Plime/1Outcry over topless shots of model Zippora Seven, 16 : ATOM 0.3www.plime.complime@plime.com2008, www.plime.com.2008-07-24T08:09:34+01:0061419

2008-05-11T20:57:33+01:002008-05-11T20:57:33+01:00

comments (23)   related   share   edit history (0)

< 1 2 >

256375

« pocksucket : If it was me you're addressing, I think you didn't quite catch my point. By the time I started quoting laws, the conversation had ...]]>

2008-05-13T01:34:26+01:002008-05-13T01:34:26+01:00« pocksucket : If it was me you're addressing, I think you didn't quite catch my point. By the time I started quoting laws, the conversation had got slightly off topic (it does sometimes - especially if I'm around) and was about glamour modelling in the UK. The law quoted is a UK law, and as such has no bearing at all on images printed in Australia.

My point, by then, was purely that all models who appear topless in UK tabloid papers, by law, have to be over 18.
Hi. sorry, still learning the ropes here.
I was referring to British law, the Sexual Offences Act of 2003, which redefined "child" for the purposes of the Protection of Children Act 1978 ("the 1978 Act") as a person under 18 years, rather than under 16 years, of age.

As I noted, the law is framed to make illegal INDECENT photographs or pseudo-photographs of children. (Aussie law on the matter is very similar to UK law, which is why i didn't bother addressing the two separately. I illustrated the argument by hypothetically addressing how Russh's photoshoots might be regarded if they were to be subject to a prosecution in the UK.)

As such, my answer was addressed, only en passant, to your statement that under British law all "glamour models" must be 18+. By glamour - i.e. Sun P3 girls - we construe soft-porn images intended for male (primarily!) titillation.

As long as a court, in Oz or in the UK, can be persuaded that an image is not indecent, then no crime can be proved, whether the child is under 18 or under 12. Which is why I mentioned Jock Sturges's photography.

A topless - or fully naked - a photo published in any journal - even the Sun - as part of a review* of a movie, or a book, or an art exhibition, could conceivably be found to be NOT indecent. Context, presentation and intent are all-important.

If the Russh case is taken to court in Oz it will be a test for every magazine, and will be closely watched by UK and Oz publication lawyers alike.

* and yes, I do realise pigs might fly before such a thing as a serious artistic review is published by the Sun. hypotheticals, yes?

Thanks for the welcome, Pocksucket. Lurking? Nope. this was my first meeting with Plime, as a result of following threads about the civil liberties issues implicit in the Russh case. probably will not be my last visit - though hopefully later visits will not be as long-winded :)]]>256246

« ganymede : You are missing the point there.Who is? Can you be a bit more specific. If you're aiming comments at a specific person, i...]]>

2008-05-12T19:27:47+01:002008-05-12T19:27:47+01:00« ganymede : You are missing the point there.Who is? Can you be a bit more specific. If you're aiming comments at a specific person, it's best to use the quote button at the bottom of their comment. That sends them an email alerting them of the reply (hopefully like the one you've just got).

If it was me you're addressing, I think you didn't quite catch my point. By the time I started quoting laws, the conversation had got slightly off topic (it does sometimes - especially if I'm around) and was about glamour modelling in the UK. The law quoted is a UK law, and as such has no bearing at all on images printed in Australia.

My point, by then, was purely that all models who appear topless in UK tabloid papers, by law, have to be over 18.

Oh, and welcome to Plime. Been lurking long?]]>255976

The law as quoted says "indecent photograph", not simply any photograph.
In that context the definition of "indecent" is crucial, has often been addressed by courts and was discussed when that la...]]>

2008-05-12T12:01:13+01:002008-05-12T12:01:13+01:00The law as quoted says "indecent photograph", not simply any photograph.
In that context the definition of "indecent" is crucial, has often been addressed by courts and was discussed when that law was drafted.
I believe Jock Sturges' photos would be considered "decent" and legal. Likewise, most genuine fashion magazine shoots would qualify as decent because they are not pornographic in nature.
But a sleazy "stroke" magazine sold for the express purpose of arousal would be Guilty as charged, M'Lud, if it dared publish photos of a 16-year-old that implied sexual activity (or expressly invited sexual imputation).
The Russh photoshoot of ZipSeven with a horse should pose no problems. The prosecution would have little problem, however, arguing that the second Russh shoot, of ZipSeven naked in a bath with an apparently passed out // drunk 16-year-old boy model, should be construed as implying post-coital stupor. And that crosses the line BigTime. Hell, you'd be hard-pressed to find a potentially saleable "fashion" item in that pic - other than ZipSeven herself.
[and the guy's not asian - that's Levi Clarke, a Kiwi model with part Samoan bloodlines.]]]>255929

« zzz : I've seen 16 year olds (their age was clearly stated as 16) topless in British tabloids.

This was less than 10 years a...]]>

2008-05-12T10:47:22+01:002008-05-12T10:47:22+01:00« zzz : I've seen 16 year olds (their age was clearly stated as 16) topless in British tabloids.

This was less than 10 years ago.Well I'd not take anything clearly stated in The Sun as fact just as a matter of course, but this is covered in the UK by the Protection Of Children Act of 1978.

It states:

(1) Subject to sections 1A and 1B it is an offence for a person

(a) to take, or permit to be taken or to make, any indecent photograph or
pseudo-photograph of a child or
(b) to distribute or show such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs or
(c) to have in his possession such indecent photographs or
pseudo-photographs, with a view to their being distributed or shown by
himself or others or
(d) to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be
understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such
indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, or intends to do so.

And for a definition of "child" in relation to indecent photographs it says:

s7(6):

(6) "Child", subject to subsection (8), means a person under the age of 18.

Maximum penalty for infringement is 10 years.

So while I'm not going to state as an absolute fact that you didn't see a piece of copy in The Sun stating that the model was 16, you can be sure that she was really at least 18 and just pretending.]]>255847

« pocksucket : 18

All glamour models in the UK have to be over 18 to pose topless.I've seen 16 year olds (their age ...]]>

2008-05-12T08:07:14+01:002008-05-12T08:07:14+01:00« pocksucket : 18

All glamour models in the UK have to be over 18 to pose topless.I've seen 16 year olds (their age was clearly stated as 16) topless in British tabloids.

This was less than 10 years ago.]]>255827

« Ravus : this is true. you can have sex at 16 but if take pictures of it and zpread them you go to jail!1There are many such...]]>

2008-05-12T06:26:54+01:002008-05-12T06:26:54+01:00« Ravus : this is true. you can have sex at 16 but if take pictures of it and zpread them you go to jail!1There are many such incongruities of age. Another example is that at 16 you can join the army and go to war but you can't vote to elect the politicians who make the decisions on whether to go to war or not.

Although that is ever so slightly off the subject of topless 16 year old Australians.]]>255825

« pocksucket : 18

All glamour models in the UK have to be over 18 to pose topless.this is true. you can have sex at 16 but if ...]]>

2008-05-12T06:20:49+01:002008-05-12T06:20:49+01:00« pocksucket : 18

All glamour models in the UK have to be over 18 to pose topless.this is true. you can have sex at 16 but if take pictures of it and zpread them you go to jail!1]]>255823

« zzz : In Britain and other parts of Europe it's perfectly normal to see 16 year old girls topless. You can see them in the newspaper ...]]>

2008-05-12T06:10:28+01:002008-05-12T06:10:28+01:00« zzz : In Britain and other parts of Europe it's perfectly normal to see 16 year old girls topless. You can see them in the newspaper if you read the British tabloids.18

All glamour models in the UK have to be over 18 to pose topless.]]>255819

2008-05-12T05:22:23+01:002008-05-12T05:22:23+01:00255805

« chinook:I'm more concerned that fashion is telling me that we need to have the bodies of 16yos to be attractive.Consider the clothing...]]>

2008-05-12T03:36:57+01:002008-05-12T03:36:57+01:00« chinook:I'm more concerned that fashion is telling me that we need to have the bodies of 16yos to be attractive.Consider the clothing, the brands and styles usually do not come in larger sizes.

