What Was on the Document Seen in Controversial Balenciaga Photos?

Spanish fashion house Balenciaga came under fire for two separate photo shoots, with pundits accusing them of "child porn."

One of the photo shoots was for a joint campaign promoting Balenciaga's collaboration with sportswear company Adidas.

The Adidas campaign images were from a second part of a campaign that began in May. The companies described it as "a collaboration between Balenciaga and Adidas [that] recontextualizes elements of sportswear that have been a part of Balenciaga's creative language."

In one image, an hourglass handbag was placed on top of a pile of papers strewn across an office desk.

A social-media user enhanced the image to get a closer look at the papers and discovered one was from the 2008 Supreme Court ruling, United States vs. Williams.

The court had been tasked with deciding whether laws banning the "pandering"—promoting—of child pornography violated the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression.

The Supreme Court upheld the 2003 laws to continue to outlaw the advertising, promoting, presenting or distributing child pornography.

The original petition was launched by sex offender Michael Williams, who was charged with possession and "pandering" of child pornography after he told an undercover secret service agent he had sexually explicit pictures of his daughter, a minor.

Williams pleaded guilty but challenged whether the "pandering" charge was constitutional.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor that "offers to engage in illegal transactions are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection."

It also found the laws criminalizing the promotion, distribution or advertising of child pornography were valid "even if underlying material doesn't qualify," according to a blog post by David L. Hudson Jr., assistant professor of law at Belmont University in Nashville.

The specific excerpt seen in the 2022 Balenciaga photo shoot was part of the opinion of the court written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia on behalf of the majority.

Scalia wrote in 2008: "'Sexually explicit conduct' connotes actual depiction of the sex act rather than merely the suggestion that it is occurring. And 'simulated' sexual intercourse is not sexual intercourse that is merely suggested, but rather sexual intercourse that is explicitly portrayed, even though (through camera tricks or otherwise) it may not actually have occurred."

The visible excerpt continued: "The portrayal must cause a reasonable viewer to
believe that the actors actually engaged in that conduct on camera. Critically, unlike in Free Speech Coalition, § 2252A(a)(3)(B)(ii)'s requirement of a "visual depiction of an actual minor" makes clear that, although the sexual intercourse may be simulated, it must involve actual children (unless it is obscene).

"This change eliminates any possibility that virtual child pornography or sex between youthful looking adult actors might be covered by the term 'simulated sexual intercourse'."

The photoshoot came to light after Twitter user Shoe0onhead, posted multiple photos from both the Balenciaga x Adidas and the Balenciaga Objects campaigns.

They captioned the tweet: "the brand 'Balenciaga' just did a uh..... interesting... photoshoot for their new products recently which included a very purposely poorly hidden court document about 'virtual child porn.' normal stuff." The tweet went viral with social-media users criticizing the brand.

In a second campaign, people were also outraged to see children posing with the Balenciaga teddy bear bags that were dressed in bondage gear, such as a fishnet vest and a choker.

But Newsweek's Fact Check team found that, while the images caused offence to many people, the images are not child pornography, according to the law.

Balenciaga has issued two public apologies for the photo shoots and explained the papers in the Adidas campaign "were provided by third parties that confirmed in writing that these props were fake office documents."

Apparently, the papers "turned out to be [real] papers most likely coming from the filming of a television drama."

"The inclusion of these unapproved documents was the result of reckless negligence for which Balenciaga has filed a complaint," the company continued in its statement released on Monday.

"We take full accountability for our lack of oversight and control of the documents in the background, and we could have done things differently."