Talk:Lee Warner

From Spanking_Art
Jump to: navigation, search

There's a new handprints site...hosted on a completely different server that holds all the old galleries. I recommend you post the new links post haste as the geocities and dawnoffreedom pages do not work. To find these pages, search for handprints on the wiki, click the link that directs you to the news section and search the galleries for the new lee warner pages —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.104.226.233 (talkcontribs) 15:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Spankart 18:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Lee Warner's work illegal to view in Canada? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.49.41.71 (talkcontribs) 20:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. Might be illegal to save to your computer. Laws are different and there are no Canucks here to clarify. RobM 23:13, 16 September 2009 (BST)
Canada- Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code
(1) In this section, "child pornography" means
  • (a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
    • (i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or
    • (ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years; or
  • (b) any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offense under this Act. --Roguebfl (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2009 (BST)
If it is illegal to save the picture on your computer, it should also be illegal to watch them, since they are at first saved on your computer, in a more or less hidden file and then are shown to you on the screen. If this is true, it should be illegal to watch them on a computer.
On the other hand I can't understand out of the wording of Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code, that Lee Warner pictures should be illegal. He just "draws" new pictures out of existing ones and changes the spankees looking to a more childish. By his own admission he never has used the picture of a person under the age of 18 to create his drawings. I'm far away from being an expert but do you really see Lee's pictures as photos of minors? As for iib): Lee's kind of spanking presentation isn't sexual but disciplining nature. So at least this part shouldn't be a problem. Volventos 11 October 2009
I agree. My 2 cents would be that neither (ai) nor (aii) is fulfilled: the pictures show spanking and no sexual activity whatsoever, and certainly no sexual organs are depicted for a sexual purpose. (b) is not fulfilled either: no sexual activity is advocated or counseled. Lee's artwork shows disciplinary spanking and nothing sexual and is far from anthing I read in Section 163.1. But as always, only a judge can make a judgement in a legal sense. The only country I know of in which a judge has ever considered spanking art illegal is Sweden. It would be interesting to learn more about that case and the wording of the relevant paragraphs in the Swedish Criminal Code. --Spankart (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2009 (BST)
The danger is aii), that it for sexual purpose and depicts the anal region. Not that image depicts sexuality but exists for the sexual purpose. —Roguebfl (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2009 (BST)
Who says that the depiction exists for a sexual purpose? You can't base such an assumption on the subject matter -- nudity alone does not mean the picture has anything to do with sexuality, nor does corporal punishment alone, nor does the combination of corporal punishment and nudity (because that's perfectly normal for cp, particularly in history but also to the present day). And I also think a judge can make no assumptions about any ulterior sexual motive of the artist, publisher, host, or of the audience, unless they give him grounds to base such an assumption on. As I see it, this could be the case if a spanking image was embedded in a clearly sexual context. Lee Warner's images have no textual context and are hosted on Handprints, which is by its own declaration not an adult site. YMMV but that's how Handprince and I see it, and that view is the very fundament of why we feel the material on Handprints should be perfectly legal in any country worldwide.
Anyway, the Canadian Code says nothing about photorealism, so when it comes to Section 163.1, Lee's images shouldn't be judged any different from less realistic depictions of child spanking. There are other artists whose art would give me more concern, because of sexual elements such as erections. But Lee's art has none of that, it shows discipline and nothing else. --Spankart (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2009 (BST)


Before this discussion goes any further...

A Reality Check, You are not lawyers nor are any of you trained in interpretation of the Law nor do you even appear to understand the very meanings of the words you are using. Even the very words of the law are phrased using law-dictionaries with very specific meanings which are not the same as in the vulgur English language.
You are also only quoting a single paragraph of what probably constitutes about 120 years of modern law. That paragraph is not all of the relevant law, its not even half of the relavant law. The relevant law probably goes into pages.

Point 1 Lee's work is psudophotos of a child. It depicts sexual acts. As far as I'm concerned - and as far as I'd imagine 99% of the earths population is concerned - that is an iron-clad fact and you are in total denial if you think otherwise.

Point 2 Lee's pics are illegal. They are illegal in the UK and from what I read of the tiny except above its illegal in Canada too. These are depictions created by electonric means. Fact. These are sexual images. Fact.

Point 3 It's illegal to have photographs of real-life disciplined children on your PC in... well, everywhere I'd assume and as it stands, its equaually illegal to have psudeophotos in the UK, Canada and a few others.

If you want to argue that because its discipline and not sexual its a lawful photo in front of a judge then your welcome to, but consult a real lawyer first and he'll tell you flatly your interpretation of the law is wrong. Besides, we're fetishists with zero legitimate defense against 'But its not sexual' and it causes me phyiscal pain every time I read people write that shit. I call BULLSHIT when fetishists claim its not sexual or when they claim that works are innocent that so obviously are sexual.
At the very least, it IS sexual if the Law says it is. And the Law DOES say it is. Those people not on planet pluto will know deep in their hearts that Lee draws sexual images. Regards of what you claim. Fuck me, how many pedophiles have gone to jail claiming that there's was a consensual relationship with an 8 year old boy. You Cannot use excuses with the law or claim things are exceptions. No-such exceptions exist within the Law and you are fooling yourself if you think such petty distinctions are a legitimate defence. Laws and their definitions are not there to make laws apply to specific circumstances, Law definitions are created to close loopholes like the ones you are describing.
If you want to know for certain, go consult a lawyer. But you all know in your hearts that Lee's work is porn and that it was created for sexual arousal. It BLATANTLY was. Consider the source... he's digitally morphed screenshots from ADULT FUCKING MOVIES to look like children. You must be high on crystal-meth to argue that its legitimate.
RobM 13:58, 12 October 2009 (BST)
I beg to disagree on nearly all your points, Rob. If you really feel like this then I wonder what you are doing here on this wiki. I'd like to advise you to take a reality check yourself, look at the thousands of depictions of child spanking in mainstream media which are perfectly legal -- in mainstream movies, in book illustrations, in advertisements, in comics, in fine art. The list goes on and on. But at this point what you have written comes so close to pure trolling that I won't bother to reply more here. I have work to do. EOT as far as I am concerned. --Spankart (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2009 (BST)
If you don't even know about legal exemptions for movies, you're making my point for me. Its your problem if your head is in the sand - but the reality is there for everyone. If you want me to clarify the finest points of the Law regarding this I can do it to the best of my ability but you are hopelessly wrong if you think you have any legitimate reason for possessing actual photos of children being disciplined. You don't. The law is black-and-white in every country in the western world that these pictures are illegal and its equally clear in most of Europe, Australia (Where a man was recently prosecuted for having a copy of Palcomix Simpsons comic), Canada and the US that a psuedophoto is 100% as real as a real photo. You should also note that the purpose of the creation of the item is irrelevent as far as the law is concerned, only the use to which the defendant was putting it. A kitchen-knife is there to cut meat, carrying it on the street makes it a deadly weapon. Owning or distributing a real photo of a real child being disciplined is a serious crime and the same is true of pseudophotos. The same is also true of placing pictures from advertising on this wiki - thats why all real pictures have been removed (Or they're supposed to have been).
As to what I'm doing on this wiki, I enjoy posting here, even if I sometimes feel the direction of the wiki is distastful its academic qualities and its content on 99% of subjects is outstanding. If nothing else I'm the only Sysops here who actually understands the Boyscouts problem and I fear in future should anything appear like it I might be the only Sysops who actually can help prevent the scandal.
I should note also, that the choice of having this discussion on Lee Warners page caused the problem. Lee Warners work is the very Law-dictionary definition of a psudeophoto. If this discussion was being had on almost any other artist or picture the law would not apply because its not a real picture. The Law does apply here because it IS a psuedophoto. This makes Lee's work real photo's and the application of the Law is the same. It is lot legel to own pictures of children in pain, faces contorted with agony, being whipped with electrical cord or stripped nude and humiliated under any juristiction in the world. Should this arguement be applied to almsot any other artist than Lee on this site the Law would not apply.RobM 12:39, 13 October 2009 (BST)
Personal tools