DSLRUsers.com

refer 'ere

Discuss.

''The problem is getting sensible policy in this area, which is compounded by people becoming emotional to the point of being irrational.''

Once more, the do-gooders win. We live in a sad world when we are all treated as though we have the very limited IQ of a politician.

We are individuals, and quite capable of making up our own minds as to what is, or is not, acceptable, for each o us. I accept that others have a different PoV, and different standards, from what I have. That is fine, and I do not try to impose my values upon those people.

Why in the hell must they insist upon imposing their values upon me?

I think that this will make us an even greater laughing stock in the eyes of the civilised world than is already the case.

All aboard for Terra Aust-mindless!

I have to be one of the worst debaters out there especially coming from my professional background which is pretty black and white, however I will have a crack at discussing!

We are individuals, and quite capable of making up our own minds as to what is, or is not, acceptable, for each o us.

Yes, but as a society there needs to be collective agreement on what is an acceptable value to use to generate laws.

I accept that others have a different PoV, and different standards, from what I have.

But at what standard or PoV is the line drawn to establish a law/standard for society? At the end of the day when a law (or whatever it is referred to) is accepted by society there will always be people at each end of the bell curve for who the law does not cater for.

... and then there are all the nude adolescents in all the old paintings in art galleries.....

Obviously, as long as they use the phrase "rational person" no-one can object to whatever they come up with. What they really need to do is close down all art galleries, ban all paintings and impound all cameras. That should fix the "problem".

gstark wrote:Once more, the do-gooders win. We live in a sad world when we are all treated as though we have the very limited IQ of a politician.

We are individuals, and quite capable of making up our own minds as to what is, or is not, acceptable, for each o us. I accept that others have a different PoV, and different standards, from what I have. That is fine, and I do not try to impose my values upon those people.

Why in the hell must they insist upon imposing their values upon me?

I think that this will make us an even greater laughing stock in the eyes of the civilised world than is already the case.

All aboard for Terra Aust-mindless!

Got agree, it really is stunning just how we are treated. Talk about nanny state/country.

biggerry wrote:But at what standard or PoV is the line drawn to establish a law/standard for society?

But in this case, we are not dealing with anything that is black and white.

Let's contrast this with, for instance, speeding.

First of all, I am firmly of the belief that having a driver's license is a privilege that needs to be earned; it is not a right. With that in mind, I am also firmly of the belief that speed, in and of itself, does not kill. Excessive speed for the conditions encountered is not eh the same thing, and it is that which is dangerous.

But speed limits - whether we agree with them or not - are easy to establish and enforce. It's quite easy to prove that one was driving in excess of a stated limit, regardless of how realistic that limit might be.

But how does one establish the (about to become illegal) concept of "artistic merit"? And how does one determine what comprises pornography, kiddie porn or otherwise?

If we re-look at the Bill Henson case from a couple of years ago with the 12yo girl, we will recall that the images were shot with the full cooperation and approval of the girl's parents, and they, along with the girl, were all fully in favour of the images and they treatment that Henson offered.

I accept that the personal view of others may not be so generous, but who is to say that their personal view is more important than the personal view of another? The parents' PoV is just as important as mine, and yours. It is not more important, and it is no less important.

So, what gives Fred (to pick a name out of a hat) the right to impose his PoV upon me? I may share very little in terms of lifestyle with Fred, and his life choices may be very different from mine. Why is it that I can permit him to enjoy his choices, but he refuses to allow me the same privilege; that he refuses to show me that minimal level of respect that I believe I deserve?

This is simply not an issue that legislation can address; there can not be any hard and fast rules, no hard and fast limits put into place. As was the case two years ago, Hettie's kiddie porn ended up being regarded as Bill's art, and the Crown prosecutor refused to bring charges. Further, the censors failed to see any issues with Henson's work.

IMHO the existing system almost worked perfectly, save for the Freds, the Hetties, and the Alans who created the beat-up by stomping up and down in the media in the first place.

As a civilised society, we stand to suffer at the hands of the narrow minded do-gooders. Let them enjoy their PoV, but please, don;t let them interfere with mine.

All I seek is respect from them, in the same way that I give them my respect.

Murray Foote wrote: That should fix the "problem".

The issue, as I see it, is that there is no problem. If it ain't broke, let's fix it until it is!

If there is any problem, it exists entirely within the minds of those who seek to deny us the respect that I believe all of us deserve.

biggerry wrote:But at what standard or PoV is the line drawn to establish a law/standard for society? At the end of the day when a law (or whatever it is referred to) is accepted by society there will always be people at each end of the bell curve for who the law does not cater for.

gstark wrote:But in this case, we are not dealing with anything that is black and white.

Which is why it's hard to establish the 'right' vs 'wrong'.

gstark wrote:As a civilised society, we stand to suffer at the hands of the narrow minded do-gooders. Let them enjoy their PoV, but please, don;t let them interfere with mine.

about the civilised society bit. If the parents wanted to enjoy the nude photo of their daughter (with her permission) that's ok by me. If they want to hang it in a public place, then the collective opinion matters. If the collective opinion thinks that it's not appropriate, then they can't display it. If the collective opinion thinks that it's illegal then they may be arrested. This is the black and white view of a gray problem.

I am not sure what happened in this case, but the collective (majority) opinion always wins= such is life. The collective can be 'right' or 'wrong' and this 'right and 'wrong' can change with time and with the shift in culture. What's wrong now can be cool sometime later.

The real question is, whether the collective thinks whether it's right or wrong. How would be figure that out? Take a poll? Assume that the government that we elected is going to do the 'right' thing? I don't know!

Just my two cents.

What is the definition of child p^or^^n anyway?

surenj wrote:If the collective opinion thinks that it's not appropriate, then they can't display it. If the collective opinion thinks that it's illegal then they may be arrested.

But who comprises "the collective"?

Whom amongst us was invited to join the committee that has made these recommendations?

Who accepts that this committee is a reasonable representation of our society?

And yes, what is the definition of kiddie porn anyway? Note carefully the title of this thread: what the hell comprises "unlawful" pornography?

wow, what an interesting topic to discuss and a very serious one too. Just thought i'd add my 2cents!!

gstark wrote:Once more, the do-gooders win. We live in a sad world when we are all treated as though we have the very limited IQ of a politician.

well i don't think anyone in this article is a do gooder, but i think they are all trying to protect the children of this nation.

gstark wrote:I accept that the personal view of others may not be so generous, but who is to say that their personal view is more important than the personal view of another? The parents' PoV is just as important as mine, and yours. It is not more important, and it is no less important.

I don't think that anyone in this article is saying their view in more important than someone elses....

gstark wrote:As a civilised society, we stand to suffer at the hands of the narrow minded do-gooders. Let them enjoy their PoV, but please, don;t let them interfere with mine.

Well i must be one of those do gooders as i agree that legislation needs to be adjusted accordingly. I'm not saying that we can or can not judge art but rather when it comes to children being photographed there is boundaries, i mean i've had shots taken of my daughter when she was around 10months old in the nude, but there was only back showing with her head turned back and smiling, now that seems innocence but its when the artists take it to different levels with posing etc. If pictures were allowed to hang in museums that showed nude children/pre teens / teenagers I have no doubt there would be a lot more Paedophiles and predators visiting them and getting their jollies out of the so called art work. Now i'm not saying Bills work wasn't art etc, thats a whole different discussion, but i believe that such images could have a negative impact in the community, its the standards of the country not the do gooders. The last thing we want is for our country to become like india and thailand etc where they use children in the worst possible ways, and the decisions our goverments make can either make our country safe for children or safe for the predators..... ultimately we have to think of the children and their safety first before worrying about art. There is a reason why child prostitution and child porn is on a rampage across the world and here, and the people influencing the legislation changes are doing what they can to protect our children and their children etc.

On a lighter note, isn't it great that we live in such a great country where we have freedom of speech.

gstark wrote:But who comprises "the collective"?

Everyone who can vote in Australia + Everyone who voted the current government.

bigsarg7 wrote:wow, what an interesting topic to discuss and a very serious one too. Just thought i'd add my 2cents!!

gstark wrote:Once more, the do-gooders win. We live in a sad world when we are all treated as though we have the very limited IQ of a politician.

well i don't think anyone in this article is a do gooder, but i think they are all trying to protect the children of this nation.

