Why should the thread be closed just because YOU don't want it.Quote:
Originally Posted by d3funct
No one is forcing YOU to come back and read it.
If you've had enough, don't both reading it.
Printable View
Why should the thread be closed just because YOU don't want it.Quote:
Originally Posted by d3funct
No one is forcing YOU to come back and read it.
If you've had enough, don't both reading it.
How would keeping it open be constructive anymore?
We all voiced our opinions many posts ago, and none of us achieved anything...
Because of that it would lead me, and most others to thing that YOU want to keep the thread open, so that YOU can carry on disrespecting everyone elses opinion and continue preaching the gospel according to drivesafe.
Find a new hobby, or better yet, volunteer yourself here and start making a real contribution.
Dead right, nothing has been achieved, the pediphile has got away with his child porn, the censors have prooved once again that money comes before true protection, just have a look at the way the censors have protected children from ciggarettes.Quote:
Originally Posted by d3funct
7 or 8 years ago the fed gov warned the movie producers that if they did not remove the use of cigarettes from movies the censors would give such movies an R rating, which would seriously cut the movies profitability.
Yet even though there are plenty of movies coming into the country where, in many cases, promonent stars are smoking, not one movie has ever recieved an R clasification because of the smoking in a movie.
Hell no, they can't stop the kids contributing to the profits of such companies just like they arn't going to interfere with Hendos ability to make a bundle selling kiddy porn.
d3funct, your dead right, nothing has been achieved.
Did anybody else happen to catch the ABC’s Radio National’s program yesterday about what people constitutes as inappropriate behavior regarding the taking of photos of children.
Needless to say, the subject was in direct relation to but not specifically about Henson.
Most of the calls were about people seeing others acting inappropriately around children but one caller, who’s family had a close relationship with the gallery where these photos are being displayed, had some interesting comments.
His mother got remarried recently and the ceremony was held in the gallery.
He made it quite clear that he and others at the wedding found the photos somewhat unsettling and although he at no time called them porn he did say the subject material was inappropriate and he specifically mentioned not just the photos of the young naked girl but made reference to a large number of photos of young naked boys.
He also made it clear that many of the guests were of the same opinion.
This thread will eventually fade away but the attention Hensen has brought on himself by his misuse of children is not going to fade away so quickly so maybe things will change relating to people like Hensen, who try to hide their kiddy porn by calling it “art”
I can't believe this is still going, there are obviously some out there passionate with their views! and others who disagree.
I saw the first page of this then kept away,
but now it is all done and dusted,the DPP won't prosecute, obviously no offence committed, nothing in the proofs of the usuable offences that can be used. That is the justice system.
But to tie up almost half a police station on something that had no hope of prosecution in the first place is criminal, Al sicard the boss at rose bay, used to work with him,my coffee boy, he should have known better, suppposed to be a trained investigator.
Given the level of public hysteria over the exhibition, it is not surprising knee jerk reactions became the norm. But in reality you would hardly have seen the population of australia visiting the gallery, to be offended by the porn!!!
Maybe posting them on a website was a bit too much.
The child perverts are out there, stopping a gallery is not going to stop them. With the advances in cyber detection its only a matter of time before all the low lifes are arrested, as that is now there world, i don't think they come out in public anymore.
I object to those kids adds for huggies, and training pants, even that car add with the nappy wearing kid who surfed. But there was no outcry when they were on so what is the difference!
I havne;t seen the henson photos and never will, I think any like minded person would be the same. The only Henson i had heard of was from the muppets!!
thats my take on it
john
I had bowed out of this thread a little while back :) and have been reading the posts since then, plus the various articles in the media since the DPP handed down its decision. Hooray...the Henson supporters on here yelled...what great news. I actually wonder how much reading some of you did on the topic.
There were 41 pics of naked pre teen children, both boys and girls, many with parts of their genitalia exposed. These pictures were also shown on the internet, for ever there and one picture used as marketing material.
These pictures have now been given a G-PG rating....this is after they have had black bands across any showing genitalia plus you have to make an appointment to actually see the pictures. If there is no issue and all is well and good, why not just show them as is and any joe blow can come have a squizz.
F.F.S., anybody can tone down an image that maybe considered offensive... A Current Affair a couple of weeks ago, had a nude news reader story, it is a G Rated show.........so the boobies were pixallated. It's still a nude woman flashing her ta ta's...is it not? Therefore these pictures of naked pre teens, are still that....naked pictures of pre teens, simple. And for myself and the majority of people I have spoken to and those that have voiced their opinions on here, have come from that perspective, moreso from the angle of a parent. Not one..........and I mean not one person I challenged who had a differing view said that they would a) allow their child to be photographed naked for public viewing or b) would view such an offering, yet defend that offering.......seems hypocritical in my minds eye.
In terms of the DPP deciding not to prosecute, what sort of precedent has this set. Does it now open the door to other "artists" to push the boundaries and challenge societies beliefs and morals. Does it allow a legal arguement in court for a kiddy fiddler to call his material "art", that he had consent and so forth.
From a marketing perspective, how wonderful for Henson, was there perhaps not an inkling of what might have happened in respect to his "work". The DPP may not have prosecuted because they felt they might not win.....................in the eyes of the majority of people I have spoken to and on here..........he lost in the eyes of the average Aussie......especially the average Aussie parent with children.
My concern is to a large extent the actual issue, but in many ways what it represents for the future. Is that not at least food for thought? As forOne shouldnt need to explain the difference, especially if you have had children :angel:,Quote:
I object to those kids adds for huggies, and training pants, even that car add with the nappy wearing kid who surfed. But there was no outcry when they were on so what is the difference!
Regards
Stevo
stevo well said
but, unless you have worked in or are a legal practioner,you would know
there are intention offences, ie where you deliberatly set out to do something illegal.
that is written into the acts and proofs of the offences.
in this case no intention no offence. that only shows a defect in the legislation/act. Thats why the DPP is not proceeding,
Now I'll admit this, I have arrested deviants in the past, have interviewed them,in the days before internet porn,I still remember the sort of stuff they talked about that turns them on, thats why I dont like those nappy adds I talked about, and the difference, no one is complaining about the nappy adds but about the art that your average citizen would not look at..
Enough said, in all it is a distasteful subject,
because in reality , we could be surrounded by deviants, we just don't know who they are!!
john
I too had said my piece, oh well :DQuote:
Originally Posted by stevo68
Actually 'art' has always pushed boundaries and beliefs, and tried to ***** societies norms. That's what artists do, whether, painting, sculpture, dance, and in latter days film and often literature.
Look back over the centuries at how many books have been banned for various reasons in various cultures, including our own, that when read now are considered tame. I remember reading Thomas Hardy's 'Tess of the d'Úrbavilles' at school and having to re-read the rape scene several times as I didn't believe my English teacher it had actually happened, to my late twentieth century sensibilities it was far too subtle a piece of writing for it to register whith me (or I'm just thick ;)) yet in Victorian England when it was published it was absolutely scandalous and IIRC the book was banned.
When Éduard Manet exhibited his famous painting 'Luncheon on the Grass' in Paris in 1863 it scandalised society as it depicted some artists picnicking with a prostitute on the Séine. It wasn't so much that she was nude, but that she was nude with clothed men, and the obvious fact to Parisians of the time she was a prostitute, yet today it is regarded as one of the first great works of impressionism and is positively tame, yet at the time a lot of people wanted it withdrawn from exhibition. I think the only thing that saved him was that his father was either the head of the Supreme Court or recently retired from that position.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...008/06/552.jpg
From what I read, there are strict definitions in the law to differentiate between 'art' and porn, particularly child porn, and I would hope no one would like to see the real paedophiles find a loophole in the law.
More than likely not, as his work hangs in almost every major gallery in the country.Quote:
From a marketing perspective, how wonderful for Henson, was there perhaps not an inkling of what might have happened in respect to his "work". <snip> :angel:,
Regards
Stevo
Controversial ? There has always been discussion of his work. I remember reading the review of his retrospective at the Art Gallery of NSW in the Herald a few years back and his work has always been 'controversial', just not on the wider public stage.
:eek: That stuns me. Thanks for making a naive bugger like me a little more aware of how 'their' brain ticks John.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnE
I remember the surfing/driving kid (Hyundai ?) add being taken off the air as there were complaints, but I though it was because it depicted under age driving, maybe there was more to it ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnE
I do not believe this interpretation of the situation is correct. The intention question is not why the DPP is not proceeding.
The simple fact is that nudity, regardless of the age or sex of the subject, is not pornographic and will not be classified as such by the OFLC, unless it can be shown to be "sexualised", and in the case of these images the censor (who is the expert on the subject) does not believe this to be the case. As Incisor has commented, Australia is pretty heavily censored in many respects, but simple nudity is NOT subject to censorship, regardless of what else is.
A significant minority appears to believe that just because something is stimulating to a small number of deviants, it should be banned regardless, and that any image of a naked or partially clothed child falls into this classification. In my view, this attitude is indefensible. Changing the law to criminalise all images of naked or partially naked children, which is what is being called for, would make into criminals a large proportion of parents as well as almost all art galleries, and trustees of many public buildings, travel brochures, books and films. And it would have no significant impact on the access of these deviants to much more stimulating material via the internet. (and it is worth noting that censoring the internet is virtually impossible - it should be remembered that the arresting those responsible for downloading child pornography recently will have no significant effect on the availability of this material as a whole for those intent on finding it)
This question of whether something should be "banned" or not, is completely separate from whether it is "art" (and the censor as I understand it does not look at this question in this country, although this applies in the US). If we proposed to ban everything that is called art, that anyone dislikes, there would be very little left. For example, there is a fair bit of "art" about that offends me - but I am not calling for it to be banned.
John