If having & displaying a nude picture of a minor is illegal, then a lot of children's mothers are guilty of a crime. Even Leave it To Beaver's mom June, had a nude picture of Beaver in his birthday suit in her photo album, while he was still legally what is termed as a minor..I'm fairly certain that jpeg images similar to the one Beeve's mom had, with the exception of being in color, are flying through cyberspace right now via email, from proud mothers to grandparents, aunts, etc....nude photo, painting, or picture is a fairly broad term....I would hope that the laws clearly define what is considered pornography, or inappropriate to the point of being illegal, although admittedly, have never had a reason to investigate.

to what the laws are, but could someone refresh me. Is it okay for the display of nude images of minors?

I think the artwork is great, but with all of our laws regarding child pornography and the like I wouldn't think it would acceptable to show this image.

Would people who have nude photos or paintings of other minors be exempt from these laws if it's art?

I seem to remember something about New England and Puritans...heard of stones and glass houses, marks57720?

I am thankful for Mr Bradley who stood up for what is right. People in Mr Bradley's position don't make stupid mistakes. I'm sure he had rules or laws that helped him make this call, and I hope moral standings too. I'm sure these girls are very talented, because they would not have gotten so far in a contest if they were not. The fact that they would want to put a nude portait of them selves out on display is a sign of the times and could even be very dangerous for them in todays times. You people that say things like, "if you don't like it don't look, or nothing is wrong with nudes and minors putting art of nudes of other minors out for display, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING? Don't we have a responsability to protect children that can't protect themselves. It doesn't take even a high school grad. to realize that when you put nudes of minor out there you are feeding perverts that go after our children. That is your and my resposibility to do everything we can to try and keep them safe. Yes our children can turn on the tv, or go on line and see smut. Does that make it ok to put it out there and call it art. Why don't we use our energy to do something about getting the smut off the

It is good to see the vote going 2 to 1 in favor of NOT banning nudity in the student gallery art show. It should be noted that this is in spite of a poorly worded question if the intention was to get a reading as to the current fiasco regarding the 08 version of the show. Referring to nudity, without specifying what that means, can lead to entirely different answers. I have been very outspoken in support of the young lady was WON this year, and because of the breach of contract on the part of the VP, was denied her honor because of a change in the rules AFTER the judging had been completed. I would object to "nudity" in this show, if we were talking about centerfold type crotch shots...which is what many people think of when they are ask a question of this nature. Needless to say, this years true winner is nothing of the sort, as there is nothing showing that can not be shown in public on any beach in the Hampton Roads area. The wording skews the vote against "nudity" and yet, 2 to 1 in favor. . .. this is good.

WOW - 64% NO vote. Maybe Norfolk, the city where I was raised, has finally outgrown its obsessive prudery of six decades ago!

Would Michaelangelo's statue of David have been banned from the exhibit?

If nudity is considered to be vulgar and inappropriate, does that God's creation, i.e., the human body, is vulgar?

Has Pat Robertson purchased the Virginian-Pilot in secrecy?

Why does the publisher of the Pilot feel that it is his job to be the censor to tidewater? I have seen statures and pictures of nude females, and males all my life, and didn't think anything of them. Most children see there parents and brothers and sisters nude and don't think anything of it.
In some areas of the world there are public bathhouses, and that is normal. So why is it so wrong for a student to draw a picture, and be judged a good artist, by people who know, and then have that taken away by people who don’t know.
It is people like Mr. Bradley who like to find fault with what the majority find normal, and tell us how offended we should be, just because he has some hang-ups of his own.
Let the kids be kids, and don't tell them that the pictures and other objects that are in most museums of the world are unfit to be seen.

The Chrysler Museum is free to all students everyday it is open - for non students the Museum is free on Wednesdays and is open until 9 PM.
Also Wednesdays, For the adult there is a wine and cheese bar in addition to the free musical performances occurring for all to enjoy in Huber Court. The Student Gallery Finalist Exhibit is just beyond Huber court on the first floor. I hope to see many, if not all of you and your friends at the Chrysler museum when ever it is open and especially during the student gallery exhibition. It's Free Admission Wednesdays and every day for students and it's always Free Parking!

Or does Mr. Bradley himself have some deep seated sexual inhibition that whitewashes every piece of art depicting the human form as pornographic? If so, how in the world did he ever become the publisher of a newspaper that (I always believed) entertained intellectual diversity?

Both pieces in question are truly wonderful pieces of art. Both students should be commended (and awarded) for their beautiful work; work that was created by young minds that have the ability and vision to create art that is typically "outside the box" of conventional wisdom, thoughts and beliefs for their age group. This is talent that will utlimately shape how we will perceieve art in the future. It's art; pure and simple art.

The Pilot has the right to set whatever rules it desires.

The trouble in this case....You changed/made the rules after the fact.

In law, that would be an ex post facto law, and is prohibited.

The Pilot is wrong on this one.

and probably blaming the wrong guy, or at least for the wrong reasons. Your few complaints about censorship would pail in comparison to the complaints from the right wing zealots, so he took the easier path. It's to bad you don't seem to realize that. I also think that you would have problems if an adult would have made the same pieces, if it were of an underage girl, but I guess that it is ok with you as long as they did it themselves?

I have no problem with the art containing nudity, as long as it doesn't look like it came out of a Hustler magazine. I mean they are still minors.. I did not find the pregnant torso objectionable in any way.

I wonder how many of the exhibits in the Chrysler Museum Mr. Bradley would throw out as "inappropriate"?

Mr. Bradley's (and hence the newspaper's) censorship is totally bizarre, comtemporarily outdated, and a smack in the face to our younger generation - the generation that, incidently, will ultimately decide whether this newspaper survives. Whatever happened to "freedom of the press?" Guess that phrase has a different meaning to Mr. Bradley.

i have to find Virginia's "standards of decency" amusing. these kids are not depicting nudity for shock value, instead, they do it because the human body is a beautiful and amazing thing. (in most forms) before the "powers that be" want to get too morally uppity, they might want to look at that lady on their flag.

Being a native of New England I was warned prior to being stationed here about this area being in the Bible Belt...I also remember some of the old Blue Laws (stores not being open on Sunday and no Package Stores -- only ABC stores), but that was back in the early 70s...here we are in the new millennium and Virginia still thinks we are in the 1600's...amazing.