DPP to consider charging Henson

If I may venture a comment.

Haven't followed the thread item by item but, I do understand there is a basic disagreement with two items.

1. The photographer that would take these images.

and

2. The competence of the parents that would allow these images to be taken.


Whether or not it is art or pornography is secondary, IMHO.

I have a 14 year old daughter who could talk me into a new mobile phone every week.

I have a friend who is a photographer for a Rupert Murdoch publication.

Could either of them convince me this was a good idea?

I don't think so!

I think, and it seems that the classification crowd think, that the main issue is whether the photographs are pornography of a minor or not. This is where the breach of law comes into it and what has triggered the whole situation. The photographer and parents I think are all secondary to the main problem of if it is child pornography, and if it is found to be child porn then should be liable for it. IMHO.

I think I understand where you are coming from

but,

I have a 14 year old daughter.

Porn or Art? Who cares?

Not an option!

Priorities?

True, I reckon that 99% of parents wouldn't let their kids be involved with anything like this, and rightly so - I know I wouldn't.

But... it's also important to remove emotion and personal value judgements and look at it from a factual perspective. It seems that generally those that do have kids have a protective opinion on Hensons work, and rightly so. Others just look at the situation from an "as it is" perspective. Well, thats what I think at least, but Im usually very "clinical" in my thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slunnie

True, I reckon that 99% of parents wouldn't let their kids be involved with anything like this, and rightly so - I know I wouldn't.

But... it's also important to remove emotion and personal value judgements and look at it from a factual perspective. It seems that generally those that do have kids have a protective opinion on Hensons work, and rightly so. Others just look at the situation from an "as it is" perspective. Well, thats what I think at least, but Im usually very "clinical" in my thinking.

---

You have ommited the third and more likely perspective and that is perversion from sick and twisted people and that is more likely the scenario for trying to justify this sort of exploitation. There are a lot more sick and twisted people than we like to admit live amongst us and they love to hide behind the guise of art and the like.
I for one am not offended by nudity, but I am by exploitation of a minor and art is not an excuse or an answer. Only a few weeks ago a magazine was crucified for similar photos.
I really would like to see someone come up with a valid and just reason for this sort of degradation of a young girl, because no matter how hard you can try and explain it away there is no reason good enough.
I would not even count photography as a legitimate art form. It takes some talent and technical knowledge with a good eye but hardly art.
Maybe some of the so called supporters of this sort of crap should read some doccuments such as the convention for the protection of children and other such treatys and conventions. These protections are put in place for a reason and art is not exempt. I am really sick of some of the crap that comes out as an expression of art from talentless, bludgers who dont want to be real artists or take on real jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xavie

They say pedophilia and aphebophilia is natural. But it is still not in the best interest of a child. This is an extreme example but one which I believe needs to be brought in to this.

As far as judging the childrens best interest- it is common place for the parents not to be able to judge the best interest of the child. Parents often think of themselves or other parties before the child. The fact is children can not always judge what is best for them hence having parents or other carers such as and I hope docs in this case.

Xav

---

That is utter tripe Xavie. I have and will always put the interest of my children above mine or any one elses. I may not always be right as any parent errs or is blindsided at times, but we do the best with our intentions. The child always should have some input, but not coerced acceptance. having a child agree with your point of view does not make it right or truthfull. Docs are often the worst decision makers and seem to spend more time defending so called childrens rights to do what they please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garrycol

So what is wrong with someone saying enough is enough - that is their view.

Just as you have said what u thought.

Garry

---

If someone has had enough of a given thread then it is time for that someone to stop visiting it but that does not mean that everybody else has to stop!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CraigE

You have ommited the third and more likely perspective and that is perversion from sick and twisted people and that is more likely the scenario for trying to justify this sort of exploitation. There are a lot more sick and twisted people than we like to admit live amongst us and they love to hide behind the guise of art and the like.
I for one am not offended by nudity, but I am by exploitation of a minor and art is not an excuse or an answer. Only a few weeks ago a magazine was crucified for similar photos.
I really would like to see someone come up with a valid and just reason for this sort of degradation of a young girl, because no matter how hard you can try and explain it away there is no reason good enough.
I would not even count photography as a legitimate art form. It takes some talent and technical knowledge with a good eye but hardly art.
Maybe some of the so called supporters of this sort of crap should read some doccuments such as the convention for the protection of children and other such treatys and conventions. These protections are put in place for a reason and art is not exempt. I am really sick of some of the crap that comes out as an expression of art from talentless, bludgers who dont want to be real artists or take on real jobs.

---

I was not going to say anything more on this thread, but I have problems allowing this to pass. Obviously you are implying that because I have argued against your views I am a "sick and twisted", and I have to take exception to this.

You use emotive words such as "exploitation", "degradation", "crap", when it has been agreed by the official censor that there is nothing wrong with the images. Unless you accept that nudity is in itself offensive (and you say you don't), then there is no basis for saying there is any exploitation or degradation.

I am not trying to come up with a "valid and just reason for this sort of degradation" because quite simply, there is no degradation taking place. Any exploitation is no more than is the case with ANY artist portraying ANY subject, and then making a profit from the image - and without this how can any professional artist make a living?

The fact that a magazine was crucified over similar photos is totally irrelevant except to the extent that it shows a few very vocal critics have similar views.

Since there is no exploitation or degradation taking place, conventions and treaties on protection of children are irrelevant.

Nobody is going to argue with your freedom to forbid your child(ren) from being photographed in this way, but in my view this freedom should not extend to forbidding other parents, who may have different views. After all, you hardly want them to interfer in your parenting unless they can show harm is coming to the children.

I won't even comment on whether it is art or not - again, this is irrelevant.

John

The headlines today, 2800 caught in child porn sting.

2801 scumbags sexually exployting children, 2800 get charged, 1 calls it art and gets away with it.

Art my a, where is the difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drivesafe

The headlines today, 2800 caught in child porn sting.

2801 scumbags sexually exployting children, 2800 get charged, 1 calls it art and gets away with it.

Art my a, where is the difference?

---

One is pornography - one is not (and not because it is "art").

Quite simple, but some people seem to have difficulty telling the difference between nudity and pornography. Note that in this case there was no hesitation in making arrests, where nearly a fortnight after the Henson raid, no arrests have been made or charges laid, and the only legal decision made has been that the official censor has decided that the images are not pornographic, despite your emotive language.

John