Thanks for your comments:
>I shop at the Barnes & Noble store in Montgomery Al. occasionally. I
>have never seen Sturges' work in the front window or on display inside.
>His book is available in the Photography section along with dozens of
>others, all in the bookcase.
>
>There is nothing to tie the clinic bombing to the book issue.
Randall Terry is guiding light behind this. There appears to be no doubt
about this as he was the one who put this on the map so to speak. I am a
little dim on my history but I believe he was kicked out of Operation
Rescue for being too extremist. This appears to be an organization tool for
the violent anti-abortion forces since they have made few inroads in their
recent actions and have been very supportive of the violence. There are
many comments on record from leaders refusing to condemn the violence.
Terry is one of those. That's enough connection.
There are a
>lot of extremists around, some of whom go after school text books and some
>who go after abortion clinics. I think they are all a little nuts. To
>label them "Christians" gives them an undeserved hint of respectability.
I don't consider the appellation "Christian" to be positive or negative and
long ago gave up the idea that belonging to a religion gave one more
respectability.
>
>Jock Sturges is only one of two whose books are being attacked. The other
>is David Hamilton.
>Why dont we hear it for David?
Sturges is being personally charged in Tennessee and I believe Kansas. The
whole Sturges camps is in turmoil at the moment and I am awaiting more
information. David Hamilton is French and will neither be charged or have
his studio and files ransacked like they did to Jock. I believe that they
will eventually be tying the two together. Surly B&N is defending
themselves on both.
>I am not on sure ground here but I think the Alabama law says that to
>be illegal the children being photographed must be shown in a sexual
>connotation. I think this would exempt Sturgis, but possibly not Hamilton.
>I haven't seen any Hamilton work in the last several years but I seem to
>recall some were sexually suggestive.
I don't believe that suggestive counts. I've never seen a male nude in any
of his books. Suggestive? All I ever saw was two young girls lying next to
each other or holding each other. I never recall any genital or breast
touching that was obscene in nature.
>
>I think it is Barnes & Noble who is under attack. No one that I know of
>is after Sturgis.
Tennessee is after him and I believe Kansas is as well. There are actions
being taken now in 14 states as I understand it and many could indict him
personally. I think he has been charged in Tn.That is the goal of Randall
Terry and the "Family Watch" groups.
If past history is any indicator, Sturges should be plenty afraid and take
preemptive action now.
>
>As a Matter of interest, I recently read that in the state of Ohio it
>is illegal to photograph a person under 18 in the nude, period. Including
>the baby on the bearskin rug.
As far as I know Sturges never photographed in Ohio. If we are about to
have a different law in every state for the dissemination of information --
satellite tv, network tv, the internet, book publication, we are in for a
rough time. If CBS Shows a baby on a bearsking rug are they going to be
indicted? Perhaps so. Ask Oprah. Surely you don't defend such an insane
situation???
>
>I suspect the net effect of all this is that Sturgis will sell a lot
>more books.
He will need to. This case will bankrupt.
If there is any hysteria in this case I believe in lies with the U.S.
Attorney Generals Office in the states in question.
These forces have learned the trick of destroying someone long before due
process and the U.S.A.G. is being wittingly or unwittingly the instrument
used.
-- Dick Sullivan