If they're not do-gooders, then why are they interfering? Why fix something that's not broken?

And the sad part of all this is that the solution is a non-solution; it won't work; it will achieve nothing. Those paedophiles who so desire will still get their rocks off on kiddie porn.

gstark wrote:I accept that the personal view of others may not be so generous, but who is to say that their personal view is more important than the personal view of another? The parents' PoV is just as important as mine, and yours. It is not more important, and it is no less important.

I don't think that anyone in this article is saying their view in more important than someone elses....

But they get to have their say. I don't. My opinion clearly doesn't matter. Therefore it's less important than their's.

If pictures were allowed to hang in museums that showed nude children/pre teens / teenagers I have no doubt there would be a lot more Paedophiles and predators visiting them and getting their jollies out of the so called art

Well, those sorts of pictures have been hanging in galleries around the world for centuries. I don't know if paedophiles visit these galleries, but I expect they don't. I believe that they are sick people who need help, and I don't believe that any form of law will cause them to alter their behaviour. Burglary, too, is illegal, yet there are burglars. Likewise murder and murderers.

The only reason we have locks on our doors is to keep honest people out; those intent upon breaking the law will do so regardless, and this change will be of little real benefit in terms of those it's supposed t protect.

its the standards of the country not the do gooders.

I don't accept that. The do-gooders make a lot of noise, and clamour for change. Conservative lawmakers think that by being seen to be be doing something, they will placate the do-gooders.

And sadly most people mistake activity for action.

On a lighter note, isn't it great that we live in such a great country where we have freedom of speech.

Unfortunately, I suspect that many of the do-gooders would like to see that right removed too.

I want to know who determines what is pornographic.

Frankly this situation makes me angry towards those who want to push their ideas on me. By censoring the things around me, whether they interest me or not, just pisses me off.

The Oxford Dictionary defines 'pornography' as;

printed or visual material intended to stimulate sexual excitement.

By that definition, images of feet, ankles, legs, posteriors, breasts, genitals, small of backs, napes of necks, ears, eyes, hair, lack of hair, short skirts, underwear, lack of underwear, white cotton, dead bodies, nail polished fingernails, lipstick, pouting lips, men/women in uniform, Japanese girls in sailor suits, 50% of what a webcam is used for, Aston Martin DB9s, men and/or women shagging, excrement and pissing should be considered 'pornographic. (I am sure this list is much larger than that.)

It annoys me when these so-called libertarians brandish about words they don't really understand to the ignorant masses who believe anything they are told and we end up with laws that not only defy logic, but destroy the foundation of sensibility we were starting to create since the 1960s. Society has changed a lot since then and certain sections of society want us to go back about 1000 years to the dark ages when fear ran the western world.

These libertarians are no better than the Taliban of Afghanistan in the way they want to undermine intelligence, freedom and the democracy we have fought so hard to attain over the last century. They are fundamentalists whose only goal is to push their belief system on everyone and destroy anyone who disagrees with them.

The issue is no longer about people photographing their own kids at a swimming pool or being confronted by angry mothers when using an ultra-wide angle lens to photograph Bondi Beach. The issue now is the vocal, misled and naive minority manipulating the media and scaring the general public into laws that we don't really need, because we already have laws to cover such alleged atrocities.

'Child Pornography' is ALREADY illegal, why do we need a new law to cover what has already been dealt with? Why do we need an internet filter when certain media is already refused classification and therefore possession of it is illegal in Australia?

Unfortunately these libertarians have already made their way into the upper echelons or government and seats of power. I don't know what we are going to do about it now. Any ideas?

[/rant]

Well, those sorts of pictures have been hanging in galleries around the world for centuries. I don't know if paedophiles visit these galleries, but I expect they don't.

then why are they interfering? Why fix something that's not broken?

is it not broken? how about phrasing that differently - the landscape of photography medium has changed dramaticaly in my lifetime, 15 years ago it was not possible (for the average pleb) to capture a digital image and have it transported around the world in seconds. The current system (if any - I am by no means an expert) may not be broken but it must be dated given the rapid changes in the last 10 odd years...

I don't believe that any form of law will cause them to alter their behaviour. Burglary, too, is illegal, yet there are burglars. Likewise murder and murderers.

The only reason we have locks on our doors is to keep honest people out; those intent upon breaking the law will do so regardless, and this change will be of little real benefit in terms of those it's supposed t protect.

I disagree with that, there are crimes of opportunity, if the opportunity does not exist then the likelihood of the crime is decreased. I have a lock on my back gate, however one good kick would render it open, however it does provide enough deterrent to the average drunk or 'opportunistic' individual.

It is easy to sit back and jump down the throats of those trying to remove our freedoms - for which there may be a valid case, but in my opinion, one must also provide an alternative, what is a better way? who should decide on these standards (for examples sake)

gstark wrote:But who comprises "the collective"?

Everyone who can vote in Australia + Everyone who voted the current government.

I disagree, a collective needs to be representative of the issue/industry. I do not want some politician with no clue about a specific industry or issue making decisions....

Two points I found very interesting about this case (as was reported on the ABC News tonight - and one of these was also in the article).

1) When the furor over Bill Henson's work broke, his work was investigated and it was found to not be illegal. Further it was granted with a G or PG rating. 'Artistic merit' played no part. It was and is irrelevant.

2) The 'artistic merit' defence has only every been used once, and it failed.

This means that a) this new law will not in any way stop Bill Henson's work and b) it's not even needed because the 'artistic merit' defence never worked. If something is illegal it is illegal.

All this is going to do is make the waters even more murky than they were before. It will arm the vigilante do-gooders and cause far more problems than we already have (as photographers).

Interesting discussion.

From my own personal experience, pedophiles will find child pornography anywhere. I have seen scrap books full of images from the Big W catalouge underwear section, if they don't get there rocks off with that, they write letters to each other purportedly from little boys or girls with the sickest fantasy you could imagine (actually you probably wouldn't imagine it). These people are sick and by and large, it is accepted they cannot be rehabilitated.

Will they go to art studios and view child ' porn' ? Unlikely. They can get it easier on the net. They have closed groups, rings, of fellow sickos who peddle the filth with impunity using file sharing (another reason the internet filter is crap).

So, my personal opinion is it's more unnecessary legislation, unlikely to lead to successful convictions.

However, I can see why some people want to protect 'the children' more. The mainstream media has hyped this situation up to the point where you cannot find open and frank discussion (other than forums like this). No public figure in an elected (or selected) position is likely to speak out against laws apparently designed for the protection of innocence. They cannot, some will not, see beyond the media hyped Dennis Ferguson type character, rolled straight out of central casting.

Unfortunately the mainstream media now makes the news, they don't report it. It's a vicious cycle, they make the news, report on it, hype it up, which then makes the news, which they report on, hype it up.... etc etc.

So, artistic merit has no chance against the voice of the masses (fed by mass media).

IMHO of course.

i used to work at the art gallery that Bill henson shows at and i've even spoken to him about his work on a couple of occassions and i know he has a great amount of support from the art community, his rationale behind his work is too long to discuss here

but i feel the actual issue of protecting childrens rights is more important here rather than the issue of his images encourage pedophiles

... but what exactly are children's rights? It is an interesting question and I think there are at least as many grey areas and opinions on that as there are people (many of which are probably quite different opinions held with absolute certainty).

I don't think too many people would argue against some kinds of control against "genuinely" pornographic images. I agree that the accessibility of digital photography and ease of propogation may require some rethinking for that. However, that does not appear to be at issue here.

I think the concern is more that some people (and I'm not suggesting you may be one of them) may seek to cite the interests of children when in reality they see a somewhat puritanical opportunity for social control.

wendellt wrote:but i feel the actual issue of protecting childrens rights is more important here rather than the issue of his images encourage pedophiles

The current issue has little to do with Henson's work, although the proposed changes were prompted by the recent controversies sparked by his work. I doubt that anyone has any issues regarding any need to protect children. The problem with these proposed changes is that the current laws already adequately address the subject - as evidenced within Andrew's post - and that these proposed changes will do nothing at all to improve the situation.

