"Attack the pedophile, not the photographer"
I feel that this phrase was the final straw on being able to convince me to not censor the photographs. I have had previous experience with child pornography and how human trafficking continues to thrive because of it. Most legislation across the world targets the criminals who draft the victims, I feel if they persecuted the consumer more there would be less of a demand. Those who wish to censor the image because of the nudity do not seem to find the innocence of nudity. For all those images families do with their baby naked in the first months of their lives. The children do not process nudity as a "bad" thing because the world has not corrupted their views of the world. For children, nudity is their natural state and since they're learning the social constructs of society still they will run around naked. For Sally Mann's children who had more space in comparison to those who live in the city, it was very natural for her kids to be naked without having to worry about who views them. Why should art cater to the needs of pedophiles, why are we persecuting the people who interpreting a child's natural state as innocence? Something that also convinced me was how Sally Mann was very transparent with her children explained to them what would be happening with their photos. Her children could have decided not to have their photos published and they felt comfortable in their own bodies, because again as children they have not been corrupted by society's double standard morales Child pornography does not happen with the child's consent, therefore how can we compare both?