It was ruled that he had no sexual motive.
The parents were present at the photo shoots.
At the sentencing, the judge told him, "'You always acted perfectly properly and their parents were perfectly law-abiding, sensible people who cared for their children.."
So what was the crime?
Dr. Marcus Phillips, a 38 year-old tutor at Sheffield University, runs a photography business, and his specialty is turning portraits into images of "ethereal" fairies.
You know, like Tinkerbell, or Oberon, or Puck.
His mistake was accepting the assignment given to him by the parents of two young girls aged 10 and 12.
When the photos ended up at a processing store, the "worried" staff alerted the police, and naturally these innocent photos suddenly became "child pornography".
Phillips will escape the "sex offender" label, and was let off with just 150 hours of community service.
I have never seen real child pornography. I do not want to see real child pornography. The whole idea of anyone who would exploit a child for sexual purposes is revolting.
But Dr. Phillips' fairy portraits are not child pornography. They celebrate the innocence and beauty of childhood. They are not unlike the photos that every parent takes of a nude child in the bath, in the wading pool, or on the Oriental rug.
In a country where naturism is very popular, with 130 sun and swim clubs, it's surprising to see this sort of overreaction in Great Britain.
British Naturism has a slogan "Young people first", and a zero tolerance policy on child abuse: "It is the policy of British Naturism to safeguard the welfare of all children by protecting them from physical, sexual and emotional harm."
Teaching our children that their natural nude bodies are "pornographic" under any and all circumstances will do tremendous psychological damage in the long run. Do we really want to raise a generation that fears and loathes its own bodies?
I'm glad that the British judge had the common sense to see that Dr. Phillips was not a pornographer, but under the law, those photos apparently met the legal definition in England. But I'm saddened deeply for a society that can only look at children through the eyes of a pedophile.
Tags: nudism, naturism, nudist, nudists, naturist, naturists, nudity, nudes, bare, au naturel, nude, naked
2 comments:
"Phillips was not a pornographer, but under the law, those photos apparently met the legal definition in England."
That's not quite what the article says. It refers to "indecent" inages.
I've begun making inquiries about this one. I'll bet there's something wrong with it.
Paul, this is a direct quote from the article:
"Even though the parents were present at some of the shoots, the photographs fell under the definition of child pornography"
The article also uses the word "indecent".
I tend to agree with you that there's something missing from this story.
Post a Comment