Murray Foote wrote:I think the concern is more that some people (and I'm not suggesting you may be one of them) may seek to cite the interests of children when in reality they see a somewhat puritanical opportunity for social control.

Exactly.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that we each have an opinion: Murray has one, and he has voiced it here. His opinion is valid and worthwhile. Chica too has voiced an opinion, and it, too, is valid and worthwhile. Clearly, I have an opinion on this matter. Wendell too. Andrew. Patrick. Alan.

And so on. Each of us have our own opinions, and many of those will differ. That is good, that is healthy, and that is precisely as it should be.

The people involved in this committee also have opinions that have equal validity, as opinions.

But these are merely opinions: an opinion is neither right, nor is it wrong: it is an opinion.

Is it reasonable to be basing laws upon opinions, noting that only one set of opinions (which are neither right nor wrong) can be embodied within the law, or is just plain bloody stupid? Bearing in mind that we are discussing the NSW state (alleged) government, stupid does seem be consistent with their typical courses of action.

Interesting discussion indeed.

Perhaps we should bang the table?
http://bangthetable.com/

surenj wrote:Perhaps we should bang the table?

Good suggestion.

However ...

Bang The Table wrote:Each of the projects on the site is here because someone in a decision making capacity wants to hear your views.

I would contend that the last thing those in any decision making capacity want to hear is any form of dissenting view. These sorts of committees are generally set up in order to achieve a predetermined outcome. When they do, everyone involved pats themselves on the back for a job well done, and they then all go home.

Am I a tad cynical of these processes? You betcha!

surenj wrote:I am not sure what happened in this case, but the collective (majority) opinion always wins= such is life. The collective can be 'right' or 'wrong' and this 'right and 'wrong' can change with time and with the shift in culture. What's wrong now can be cool sometime later.

It is not the "majority" that wins, but the perceived majority, or those that scream the loudest. The squeaky wheel always gets the oil. Have you ever seen a government take any action other than in response to something raised by the loud voices in the electorate.

The majority has a voice but it tends to be kept nice and quite behind the accent of apathy.

gstark wrote:But who comprises "the collective"?

the same ones that voted in the current state government.

There isnt a satisfactory solution for all stakeholders in this one imo. This issue polarises people and when that happens then they dont think logically they think emotionally.

Once this happens and someone throws a word like paedophile into the debate then the insinuation is that if you dont support censorship then must support paedophilia.

Its tough, on the one hand I didnt feel at all comfortable with the Henson frontal photo of the young girl. On the other, I dont want my rights as a photographer constrained.

Personally, I think there needs to be a little restraint on both sides.

It all comes down to opinions, and as they say. Opinions are like arseholes - we all have one.

But there IS a lighter side:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/porn-leads-way-in-3d-tv/1722265.aspx

It's funny, I watched a Tarzan movie on the weekend, Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes, which was released in '84 and quite good, I thought. It follows Tarzan through his childhood, running around in the jungle being an Ape.

Naked.

Several scenes depict him as a child, running around in the nude. There is a full frontal, visible penis, he even bends over at one point and shows rather more than anyone wants to see.

At that point one of my friends, age 22, says "Ah..." in an uncomfortable way. That led me to comment that today, that movie would cause a major incident if it was released, and we'd no doubt be hearing about how paedophiles would be going to cinemas in droves. Why? There was nothing even vaguely sexual about the images, in fact it was pretty much what I imagine one can still see at most beaches on a warm weekend day - kids running around in the nude having fun!

Paranoia seem to be the order of the day when it comes to the decision making processes these days. As to the specific change at hand, I don't see it as being a real change at the end of the day. Pornographic images of children are illegal, and they should be. This change merely tidies up a loophole in that law, which seems reasonable even if unnecessary.

Rooz wrote:

gstark wrote:But who comprises "the collective"?

the same ones that voted in the current state government.

Will all due respect, Chris, I find those general arguments spurious. Because a person may vote for a particular government, it does not automatically follow that that person will agree with all future policies. That is why voters swing. I may have voted for Labor federally, but it doesn't mean I agree with their First Home Owner Grant Boost stimulus, for example.

Back on track, I think the main points of this are:

1. The courts have always and will continue to have powers to determine material to be pornographic, which, I expect, is consistant with the definition provided by Steve. These proposed laws do not change that.
2. Previously, a defense against the production, distribution and possession of unlawful pornographic material may have been for artistic merit (I am assuming this based on the article).
3. The proposal will seek to remove this defense once the material is deemed pornographic.

Therefore, looking at Henson's work - it was not deemed pornographic so this issue is not even relevant to his 'controversy' of the other year.

Secondly, the ability for the court to determine work as pornographic, and therefore using the 'reasonable person' approach has not changed.

All this will do is change the ability to defend the material on the basis of artistic merit.

I see it along the lines of manslaughter and self-defence. Currently, I understand, self-defence is a defence against manslaughter. Proposals could be introduced to remove this as a defence once the death has been deemed the result of manslaughter.

Regarding the issue of a societal standard on matters, I believe that, in principal, we need them - whether they be regarding speed limits (don't forget - most people believe they are above average drivers), or what constitutes pornography, we need a process to determine when an item is considered pornographic for the relevant reasons.

Regarding the proposal, I am of two minds: on the one hand, I think it is fine because, if material representing, say, photo images of a naked child produced with the intent to stimulate sexual excitement, why should this be defended because 'it is art'. If we believe children should not be sexualised, why provide a defence to allow people to do so?

Reschsmooth wrote:
Will all due respect, Chris, I find those general arguments spurious. Because a person may vote for a particular government, it does not automatically follow that that person will agree with all future policies.

respect noted and reciprocated...that aside...

Patrick, the state labour government has been a shambles for at least the last 5-7 years. if you voted labour you have no place complaining about future policies cos they had none then and they have none now. they are a farce.

i would be ever grateful if you just apologised and say you made a mistake rather than defend what is an indefensible position.

whitey wrote: This issue polarises people and when that happens then they dont think logically they think emotionally.

It all comes down to opinions, and as they say. Opinions are like arseholes - we all have one.

IMHO Henson is a sick puppy!
Why anyone would want to photograph young children that do not have the maturity to give consent naked, for the sake of art is beyond me. I realise this goes against the grain of a lot of ppl here but it's this a'holes opinion. There are plenty of beautiful woman out their - photograph them and let the kids be kids!

Children should be protected not exploited like this and THEY ARE being exploited as they do not have the maturity to understand what they are going.

Not having laws to protect the kids leaves an opportunity for anyone with a camera to call themselves an "Artist" and push their own artistic freedom agenda.

Henson should have been locked up!

Bruce

Chaase wrote:Henson should have been locked up!

See my post above, should the maker of that film be locked up as well? If not, what is the difference?

Genuine question, I have good friends who I argue with about Bill Henson and on one has yet told me what is wrong with his images.

dawesy wrote:
See my post above, should the maker of that film be locked up as well? If not, what is the difference?

Genuine question, I have good friends who I argue with about Bill Henson and on one has yet told me what is wrong with his images.

I think public opinion today is a lot stronger about those sort of video and personally they should not have been taken. What would be interesting to see what the shild actors opinion of the footage is today? As per my comment why put a child in that position, they should be protected. Sorry I don't understand the second line of your post.

Rooz wrote:

Reschsmooth wrote:
Will all due respect, Chris, I find those general arguments spurious. Because a person may vote for a particular government, it does not automatically follow that that person will agree with all future policies.

respect noted and reciprocated...that aside...

Patrick, the state labour government has been a shambles for at least the last 5-7 years. if you voted labour you have no place complaining about future policies cos they had none then and they have none now. they are a farce.

i would be ever grateful if you just apologised and say you made a mistake rather than defend what is an indefensible position.

Christopher, Christopher, Christopher - please, never imply that I have or will vote for the State Labor government. That borders on defamation. I am the one demanding an apology here.

Chaase wrote:IMHO Henson is a sick puppy!
Why anyone would want to photograph young children that do not have the maturity to give consent naked, for the sake of art is beyond me. I realise this goes against the grain of a lot of ppl here but it's this a'holes opinion. There are plenty of beautiful woman out their [sic]- photograph them and let the kids be kids!