The unrealistic standards set by models and advertising is almost a myth. There will always be a group of men for every size, shape, and style group of women.

What happens is, preteen girls think this is how they need to look to attract adult men. Which no one tells them they should not be trying to do. Hence the term JAILBAIT.]]>255786

« chinook : I'm more concerned that fashion is telling me that we need to have the bodies of 16yos to be attractive.

I don't think these...]]>

2008-05-12T01:56:04+01:002008-05-12T01:56:04+01:00« chinook : I'm more concerned that fashion is telling me that we need to have the bodies of 16yos to be attractive.

I don't think these pics are that big a deal otherwise, though. I did my share of running around topless when I was 16, though it was never on camera.I didn't consider that, you bring up a pretty valid point.]]>255777

I don't think these pics are that big a deal otherwise, though. I did my share of running around topless when I was 16, though it was never o...]]>

2008-05-12T00:59:13+01:002008-05-12T00:59:13+01:00
I don't think these pics are that big a deal otherwise, though. I did my share of running around topless when I was 16, though it was never on camera.]]>255774

Edit f**k I noticed that with tits in the same picture f**k Edit]]>

2008-05-12T00:45:10+01:002008-05-12T00:45:10+01:00Edit f**k I noticed that with tits in the same picture f**k Edit]]>255740

« glik : « glik : There they're.thats IT? that caused outcry? sigh. people are retarded.

shes cute though. probebly staged the whole outcry thing to boost her career.]]>255735

2008-05-11T23:20:20+01:002008-05-11T23:20:20+01:00Here is a gallery of her, some NSFW because she is topless in a few:

http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/models/Zippora_Seven/photos/

I understand that laws are there to protect the child, but a childmodel is still a model. If this was some girl they found wandering the streets there would be no question about the immorality.

I really have no idea how stuff like this goes in Australia. And the fact that it's for a magazine makes it a bit less "artsy" so there goes the Jock Sturges defense. But I swear, child is such a bs term when talking about 16-17 year olds. If this article was about a 16 year old that killed her whole family, there would be an outcry to have her treated as an adult.

F'ing double standards.

The one good thing is that this publicity is going to boost her career.]]>255728

2008-05-11T23:10:48+01:002008-05-11T23:10:48+01:00255721

« Ravus : I don't feel suitably in command of all the facts enough to judge this without viewing the images in question and i feel the liberal med...]]>

2008-05-11T23:04:31+01:002008-05-11T23:04:31+01:00« Ravus : I don't feel suitably in command of all the facts enough to judge this without viewing the images in question and i feel the liberal media isn't doing it's job properly by not including them in the news story.
There they're.]]>255712

2008-05-11T22:51:06+01:002008-05-11T22:51:06+01:00255693

2008-05-11T22:12:05+01:002008-05-11T22:12:05+01:00255691

« Bornbad : Please, from down under.If you show me yours first.]]>

2008-05-11T22:08:59+01:002008-05-11T22:08:59+01:00« Bornbad : Please, from down under.If you show me yours first.]]>255689

« AutumnLotus : My pictures?Please, from down under.]]>

2008-05-11T22:04:53+01:002008-05-11T22:04:53+01:00« AutumnLotus : My pictures?Please, from down under.]]>255686

« Bornbad : Autumn, you never have pictures.My pictures?]]>

2008-05-11T22:02:11+01:002008-05-11T22:02:11+01:00« Bornbad : Autumn, you never have pictures.My pictures?]]>255681

Shot in March, one of the images depicts the pair sharing a bubble bath nude with Seven topless and Clarke's eyes closed as if he is passed out.Autumn, you never have pictures.]]>

2008-05-11T21:55:54+01:002008-05-11T21:55:54+01:00Shot in March, one of the images depicts the pair sharing a bubble bath nude with Seven topless and Clarke's eyes closed as if he is passed out.Autumn, you never have pictures.]]>