I haven’t felt right the last couple of days. Something was bugging me emotionally and this morning I realized what it was. I had written a couple of articles mentioning Joel Gilbert’s film Dreams from My Real Father, in relation to its being child pornography. I don’t believe it’s child pornography and I don’t think any of my readers do. I justified that label by exploiting a technicality linking the film, who it alleges the salacious model was, and when the photo shoot occurred to make a technically correct but actually false smear against the film. Smears are morally wrong, and it was my moral compass that was bugging me. My apologies.
I think I’ve been spending too much time reading right-wing extremists and propagandists lately, and some of it has worn off on me. The movie offends me deeply and angers me greatly, but two smears do not make truth.
So anyhow, Joel Gilbert is now on my prayer list.
It may not be pornographic, but it is trash.
Thank you. I have the deepest respect for your spiritual journey.
Your willingness to admit that you were wrong and to pray for Gilbert is going to give you a few extra points with the man up stairs. It is what I would expect from a good Christian and perhaps your prayers will make a difference and Gilbert will see what he did was wrong.
Your comment today demonstrates your integrity. The woman in those photographs shown in the film is not an underage Ann Dunham.
A lying, scum sucking, grifting, perverted verminous Birther like Gilbert every admitting to his foul lies…..yeah like that will happen before the heat death of the universe
Doc,
What you did was point out that according to Gilbert’s own claims and evidence, if this were Ann Dunham it would be ‘child pornography’ according to the law, and more importantly- it is reckless to promote photo’s like these without knowing the age of the models.
I understand your misgivings and applaud you following Christ’s directives to foregive and to love your neighbor, but I still think you were right.
I disagree that this is not willfully distribution of child pornography. Whether an underage model is depicted or not, the producers of this porn claim that it is the image of a then underage model is sexually explicit poses. So, from the producer’s own words, we can assume that he believed that the image was from an underage model.
He can’t legitimately plead that he didn’t know the actual age, because statutes require everyone that produces and distributes prurient material to actually verify that all the personnel photograph be of sufficient age.
So, to sum up, Gilbert claims that he believed that the images were of Anne Dunham, who was underage at the time the photographs were initially published. He failed to verify that she was of age; in fact, there is much data readily available to show that she had not reached the current age of consent of 18 yrs. I have no information of the operative statutes in the late 1950s, but, I daresay, it wasn’t under 18, and might have been 21.
I believe that there is sufficient cause to seek an indictment of J. Gilbert and others for conspiracy to distribute child pornography.
My point of difference is that I do not agree that Gilbert believes the photos are of Anne Dunham. He knows where they came from and when they were taken, and that precludes them from being Dunham. He’s just a liar.
But, he says that the images are, indeed, of Ann Dunham. Saying that he is just a liar is presumptive.
That is only true for photographs taken since 1988. Since these photographs were taken before 1988, Gilbert is not obligated to have proof of the age of the model(s).
The controlling statute is the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988.