+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 02/23/2018 01:27 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  10.176 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
09/26/2007 12:58 PM ID: 65179 Permalink   

Sir Elton in Child “Porn” Photo Investigation


A photograph seized by British police and currently at the centre of a child pornography investigation belongs to Sir Elton John according to the singer’s website

The photograph titled "Klara and Edda belly-dancing" by Nan Goldin, who is famed for her shots of young semi-clothed girls, was taken by police prior to the opening of an exhibition at Gateshead's Baltic Centre on 20 September.

A statement on Elton’s website says: "Elton John is known as one of the world's foremost collectors of photographic art and has several thousand photographs in his collection”.

    WebReporter: Hugo Chavez Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  I have a feeling that Sir Elton  
isn't interested in naked little girls.
  by: walter3ca   09/26/2007 01:34 PM     
He seems more like a naked little boy kinda guy. ;p
  by: splicer   09/26/2007 06:40 PM     
  by: keanu1982     09/26/2007 11:28 PM     
I've always thought elton was off. He is more then gay, definitely. I wouldnt be surprised to find out he's a pedophile. He gives gays a bad name.
  by: chimmy420   09/27/2007 01:39 AM     
This is a piece of art which he supplied to a gallery for public display.
Is that really what you think a pedo would do? Sounds to me more like something an art collector might do.

In what way does this man give "gays a bad name"?
  by: Convivial   09/27/2007 07:01 AM     
  I never really understood why...  
...taking pictures of naked people is called art. But i can understand that not every picture of someone naked is pornography either.

Couldn't really say where this one lies without actually seeing the picture, and there-in lays the catch 22, to be able to judge it you must first observe it but how can you observe it if its illegal?
  by: sparky_fox   09/27/2007 11:42 AM     
  good lord  
This is silly. Whether I think a piece is art or you think it is not, it is in fact art by the definition.

I would have to see the picture before passing judgement definitively, but I think this is a witch hunt.

As far as "giving gays a bad name" - please... ...being gay has nothing to do with it. There are straight freaks and there are gay freaks. He is a freak despite being gay.
  by: Twisted_Mister   09/27/2007 02:20 PM     
  Where is the outrage?  
For this openly gay sexual deviant that has sexualized pictures of underage girls. What a double standard. He should be in prison for the rest of his life and be on sex offenders lists just like any normal individual would. Just because he likes to take it from other men and a public figure doesn't make him immune to the oppressive laws of society. If he can have these photos, everyone else should be allowed to have them also.
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     09/27/2007 10:43 PM     
the photo isn't rally art (but then art is in the eye of the beholder I guess).

To me it looks like a candid of two very young girls goofing off, one of them in the buff. It's the sort of harmless candid that grace family photo albums everywhere. The type that make for excellent fodder for embarrassing your brother/sister at a later date once they are old enough that they've become embarrassed about nudity.

All that said, it isn't a piece that should be in a public exhibit. It's a private shot of private life chronicling a funny and innocent event and should remain, well, private.

On the other hand, if it was a planned shot (and perhaps it was since it was taken by a professional “artist”) then the pic raises a warning flag in my mind. In-and-of itself not enough to haul the guy in, but enough that I’d have local authorities keep a closer eye on him.
  by: Dedolito     09/27/2007 11:08 PM     
I agree with most of what you said with the following exceptions:

1) A professional "artist" doesn't necessarily mean a staged/posed photo. On the contrary, I know many people who considered themselves "artists" who absolutely hate staged photos and only consider pictures of real life in action "art". To me it looks, as you said, like two girls goofing around and had their picture taken. For whatever reason, the "artist" thought it was such a good shot, it belonged in a collection.

2) All-in-all, I'd say this says more about Nan Goldin (the artist) than Elton John. After all, it was one picture in a collection of over 100 other pictures. At least without seeing the other pictures in the collection, I think it's a bit early to say Elton John needs to be marked as a potential pedophile.
  by: opinionated   09/30/2007 08:06 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: