Talk:Elizabeth Ann Roberts

Legal age
Perhaps someone with better knowledge of the facts can add something regarding what the legal age for posing nude was back in 1958. I'm under the impression that the 18th birthday threshold wasn't actually legislated until the 1960s (and, in places like the UK, wasn't put into law until only a couple of years ago, before which it was common to see 16-17 year olds posing nude). So while I'm not disputing that Hefner might have been charged (there should be a source cited for this, incidentally), but was he in fact breaking any sort of child porn laws back in 1958? The fact Roberts' photos are still widely available -- even via Playboy itself -- unlike, say, photos of Traci Lords at the same age, leads me to think some sort of grandfather clause might exist regarding those images as well as those of other early Playmates who were allegedly 17 when they posed... 23skidoo 15:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Traci Lords is a different case altogether because she did lewd & lascivious nudity and unsimulated sex, which is the legal definition for child pornography(CP). Elizabeth Ann Roberts' appearance in Playboy is not legally CP because it was unexplicit nudity. Also, Playboy's photopraghy which is still non-explicit, was even moreso back in the 1950's. I haven't seen the photos of Ms. Roberts in Playboy, but I believe that Playboy didn't start showing full-frontal nudity until sometime in the 1960's.  Nude photos of minors are not illegal unless there is lewd & lascivious display of the genitals or sexual activity. Hope this helped clear some things up for you. Aoa8212 08:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that doesn't seem consistent with what we frequently hear today about people being charged for posting non-explicit images of teens to the Internet. There was even a criminal case against a guy who posted -- in all innocence -- family pics of his kids in the bathtub and got in trouble. And the way you descibe it, Playboy could tomorrow run a 16-year old centerfold just as long as certain things weren't seen, and I can't see how they would be legally allowed to do that. In the UK they stopped UK newspapers from publishing pre-18 page 3 girls, and they have never had full nudity in those cases. 23skidoo 17:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, as a US resident my knowledge of the law consists mainly of US law, even though I do try to keep abreast of foreign law as well. Generally, the UK has stricter laws for both adult and child pornography than the US and other Western countries. Also, certain jurisdictions may interpret the same law differently than another jurisdiction. Child pornography by definition is lewd & lascivious display of the genitals and/or sexual activity, however there are grey areas where certain images of minors may be seen as child erotica but they do not neccesarily meet the criteria to be classified as CP.

Prosecutors may be given the discretion to go after the producers of such material, if the community is supportive of such measures. But, it is not automatically considered to be CP. To give you an example, a picture of a preteen girl fellating an adult male posted on the internet can be immediately removed by authorities and the person who posted it, as well as the people who downloaded it can be prosecuted. But, a picture of the same girl posing in her underwear or nude is not automatically illegal. The FBI often participates in news stories about child modeling sites that appear to be clearly aimed at arousing the viewer, but because the sites don't cross the legal line into CP, the FBI can't do anything about it. There have been a few cases where prosecutors have used their discretion to go after the producers of child model websites, but they are not automatically classified as CP. Aoa8212 19:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)