DPP to consider charging Henson

Quote:

---

I've watched this thread with some interest particularly in that I've observed some people here who on other occasions have walked very close to the edge of the rules of conduct of this forum. These same people have suggested that a man whose demonstrated abilities as an artist have earned him a living and a reputation for excellence in his chosen field should be pilloried for doing likewise.

And you will say that here no harm is done by pushing the limits here..and I will say what harm has Bill Henson done?

A greater harm will be done by stifling freedom of speech and expression when no malice is intended or indeed harm done.

I saw a doco on internet freedom in China. Try googling "Dalai Lama" in China and the freedoms we take for granted are curtailed.

It will be the courts and not the police who finally decide whether the artist, the displayers and or the guardians will be punished according to our law. If we don't like the law then we need our elected representatives to change it. Beware.

---

With respect, you have got to be kidding. How can one draw an analogy between a 4WD forum and naked pics of young children?? You are talking chalk and cheese? That said, I have done a fair bit of reading on this subject, read other peoples opinions and one of the best I read was JamesH

Quote:

---

regret I have to have 50c each way. Those from art backgrounds who posted here seem to be close to how I feel about it. I have seen the main image of the 13 year old girl and seen other work by the artist and it I am sure the motivation was constructively artistic rather than trying to shock or confront.

Yet Art is not a permission for a free for all. I don't think he should have taken those shots and if he took them a long while ago then then the gallery should not have hung them and had more respect for prevailing community attitudes. I believe the artist, who deserves the respect he gets for his body of work, was wrong to use an underage model because she was not in a position to give informed consent. Her parents did her a disservice too.

Personally I think using the photo for the invitation was more offensive than taking the shot.

And you know there a 18 year old + waif like models out there and he could have taken an identical photo pretty much. He seemed to think authenticity was more important than the child's welfare and the prevailing community attitudes and this is where he made a moral or ethical mistep in my opinion.

As to the people here who posted that artists weren't useful to society, well they are right, ... if you discount making life worth living.

Declaration: I work in an arts organisation, for and with artists and this discussion is taking place in the offices studios and corridors and FYI they are not all of one mind and they don't think every value we hold can be thrown out the window in the name of Art.

---

As stated previously, no I don't think this is the work of a paedophile, nor would I suggest it has been peddled as kiddie porn. What I would suggest is that naked pics of young children...in this day and age...for display for public viewing is not right. I question anybody who would want to see naked photos of children, however tastefully it is done. I have looked at some of the artists other work and yes it is quite impressive...but perhaps did he cross a line here. The outcry would suggest he has. The majority of defences for this type of work I have found wanting, even Germaine Greers as I found highly unobjective, there was no inkling of thought as to how others..ie general public...may view this type of content.

Michael Jackson, brilliant artist in his own right...did he...did he not play kiddly winks....perhaps not...but did he cross a line letting other peoples kids into bed with him? Maybe it was all innocent, but as a parent wrong. I do see beauty in the naked form of an attractive woman, however I see children as just that, children and how many dads here would allow their child...boy or girl to be photographed naked for this purpose? If you agree with the right to display this kind of art and defend the artist, then you must concur that your view is that photo's of naked children even in an artistic way is acceptable?? Funny that no one of the opposing view has agreed to that,

Regards

Stevo

Legal or not, I don't see why anyone would WANT to see photographs of naked children. And as far as pornography goes, I would have thought that was in the eye of the pervert. So it may not be "pornographic" per se to most people, but to those who get their kicks out of seeing photos of naked kids, in whatever "artistic" position, they probably find it "thrilling".

I personally don't agree with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevo68

W<snip>
What I would suggest is that naked pics of young children...in this day and age...for display for public viewing is not right. I question anybody who would want to see naked photos of children, however tastefully it is done. <snip>
Regards

Stevo

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Panda

Legal or not, I don't see why anyone would WANT to see photographs of naked children. <snip>

I personally don't agree with it.

---

So all those Ann Geddes calenders, posters, etc are taboo now ?

What about personal pics of the kids in the bath with Dad ? Or if we posses those, do we live in the fear that DOCS may come through the door at any moment and seize our kids ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevo68

............ If you agree with the right to display this kind of art and defend the artist, then you must concur that your view is that photo's of naked children even in an artistic way is acceptable?? Funny that no one of the opposing view has agreed to that,

Regards

Stevo

---

As I posted way back near the start of this thread, I do agree to that. Maybe I was not clear.

If you find that photos of naked children are offensive, this says more about YOU than it does about the photographer or exhibitor. The normal person does not, and never has, found naked children, or photos of them, either sexually exciting or offensive. For heavens sake, any parent has seen their own children naked! Children, particularly but not only small children, were frequently seen naked in public throughout most of recorded history in all societies worldwide. The phobia about nudity equating sex is restricted to relatively few societies, and has only been extended, even in these, to children in recent years.

We should not allow the small proportion of people who, because of their own hangups or deviance find naked children offensive or exciting, to dictate what we do. This does not extend to child pornography, which normal people find offensive, but nudity does not equal pornography.

For the record, I have never made a secret here of the fact that I am a nudist, and pictures myself and some of my children and grandchildren have appeared in nudist publications I believe - although I don't regularly read them so I am not sure whether some of the pictures were actually published, but one at least was.

John

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo68 https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...016/08/768.jpg
W<snip>
What I would suggest is that naked pics of young children...in this day and age...for display for public viewing is not right. I question anybody who would want to see naked photos of children, however tastefully it is done. <snip>
Regards

Stevo

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panda https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...016/08/768.jpg
Legal or not, I don't see why anyone would WANT to see photographs of naked children. <snip>

I personally don't agree with it.

So all those Ann Geddes calenders, posters, etc are taboo now ?

What about personal pics of the kids in the bath with Dad ? Or if we posses those, do we live in the fear that DOCS may come through the door at any moment and seize our kids ?

---

Again chalk and cheese, I have nudie pics of my babies...not of my 10 yr old boy and 11 yr old girl....aside from the fact they would kick me in the bollocks for even asking. There's a huge difference and shouldnt be something that even requires explaining.

Quote:

---

As I posted way back near the start of this thread, I do agree to that. Maybe I was not clear.

If you find that photos of naked children are offensive, this says more about YOU than it does about the photographer or exhibitor. The normal person does not, and never has, found naked children, or photos of them, either sexually exciting or offensive. For heavens sake, any parent has seen their own children naked! Children, particularly but not only small children, were frequently seen naked in public throughout most of recorded history in all societies worldwide. The phobia about nudity equating sex is restricted to relatively few societies, and has only been extended, even in these, to children in recent years.

We should not allow the small proportion of people who, because of their own hangups or deviance find naked children offensive or exciting, to dictate what we do. This does not extend to child pornography, which normal people find offensive, but nudity does not equal pornography.

For the record, I have never made a secret here of the fact that I am a nudist, and pictures myself and some of my children and grandchildren have appeared in nudist publications I believe - although I don't regularly read them so I am not sure whether some of the pictures were actually published, but one at least was.

---

Maybe I should also clarify, I do not find naked children offensive, go to any beach or even the swimming pool where I take my 5 yr old for swimming lessons and even he gets his kit off, and you will see young naked children..........however you do not find young girls 9+ or boys getting nuded up in public........cause it is different, how they think and feel at 5 is different at 9,10 etc. No nudity is not necessarily pornograghy, but seems many people are missing the point.

My daughter is 11 1/2, I spoke with her on this subject and she was horrified. My 10 yr old son has no qualms walking through the house butt naked, my daughter who once didnt have an issue is now at that self conscious stage. So for me it isn't necessarily about nudity being offensive, it is about as a parent 1. letting their child be photographed naked and 2. Those that would want to go and see photo's of naked children. Seeing a cute little bum of a 2 yr old toddling around on the beach is not the same as making a conscious decision to go to a gallery to view pre teen children in all their naked glory. So much glory that most pics have had to have black outs over their private parts. I cannot fathom how that is in anyway right.

So to crystalise, I do not find naked children offensive, let alone my own who are frequently nudey around the house as is my partner and myself much to the horror of the kids :D. That to me is very much normal, its the privacy of our own home but is not up for public display. Pictures of a naked baby as per a Anne Heddes calendar would be hung up by many parents, however a calendar of naked pre teen children would not. Is their a difference, you work that out, it shouldn't be that hard.

Again I am yet to read one person in defense say that they would a) make a conscious choice to go and view said gallery, which also at the time had one of the naked children on a flyer outside the gallery as "marketing" or b) allow their preteen child to be photographed naked. If you wouldnt to both a) and b), then maybe you would agree that despite his work over the years that in this case he has crossed a line,

Regards

Stevo

Sorry but it is just blatant paedophelia. Disguising it as art is absolute rubbish. What parent would let their 13yo daughter pose for nude photos for the world to see? Might be good though because all his public supporters should be watching their stuff, cause hopefully they are now being watched as well.
No one could support this sort of thing without being a voyeur or rock spider. I hope the DPP go hard.

I just thought I'd point out that when I lived in Canada for several years, a few years ago now, there was legislation passed in Ontario about something similar to this. The end result was that all photos of all naked children became, as far as anyone could work out, illegal. Then a father was arrested because he'd taken photos of something typical like his kids in a bath or running around nude or whatever. Apparently a suspicious photo shop alerted the cops and they were allowed no discretion: they had to arrest.

So this poor guy wound up arrested and charged - all for completely innocent, everyday stuff that any parent could be guilty of. Of course the media got a hold of it, and it made my blood run cold. I don't have any kids but with laws like that in place, you'd be scared if you did, wouldn't you?

I never did find out what happened to the guy in the end, or if they changed the law. But the whole stupid episode was a good example of how easily things can go too far. Rather than sorting out the bad from the everyday, a blanket mentality dragged in an innocent man.

As for this artist discussed here - well, I haven't seen the pictures and I'm not that interested in them, so I just won't say anything! Radical, eh? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevo68

Again chalk and cheese, I have nudie pics of my babies...not of my 10 yr old boy and 11 yr old girl....aside from the fact they would kick me in the bollocks for even asking. There's a huge difference and shouldnt be something that even requires explaining.

Maybe I should also clarify, I do not find naked children offensive, go to any beach or even the swimming pool where I take my 5 yr old for swimming lessons and even he gets his kit off, and you will see young naked children..........however you do not find young girls 9+ or boys getting nuded up in public........cause it is different, how they think and feel at 5 is different at 9,10 etc. No nudity is not necessarily pornograghy, but seems many people are missing the point.

My daughter is 11 1/2, I spoke with her on this subject and she was horrified. My 10 yr old son has no qualms walking through the house butt naked, my daughter who once didnt have an issue is now at that self conscious stage. So for me it isn't necessarily about nudity being offensive, it is about as a parent 1. letting their child be photographed naked and 2. Those that would want to go and see photo's of naked children. Seeing a cute little bum of a 2 yr old toddling around on the beach is not the same as making a conscious decision to go to a gallery to view pre teen children in all their naked glory. So much glory that most pics have had to have black outs over their private parts. I cannot fathom how that is in anyway right.

So to crystalise, I do not find naked children offensive, let alone my own who are frequently nudey around the house as is my partner and myself much to the horror of the kids :D. That to me is very much normal, its the privacy of our own home but is not up for public display. Pictures of a naked baby as per a Anne Heddes calendar would be hung up by many parents, however a calendar of naked pre teen children would not. Is their a difference, you work that out, it shouldn't be that hard.

Again I am yet to read one person in defense say that they would a) make a conscious choice to go and view said gallery, which also at the time had one of the naked children on a flyer outside the gallery as "marketing" or b) allow their preteen child to be photographed naked. If you wouldnt to both a) and b), then maybe you would agree that despite his work over the years that in this case he has crossed a line,

Regards

Stevo

---

I agree. I do not find naked children offensive or exciting, but as children are developing we need to be aware of their right to privacy. Private photos of your own kids are ok as is nudism etc as a private choice, but to display that choice in public is a completely different scenario. Yes we have pics of our kids in the socalled nudie, but it is in context. Publically hung pictures of nude children is just not on. Most people do not take offence of the Anne Geddes calenders, but rock spiders will love them. Do you see any 13yo breasts in these calenders? I think not. I know I have a 12yo daughter and would not even consider taking pics og her at this age. I would not even take pics of my 8yo boy running around nude as it would be distastefull. If we were a house full of nudists then I can see the relevance of private family pics, but would not particularly like to walk into some ones home and see them.
I have to say I am sick of so called artists (rock spiders) hiding behind the guise of art. Get out and take some real artistic photos.
These pics are infinitely more dangerous as they are sending the wrong message that if you label it art everything is OK.
I do like art, but real art not thinly disgusied pornography like this with minors.
As said get an adult girl to do the shots. Though even at 18 I think decisions would be made that may be regretted.

I am not against it, however I see the point of Porno, I'd prefer to be doing it myself than watching someone else do it. Whether it is porn or not is in the eyes of the beholder.

My views

Soap opera's have been passing 30 yr olds with 5 o clock shadows and DD jubblies for teenagers for yrs, why couldn't Henson

Art is overated in this day and age, even the entertainment industry (aka the arts industry ) are shying away from it, look at how many reality TV shows are on TV nowadays, surely these shows are designed by commitees and accountants as opposed to artists? Same can be said for the music industry. Henson's little publicity stunt, if thats what it is, is an expected and overdue death rattle of the arts industry, objectifying a young girl in the process is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Davo

I just thought I'd point out that when I lived in Canada for several years, a few years ago now, there was legislation passed in Ontario about something similar to this. The end result was that all photos of all naked children became, as far as anyone could work out, illegal. Then a father was arrested because he'd taken photos of something typical like his kids in a bath or running around nude or whatever. Apparently a suspicious photo shop alerted the cops and they were allowed no discretion: they had to arrest.

So this poor guy wound up arrested and charged - all for completely innocent, everyday stuff that any parent could be guilty of. Of course the media got a hold of it, and it made my blood run cold. I don't have any kids but with laws like that in place, you'd be scared if you did, wouldn't you?

I never did find out what happened to the guy in the end, or if they changed the law. But the whole stupid episode was a good example of how easily things can go too far. Rather than sorting out the bad from the everyday, a blanket mentality dragged in an innocent man.

As for this artist discussed here - well, I haven't seen the pictures and I'm not that interested in them, so I just won't say anything! Radical, eh? :p

---

I am not aware of the Canadian case, but I have heard of a number of similar cases in the US, where despite eventual victory in the courts families have been destroyed by zealous bigots, with several "offenders" spending years in gaol before charges were thrown out of court. As far as I am aware, the only similar cases in Australia have been thrown out of the first court they get to, most even not getting to court. But even so these bigots can manage a severe blow to a family, having a far worse effect on the children involved than any photography could.

Of course, you can argue that without the photos, there would be no damage to the children, but the reality is that the damage is caused by the bigots.

John