That's a good example of how ambiguous this law could get. Would a website offering pictures of underage models-for-hire (arguably, a product) be legal? No matter what the bill's sponsor might have to say about it now, interpretation would be left up to Ashcroft's Justice Department and, subsequently, the courts. Rick -----Original Message----- From: owner-photoforum@ase-listmail.rit.edu [mailto:owner-photoforum@ase-listmail.rit.edu] On Behalf Of PhotoRoy6@aol.com Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 6:14 PM To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students Subject: Re: Congress to ban photography of minors?! In a message dated 5/13/02 4:18:47 PM EST, rxmoore@centurytel.net writes: > the text of the bill draw a > distinction between child modeling for legitimate purposes and > "exploitative" child modeling not connected with the market of a > product So no picture of children promoting themselves as models. No more Shirley Temple pictures.CP&L (Carolina Power and LIght) ran tv commercials a few years back with a bare butted baby so is this ok under this new legislation? (Bare baby was selling electricity!)
