Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

is Fox News linked to producers of child pornography ?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Swagman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 12:48 PM
Original message
is Fox News linked to producers of child pornography ?
Edited on Wed Jun-03-09 01:02 PM by Swagman
researching an article on the British media I stumbled across some startling facts about a English model called Samantha Fox.

from Wikpedia :
Samantha Karen "Sam" Fox (born 15 April 1966 in Mile End, London)

"Fox had her pictures published, and was soon after invited for a test shoot for The Sun newspaper's Page Three feature. Her parents gave their consent for their daughter to pose topless, and on Tuesday, 22 February 1983, Fox's first Page Three photograph was published under the headline "Sam, 16, Quits A-Levels for Ooh-Levels."

Anyone familiar with The Sun newspaper (owner Rupert Murdoch) will know the Page 3 girls were provocatively and deliberately sexually posed to "titilate" readers. Although the conservative Murdoch was furious at first-when sales of The Sun soared the Page 3 girl became a permanent feature..many were 16, a few were 15..always topless.

further from Wikpedia :
"Controversy over these young models ended when the Sexual Offences Act 2003 raised the minimum age for topless modelling to 18."

Young American teens under the age of 18 today are being arrested for "sexting" each other topless photos of themselves, with threats of prosecution for producing child pornography and the further threat of a lifetime's registration as a 'sex offender'

The Sun was Murdoch's first foray into British publishing and from there he launched his bids into the USA and elsewhere to build a world-wide media empire.

A conundrum arises:
would a person be arrested today and charged with possession of child pornography if they had sexually provocative photographs of nude teens under aged 18 despite them being produced before 2003 ?. I believe they would be.

On laws that exist today-Rupert Murdoch ruled over an empire that profited on the production and distribution of child pornography in the UK. He is an American citizen. A US citizen can be arrested if they are involved in sex based crimes abroad. Although laws generally preclude a person being charged with something that was not a crime before a law is enacted to make it a crime...most sexual abuse laws appear to have no time limit on them no matter when they were enacted.

Where is a Yale Law Professor when you need one ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
brendan120678 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. Why did you choose to single out Fox News?
I realize that they are repugnant, but News Corp has over 100 subsidiaries.

You could have titled your post, "is HarperCollins linked to producers of child pornography?"
"is the New York Post linked to producers of child pornography?"
"is the Wall Street Journal linked to producers of child pornography?"
"is MySpace linked to producers of child pornography?"
"is Photobucket linked to producers of child pornography?"
"are the Colorado Rockies linked to producers of child pornography?"
"is BlueSky Studios linked to producers of child pornography?"
"is the National Geographic Channel linked to producers of child pornography?"

And no, I don't think that he can be held accountable today for the publishing of those photos in the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rcrush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I would say yes to Myspace, Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.
Oh and Photobucket to. Ok and Natgeo to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shagbark Hickory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. This is precisely the kind of thing I would expect *from* focks newz
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
4. That's kind of a stretch. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
5. I believe 16 is legal in the UK unlike the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Many states in the US have 16 as the age of consent.
The kids are still minors, but may consent to sexual activity. It was done to decriminalize what is commonplace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Age of consent isn't relative to obscenity law
It's the Age of Majority that matters - the age one is old enough to sign legally binding contracts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-04-09 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. This is wat I was referring to in the UK, unless it's changed in the last few years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swagman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. 16 is the legal Age of Consent but most certainly nude photography
is classed as child pornography if the person is under age 18.

There is a defence if it is of "artistic merit" in a non-sexualised way but Page 3 was the complete opposite-it was ALL about sellling sex.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
7. In the US, the work had to be produced after 1990
Don't know about England. I'm pretty sure if they had a valid obscenity case again Rupert, they would have filed it already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swagman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. thank you for clarifying a legal point and yes, a case would have
been mounted. Doesn't absolve Murdoch's newspapers of past immorality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jazzjunkysue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 07:21 PM
Response to Original message
11. I certainly hope so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dreamer Tatum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-04-09 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. So child porn is OK so long as you hate its producers?
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jazzjunkysue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Pick a fight with someone who's interested
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 22nd 2014, 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC