About Harry Potter's naked butt pic

Since he is 17, isn't that child pornography? And if I clicked on it and viewed the photo from the play, should I be expecting a visit from the feds any second now?

Even if it is legal in the UK(I have no idea on that...) it isn't here.

Here is the article (w pic, be careful clicking on it!!!)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=436572&in_page_id=1773&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=picbox&ct=5

I'd seriously even tell the mods to delete this thread; you don't know what will happen.

:rofl:

good question. The visiting teens laughed. Why is nude art considered offensive, yet violent art ok?

Her parents had to approve and they had child labor people on the set during the shooting.

Anyway, I think it's OK if the parents approve.

but then subject is to a picture of THAT?!?!? :shrug:

In the UK there is a lower age of consent.

In America there are varying ages of consent depending on which state but the frankly there are enough ambitious prosecutors out there to try to arrest you if they find it. Even if you are proven innocent, your life is ruined and the prosecutor gets to make a name for himself.

This is also apparently part of a play, so there is the art defense. Not to mention pedophilia is actually sexual interest in prepubescent children, not teenagers. So the idea that nude pics of a 17 year old violates the spirit of the laws against child porn, which were to stop pedophilia.

So in short, logicaly no, this is not child porn.

But we dont' live in a logical world.

Even our overly protective so-called "child" porn laws (17 year olds are not children) allow for the consideration of artistic merit.

And if you don't think our laws are overly protective check out the case of the two 17 year olds who photographed themselves and now the male is a convicted sex offender for possesing child porn that is pictures of himself and his girlfriend.

As for artistic merit, a somewhat recent case involved the Oscar winning film The Tin Drum in Oklahoma City. Although the film depicts a young child in sexual situations the film itself was found to have artistic merit and thus not covered by pornography laws.

than Americans about nudity.

Daniel Radcliffe is an actor, and he wants to show that he is more than a Harry Potter. I think his butt looks just fine for a 17 year old. Let's not attach our own Puritan sensibilities on the British theatre, since we're the ones hopelessly out of touch.

No, it's not child porn--it's theatre. It's British theatre, and it's honest and forthcoming. Forty years ago, they did "Hair" on Broadway, nudity and all. For once, we were on our way toward a more mature viewpoint. Now, we're back in the dungeon of medieval thinking, with the ghost of the Spanish inquisition hanging over everything and everyone, and keeping us from having a grownup attitude on the human body.

Radcliffe should be congratulated that he doesn't have a problem with exposure--he is showing far more maturity than most people will ever show.

When people can accept both their own nudity and that of others with far less pomp and prudish outlook, we can finally say we've come a long way.

Don't punish the young man for going out on a limb to make that call in his own career.

And read the responses and who those people come from (Oh my giddy donut, it's the USA! :rofl: )

He's the latest actor to make an ass of himself... :-)

Way, wwwaaayyyyy more disturbing than "Oooo, nekkid teenager!"

BIG props to Dan for that - gutsy move, and just might save him from the "child actor" trap.

there seem to be a lot of people around who don't know their theatre.

Equus has been producing controversy since it was written.

:silly:

:spray:

so no legal problem at all as far as I know...

his ass looks like mine. I've got them butt dimples too.

no, not really. Nudity is artistry. Nudity is a part of life. I just hope he trimmed.

Writer the Drifter.

:dilemma:

I hope he TRIMMED the VERGE.