Bill Henson's Exhibition Closed Down

[norbs]

Who makes the decision what you get to legally do and see?

Who has a right to?

I do not accept the parliament does. Hell, just look at them. We'll start with Orkopolous, and work our way up to the gutter from there, shall we?

If not parliament, who? Is it any different to say, forum admins deciding there should be no more than 4 photos per post. Said admins do it for a reason, some may agree, others may not, but if people are to play on said forum, they should abide by the rules. Like them or not. Somebody has to draw the line in the sand. The fact that one of them is a kiddy fiddler, and has been sent to gaol for it, shouldn't stop us from obeying the laws, whether we like them or not.

I don't consider myself a do gooding wowser, but with out set guidelines and rules and people to enforce them, god help us.

[zafra52]

We have to conclude the reason the police closed the exhibition and took the pictures is because there had been a complaint and there were grounds to suspect more sinister intentions.

Nevertheless, I believe that people confuse the "erotic" with the "pornographic". We all have seen erotic images on displayed, which in modern culture are not regarded as pornographic, but at the time they were made public were considered as such. Perhaps it is high time we demand our legislators and law givers for a precise definition of what is pornographic and especially what is child pornography since the latter is closely associated with paedophilia.

I have only seen the images printed in the Courier Mail and I assumed there were only the printable versions of what was about to be displayed. However, now that the Prime Minister has made public his disgust and repudiation of those images it would make the work of the authorities so much difficult.

[Raskill]

I believe that the kind of school the children are attending is completely irrelevant to the debate, just like this entire point you're trying to make.

Actually, I think it is very relevant. People possibly are viewing the subject matter as simply a young girl. Bringing things into context might help some people have some clarity. I do apologise for stuffing up the year she might be in. I started year 7 as a 12 year old, as did many of my friends. I guess times have changed since the 1980's If being in year 7 instead of year 6 makes a difference, then fine.

I also believe I have said everything I wanted to say. I'll withdraw from this thread now and give it back to the prudes, philistines and morally supreme.

I can assure you that I am no prude, i'm no philistine (meaning: said to be materialistic, to favor conventional social values unthinkingly, and to favor forms of art that have a cheap and easy appeal) and I'm not morally supreme.

I tend to leave judgements for others to make, so thanks for judging me and anyone else who isnt seeing your point of view.

I just like people to consider the facts. This isn't a young woman, this isnt just a peice of art, this is a 12 year old girl, a child. A child who the law knows is incapable of adult decision making (hence they are treated differently in criminal law matters).

She's just a child.

[gstark]

People possibly are viewing the subject matter as simply a young girl.

Precisely.

It is that simple. She is a young girl, beautifully, artistically and sensitvely presented.

I see no other way to view these images, and I think that people need to stop trying to read all manner of other possiblities into these images.

There, I suspect, endeth the discussion.