edu/commstud/freespeech/cont/cases/morphed.html&quot;&gt;is&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sunysuffolk.edu/Web/Selden/Philosophy/LK/CompEthics/E-Freedom/DigImages.htm&quot;&gt;child&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aclu.org/news/w081297a.html&quot;&gt;porn&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.umc-gbcs.org/gbpr127.htm&quot;&gt;anyway&lt;/a&gt;?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.14348</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:02:20 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>children</category>
		<category>pornography</category>
		<dc:creator>magullo</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/13437/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.wired.com/news/ebiz/0,1272,45346,00.html"&gt;Um...&lt;/a&gt; can someone explain to me how a parent could do this to their child? Check out some &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tiffany-teen-model.com/banner/index.htm&quot;&gt;accompanying&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.select-a-shoot.com/preview.html&quot;&gt;links&lt;/a&gt; and tell me how this &lt;i&gt;isn&apos;t&lt;/i&gt; child porn and why these parents aren&apos;t in prison right now.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2001:site.13437</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Dec 2001 15:14:57 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>childpornography</category>
		<category>children</category>
		<category>modeling</category>
		<category>pornography</category>
		<dc:creator>tsumo</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/1777/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/05/23/fp3s1-csm.shtml"&gt;Supreme Court to America: unscramble the smut!&lt;/a&gt; Actually, this decision seems to say what most sane people have been saying all along: it&apos;s not the government&apos;s job to regulate what what kids watch; it&apos;s their &lt;i&gt;parents&apos;&lt;/i&gt; job.

&lt;p&gt;Whatever.  Adolescent boys across America rejoice!  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2000:site.1777</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 May 2000 17:31:01 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>children</category>
		<category>parenting</category>
		<category>pornography</category>
		<category>supremecourt</category>
		<category>television</category>
		<dc:creator>RakDaddy</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


