data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5978e/5978e8203440481250d7809668b0a8e1122b3a0c" alt=">"
LDS_Forever let me put this a different way what if they are doing an editorial on naturist lifestyles where clothing is very optional. Now picture a female 5 and 13 year old playing volley ball with their parents and 15 year old brother. There is no difference between them and your natives. Can we now broad cast this live with out feeling any censorship is required?
Since it is not taken as erotica, the you must be 18 rule now does not apply and I can post this in a web site and let the whole world see our nice holiday place. I might be wrong in this point but I do not think so. You might have to be 18 to view it though. Where do you see the line being drawn if not at nudity period, regardless of intent.
QUOTE (krakyn @ 15-Oct 07, 1:13 PM) |
LDS_Forever let me put this a different way what if they are doing an editorial on naturist lifestyles where clothing is very optional. Now picture a female 5 and 13 year old playing volley ball with their parents and 15 year old brother. There is no difference between them and your natives. |
Actually no I do not agree nudism is a fashion statement at all. Nudism or a naturalist is a way of life and they like your natives see no issue in having their bodies bared. A breast or a whole frontal both by Christian values are considered nudity in public. The issue is not wether or not the subject is ok with their nudity it is wether or not it should be acceptable viewing material. between in Canada a breast is not considered nudity and is acceptable to walk topless if one so desires.
SO this mean as far as Canadian law goes there is no issue in showing all but the most private parts in a non sexually setting. To think we are called uptight.
Edited: krakyn on 15th Oct, 2007 - 8:34pm