Zippora Seven : topless with 16 years old
[*******black][*******#660000]AN Australian magazine is being investigated after photographing a 16-year-old girl topless in two fashion shoots.[/COLOR]
[*******black]NSFW cointains topless photos of a minor[/COLOR]
Last edited by Hollis; 05-12-2008 at 02:10 PM.
Reason: removed link, per Calanen advice. This forum is US based
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. What can I say........
Last edited by T3ngu; 05-11-2008 at 11:52 PM.
Reason: I peeked as well
yet the online picture was uncensored also (no blacked over mammillary ducts, and yea, i snuck a peek).
where was the agent, modeling agency, photographer, photography agency, magazine agency, and lets not forget model herself to set limits. Where were her parents, who might approve of modeling, but didn't specify NO full/partial nudity, and where was her self-respect ??
Its only child *********** under s 91H Crimes Act 1900 in NSW Australia if the person being photographed is under the age of 16, so under State law there is not a problem. However, under Federal law, you cannot obtain a classification if it shows ****** conduct or is a photograph of ****** nature of a person under the age of 18. Without a classification, it cannot be published or shown. So, it is likely that the Feds will have something to say to this magazine.
By the way, for everyone in the United States pretty much, you are committing an offence by viewing the material and clicking on the link that Min has posted. At work or not. The offence is committed by you being in posession of the material. How are you in possession you say? It is in your cache once you look at it.
Min, you might want to make your warning a bit more explicit for the benefit of our US members, especially those on US military installations.
Australia and UK however, are good as I understand it. Most of Europe is likely to be OK.
While the prospect of being busted is perhaps remote, I counsel our American members to respect the law of their home country.
See, this is where the age questions slides into a grey area. Morally, it is no more outrageous than if the model were ten or fifteen months older. And yet, the law is the law.
BTW, what's Australia's age of consent? I know that in some place, it's 16-17, as opposed to the more usual 18.
16 for girls, 18 for men.
Originally Posted by Rictor
You just know that whoever made that law had a big, pervy grin on his face. The two-year discrepancy is like a neon "Jailbait Here, Dive In" sign.
I thought it was a Kiwi rag.
No - New Zealand modelling agency is who the model is with. But the magazine is definitely Australian.
Originally Posted by Ivo
A raging feminist's trauma haunts me to this day
Eh, where "art" is concerned the question is far more flexible, as opposed to ***********. For example Thora Birch was topless in "American Beauty" while under age. Kiera Knightly was topless at 15 in some movie. I assume there was parental consent for these photos.
I think that if she can consent to *** she can do something like this. They're just ****ies people.
I guess those who are outraged by this shoot as 'going to far' have never Googled 'barely legal'.
As Calanen pointed out, she is of legal age here in Oz, and you are all crims for looking at her, well in the US anyway.
Its ever lasting fight between art people and nudity conservatives.
No Good Bloody Seppo
Her parents should be beaten just for giving her that name. Retards. It sounds like the name of some bad Japanese ****** anime movie.
Miss Convicted 2009
OK, enough legal talk, lets get to the important bit.
The article says there were pictures of her topless on a horse in the March issue. Who's got those pics?