[HPFGU-OTChatter] Dan on Broadway (maybe)

[Shaun Hately]

On 20 Feb 2007 at 11:53, Jeremiah LaFleur wrote:

> Jeremiah:
> 
> Now, wait asecond...
> 
> If Daniel Radcliff is 17 he cannot perform in the United States. He
> is
> underage and the play would, therefore, be concidered to be
> kiddie-porn.
> It's a technicality but definitely illegal.

People really should investigate the laws before they make statements like this.

A mere depiction of appearance of a naked child is *not* legally child pornography. 
Photographs of naked children (people under 18), appearances by naked children in films 
and in plays generally speaking are not child pornography.

I appeared naked in a film myself when I was 15, so perhaps I'm a bit more aware of this 
than most people. But child nudity is not equivalent to child pornography in most jurisdictions.

There needs to be more than just nudity involved for that to be the case.

Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia