Opinions are like A-holes. Everyone's got one.
there is no point dragging in the legal issue here; if you want to make a case, i think personally and in all fairness, only something can be made out of the moral perspective.
and since everyone has differing standards of morality, you are never going to be able to generate a fruitful discussion. my advice is to leave it.
Last edited by night86mare; 24th November 2008 at 06:56 PM.
i'm in the land of the paedophile-haters, tell me about it.
there is a fine balance between being vigilant and yes, jumping at shadows, and believe me, here they have crossed it way long ago. i usually make sure my camera is turned down when i see a kid approaching; after a few bad experiences i don't need to go through that anymore.
Okay lets get one thing straight first before we continue.
Are you against underaged modelling of ANY kind, or only those involving underaged nude modelling (ie so long as non-nude, its okay)? There's so many emotive points you made but I can't tell what your stand is.
Second, for the portions in red, that is not what I"m saying. I'm saying that if you are saying something is illegal, you need to have the law saying so. Emotive moral stands are not sufficient for a conviction.
For example, some may feel morally its not right to take a photograph of someone on the MRT and then post it up. However, legally, there is nothing wrong with it and the subject can't do squat.
Finally, by selectively quoting, I take it that you concede to the remaining points and have no rejoinder on those issues.
Last edited by TheQuestion; 24th November 2008 at 07:25 PM.
Opinions are like A-holes. Everyone's got one.
Eh, lets not go into politics here because thats the surest way to get this thread shut down. The GN case is clearly politically involved - you need to read up on the history and sequence of events ending in his arrest before you understand the full picture - and I'm talking about years of history..
Since you now are leaving the moral stand out of it, lets go on to the legal can we? Do provide legal authorities for your position that there is an issue with "underaged" modelling.
then again, there is the issue of maturity being nothing to do with age, but at least under legal boundaries, a non-underage model has to take responsibility for her own actions.
I on the other hand believe age does matter and that if situations or rather accusations of the type TNP leveled are to be prevented then the photographer has to ensure that he is nothing but professional.
The only reason why I said MRs should not be in this discussion is because age has no bearing on whether an MR is required or not.
As stated previously, even in US, age has no bearing on the laws governing MRs.
Your main point here is about age, so lets stick to it. You said that age does matter. Please let us know the legal basis for saying so.
If it is your pure moralistic stand, then clarify so that it is your pure ideal for underaged models not to engage in modelling and this does not mean that it is illegal or otherwise legally objectionable for such activities.
So far all I hear are moralistic views, not legal ones.
1.) nude and semi nude photograph are allowed in Singapore, but with a legal age,
2.) In the statutes, chapter 38, Part 1, 2. "child" means a person who is below the age of 14 years; "young person" means a person who is 14 years of age or above and below the age of 16 years.
7. Any person who, in public or private —
(a) commits or abets the commission of or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any person of any obscene or indecent act with any child or young person; or
(b) procures or attempts to procure the commission of any obscene or indecent act by any child or young person, shall be guilty of an offense and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years or to both.
So what constitute of obscene, under chapter 338
Meaning of obscene
3. For the purposes of this Act, a publication is obscene if its effect or (where the publication comprises 2 or more distinct parts or items) the effect of any one of its parts or items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.
But you discounted that quote in the previous thread saying that you can't use one part of the statutes as a definition in another part of the Act. But in fact you can...that's how the law works.
So basically while I take the long view and look at 21 and the legal entry age of contract as my safe measure, you could call me a little paranoid in that regard. The law is very clear in that anything that may be regarded as obscene and involve anyone under the age of 16 is illegal. This Act would apply to the photographer and the shoot organiser.