If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
FHM Child Porn
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Well, technically anyway.
Should they be allowed to publish explicit pictures that readers have sent in, or should they be limited to professional models where all of the correct legal checks have be done?
Should they be allowed to publish explicit pictures that readers have sent in, or should they be limited to professional models where all of the correct legal checks have be done?
0
Comments
As for the question... no, I don't think they should just limit themselves to professional models. However, magazines such as FHM should be more responsible about what they put into their issues. Perhaps these girls should be asked for some form of ID?
The world will be a sadder place if amateurs can't whack out their bits for a few quid and the chance to be oggled at in readers wives
Was it her partner that sent it in then?
They're probably one of those annoying families that moan about losing out on a 20p saving in asda.
The person that sent the picture in should be the one in trouble, not the magazine.
Oh & it would be impractical to ask for ID from every single photo sent in.
Actually, all it would need from the magazine would be a signature from the person in the picture that she's over 18. Then as far as they're concerned, it's either a case of her lying (not their fault) or someone forging her signature (not their fault, and someone will be getting a call from the police).
I heard on the radio that it was a partner that sent it in, yes. And they also gave the impression that the girl is actually a bit older now (either way, he must've known that she was younger than 18 in the photo). But it also mentioned the bullying that she'd (potentially?) recieved because of it, so you'd reckon she's still in school or college.
But yeah, that wouldn't really solve the problem, but I suppose it would raise the seriousness of the issue if ya get me.
I'd hardly say "partner" for a 14-year-old.
You'd be fucking moaning too if a magazine had printed a topless picture of your underage daughter without her consent. I'd be fucking unmanning the editor of that magazine for it.
First she heard about it was when it was plastered all over her school.
#
The first rule of journalism, of any level, is that you make sure you are allowed to print what you are printing, and that the subject matter is accurate.
Well they shouldn't print photos of people without their consent then, should they?
COHABITING at 14?! Is it me or is that very very wrong?
so it isnt child porn but an issue of consent
The magazine should expect it and take steps to overcome it. I bet they get quite a bit of this sort of thing that they don't print.
Perhaps that definition isn't particularly accurate. What do you call the seven, eight and nine year old girls who start their periods and.or have breast buds etc? I don't think physical maturity should have as much role in the definition as emotional and intellectual myself.
That's irrelevant. Child porn is a legal definition, not a dictionary definition. And the legal definition in this country is a pornographic image of anyone under the age of 18.
she didnt want her tits out in a lads mag, she didnt send the pic in, and she was well underage. The magazine is at fault for just printing any old pic they get sent in if they like the pic enough without checking for consent. Hope they get sued.
Although I assume she consented to having the picture taken in the first place, which makes things a bit murkier on her 'right' to not have her picture published, as (I think I'm right), it would then be the property of whoever took the photo e.g. paparazzi
Of course I think the child porn thing is a separate issue - legally it is wrong, as (sexually) indecent images of anyone under the age of 18 are illegal. However, then again if she appeared to be over that age then it seems to be a technical infringement of the law.
But the reason the sue culture exists is to cause liability, so it is someones fault. The issue is not to do with privacy laws, its to do with indecent images. Whether it was the responsibility of the magazine or the photographer or both depends though. The magazine should check all material that is published, and is responsible for everything it does publish. So they are responsible in the first place. However, if their t&c stipulate (as I'm sure they do) that anyone sending in images to have them published must have whoever's consent & they are over 18, then by sending the image in they agreed to that and they would be liable in a court of law for giving a false impression. However, it could also be argued the magazine is liable for not taking further steps to ensure that all images were legitimate.
But bringing it another point, if (as many girls these days do) appeared over the age of 18, then it seems to me it is only a technical breach of the law. The reason she objects is because it's embarrassing for her, etc. - not because she's underage. If it was someone in the same position but over the age of consent they wouldn't have much luck in court because they gave consent for the photo to be taken which then becomes the property of whoever took it. (unless they wanted to argue there were terms of that ownership but how would you prove that without writing it in paper?)
So she's in a position lots of people have probably been in but is using another law to object.
Its either illegal or its not.
Any breach is a technical breach.
But how old she appeared to be is irrelevant. If I had sex with her I would be rightly convicted of sex with a minor. This is no different.
She was a minor, and she had an intimate photo of herself printed without her consent. I hope she gets a gigantic sack of cash from the porn peddlers at Emap.
Hmm. I'm not really one to interpret parliament lingo, but I think that means that if they reasonably believed she was over 16 then they shouldn't be charged. I dunno, I mean, this is for the making/taking of the photograph, I'm not sure if it stands with distibution. Also, it's the scottish law, not english.
I dunno. Whatever. :]
They absolutely, from day ONE at j-school, knew they needed consent, and someone taking a nude picture of a partner gives them fuck all right to do anything with it without consent being asked for.
It's lazy journalism, it's voyeurism, it's without consent and it's exploitation - I'd say they should be fucking ashamed to call themselves journalists but they work at FHM so they already are.
The Sexual Offences Act applies across the England Scotland and Wales (and I think NI, but may be wrong). It was standardised to make things consistent.
Even if the girl had been of legal age, it is still a vile thing to do, and it is pure voyeurism, nothing more and nothing less. It's a way for disgusting little boys to humiliate their former partners at the end of a relationship. It's a car crash feature.
If the girl wants to get her baps out for the lads then fair play, but the magazine should have to pay out a million quid to anyone who's had their picture printed without their consent. The age of the girl is what's got the story into the papers, but the age is irrelevant when you consider how foul the feature is.
I wondered how long it would take for someone to mention that aspect.
Regardless of the fact that they didn't check age etc, what was more important was that they didn't even have her consent. No matter what age she is that is a crime IMHO.
I thought all journos were ashamed to call themselves journalists
Mind you I heard they did have a consent form, except it was forged. If that's true then it should be the person who sent them in who should be expecting some serious jail time...
Sadly the law disagrees.
The law is an ass.