Does anyone else consider that picture on the back of section A1 today to be close to child porn? TOTALLY DISGUSTING.
No, I’m not going to post it. You’ll know it when you see it, and probably can’t stand to look.
For those of us who wouldn’t touch Apple Daily with a 10-foot pole, much less look at something that could be potential child porn, could you at least describe, in a factual, non-disgusting manner, what it depicts?
Should we all go out and buy a copy?
What the hell are you talking about? Are you trying to persuade me to buy a copy? Are you working for their marketing section?
A naked girl posed sexy that looks to be about 10 years old. Sensitive parts blurred out a bit but still sad.
NO don’t go buy a copy!
That’s that infamous picture of Brooke Shields at the age of ten. 
The picture was apparently on display somewhere and to be removed.
very big art argument
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/sep/30/brooke-shields-naked-tate-modern
comments summarised below, interesting debate, not seen the entire piece, but it is supposed to be disturbing and there is always the argument “the emotions stirred up by artwork are those lying deep within the viewer and not intrinsic to the art, so these people do not like what they see and express this confusion in rage.”
Brooke shields asked for the negatives, but lost because her mum commissioned the picture so it is her property
- one side of liberals saying the picture portrays the simulataneous represtnation of a boy/girl and adult/child
Was headlined to be displayed in the Tate Modern (I think) London where it would have been part of a collection of semi-porn and thats actually the real reason it was withdrawn from by the “porn police” of the UK