Children should be protected not exploited like this and THEY ARE being exploited as they do not have the maturity to understand what they are going.

Not having laws to protect the kids leaves an opportunity for anyone with a camera to call themselves an "Artist" and push their own artistic freedom agenda.

Henson should have been locked up!

Bruce

Firstly, this thread was not supposed to be a discussion point about Henson's photos. For any particular record, I don't agree with the photos of the 12 y.o., perceived consent or no consent.

However, following that line for a moment, I have highlighted one comment of yours - if, in the not too distant future, photographing women naked (that is, the woman is naked, not necessarily the photographer) is considered abhorrant and illegal, will your current view change to reflect that and will you say that any of the members of this forum who have done so be locked up?

What would you say to a person of a significanly more conservative culture for whom images of naked people is abhorrant and perhas unlawful when they say the same forum members should be locked up?

Chaase wrote:I think public opinion today is a lot stronger about those sort of video and personally they should not have been taken. What would be interesting to see what the shild actors opinion of the footage is today? As per my comment why put a child in that position, they should be protected. Sorry I don't understand the second line of your post.

Clearly public opinion has changed, but that doesn't mean it is right. In the context of the film the scenes were appropriate - in fact having him covered would be downright silly. In fact the have him wearing a loin cloth as a man and we all commented on how silly it was. It would be interesting to hear from the actor, but at the end of the day if he was treated well, had a voice in what happened and his parents were involved and consenting, I don't see the issue.

The second line was merely to point out I wasn't having a go, but genuinely interested in any perceived difference. Given you don't see one, then we simply disagree that images of child nudity is taking advantage of children and offensive in all contexts.

Reschsmooth wrote:Christopher, Christopher, Christopher - please, never imply that I have or will vote for the State Labor government. That borders on defamation. I am the one demanding an apology here.

my most humble apologies for making such a heinous accusation.

Reschsmooth wrote:
However, following that line for a moment, I have highlighted one comment of yours - if, in the not too distant future, photographing women naked (that is, the woman is naked, not necessarily the photographer) is considered abhorrant and illegal, will your current view change to reflect that and will you say that any of the members of this forum who have done so be locked up?

What would you say to a person of a significanly more conservative culture for whom images of naked people is abhorrant and perhas unlawful when they say the same forum members should be locked up?

RE Naked women, the viewer has the choice to view or not to view, the same applies currently to non violent erotica. The model is capable to make the decision to pose or not unlike a child where the parent makes the decision.

Re someone who is more conservative it again is their choice to view/ complain about it as it is now. I am not talking about what adults choose to view, I am talking about protecting children. I would however question anyone (forum members included) that have naked photos of children for the sake of art that are used for public display. I am not talking about photos of your own/friends children as these are not on public display. I have many pics of our kids in the nuddy running around or in the bath etc, these are personal photos only.

Good debate BTW.

Chaase wrote:IMHO Henson is a sick puppy!
Why anyone would want to photograph young children that do not have the maturity to give consent naked, for the sake of art is beyond me. I realise this goes against the grain of a lot of ppl here but it's this a'holes opinion. There are plenty of beautiful woman out their - photograph them and let the kids be kids!

Children should be protected not exploited like this and THEY ARE being exploited as they do not have the maturity to understand what they are going.

Not having laws to protect the kids leaves an opportunity for anyone with a camera to call themselves an "Artist" and push their own artistic freedom agenda.

Henson should have been locked up!

Bruce

Bill Henson's work was deemed to be legal (i.e. not unlawful) and so it really irrelevant to the discussion. There was never a need to use the defence of "artistic merit". In fact, all his work was given a rating of G or PG.

[quote="Chaase] I would however question anyone (forum members included) that have naked photos of children for the sake of art that are used for public display.
[/quote]

Can it be that black and white. Where does Anne Geddes fit into this debate? I dont like the Henson shot ofthe young girl but do think the Anne Geddes stuff can be quite nice.

whitey wrote:Where does Anne Geddes fit into this debate?

I dont recall Anne ever shooting full frontal nudity and genitalia of children.