DPP to consider charging Henson

As a Social worker I think it is important to take the child's life, health and wellbeing in to account. Everyone seems to be taking the art scene and this famous art guy and all the other countries and what they think in to account but no one is child focused and I reckon that's pretty sad.

I'm not ever going to say it is not good art because as an artist also I know somethings can be controversial but good. This is not it however.

The child can not give informed consent over this and the parents should not be able to sign away a part of her innocence like was done.

I won't go in to some of his old art work to much like where the kids had bruises on them and cuts and were also naked but I think it is something to ponder why he would have that up. Or was it the easy target to get their clothes off because of fmaily breakdown and he knew they would take a quid if offered?

You can show innocence with a clothed child. You can show it with a face. You could even find a someone who is 18 and looks much younger. He didn't though. He took away a part of a child's innocence and wellbeing to cater for himself and indulge himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xavie

As a Social worker I think it is important to take the child's life, health and wellbeing in to account. Everyone seems to be taking the art scene and this famous art guy and all the other countries and what they think in to account but no one is child focused and I reckon that's pretty sad.

I'm not ever going to say it is not good art because as an artist also I know somethings can be controversial but good. This is not it however.

The child can not give informed consent over this and the parents should not be able to sign away a part of her innocence like was done.

I won't go in to some of his old art work to much like where the kids had bruises on them and cuts and were also naked but I think it is something to ponder why he would have that up. Or was it the easy target to get their clothes off because of fmaily breakdown and he knew they would take a quid if offered?

You can show innocence with a clothed child. You can show it with a face. You could even find a someone who is 18 and looks much younger. He didn't though. He took away a part of a child's innocence and wellbeing to cater for himself and indulge himself.

---

This is my arguement, the way I see it he doesn't have to touch her, IMO his actions are deemed inappropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevo68

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

---

Hi Stevo

And with respect returned :)

My point if somewhat clumsily put was not about what constitutes art or pornography or about comparing photos of naked children with a 4wd Forum but about freedom of expression:

The sort of freedom of expression that this forum allows people is subject to what the other users consider as appropriate behavior and to the moderators' interpretation of the rules.

So likewise Bill Henson's works are about expressing an idea or an opinion about a subject. Obviously we are challenged by this and hence this debate and exchange of views. The moderators in this instance are the courts.

Over-zealous moderation in both instances can lead to the stifling of debate and the exchange of important ideas at best and at worst the creation of a culture of fear and retribution (Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia is an example of the worst)

The test I use for "keeping the door open" to new ideas is the "will it do any harm test". Not foolproof but also not reactionary.

So my use of this place as an analogue is more like comparing Camembert with Cheddar. ;)

I like you have spent a little time wrestling with this and with a son who is a psychologist and another who is studying fine arts the views are interesting, however most interesting was that of a 16 year old girl at a gathering of friends last weekend...it challenged the "grown-ups".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xavie

..........
You can show innocence with a clothed child. .......

---

The problem I have with your view, is your assumption that there is something intrinsically wrong with nakedness. There is not, and if you think there is, you need to analyse why you think there is. If, as I maintain, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with nakedness, then your whole case falls away.

No court in this country will support your assumption.

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

The problem I have with your view, is your assumption that there is something intrinsically wrong with nakedness. There is not, and if you think there is, you need to analyse why you think there is. If, as I maintain, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with nakedness, then your whole case falls away.

No court in this country will support your assumption.

John

---

I believe I know why your stong about that point, your a nudey:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rovercare

I believe I know why your stong about that point, your a nudey:D

---

whats wrong with that? You don't think I can type this quick with just my fingers do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dobbo

whats wrong with that? You don't think I can type this quick with just my fingers do you?

---

You don't wear any socks:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rovercare

I believe I know why your stong about that point, your a nudey:D

---

Of course it may well be a moot point as to which is cause and which is effect!

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rovercare

You don't wear any socks:eek:

---

not on my feet I don't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dobbo

not on my feet I don't

---

Sock puppets?:confused: