Thread: DPP to consider charging Henson

Originally Posted by drivesafe

These photographs are of a child in deliberately sexually explicit poses and are nothing short of being out and out pornographic images of a child.

This sicko pedophile belongs in gaol and as someone else pointed out, so does the child’s parents.

No imprisonment, he is a dangerous animal, he should be put to sleep like you would any other rabid and unpredictable dog.

If it were a Rottie that scared or scarred a kid, and had the potential to do it to others in the future it would be destroyed within the hour, can someone tell me what the difference is between these two animals?

Originally Posted by drivesafe

I have obviously not seen the photographs and if they were on public display, would have absolutely no intentions of ever seeing them.

The law makes it clear that the photographing of naked children is illegal, there is no grey area here, the line is defined and this creep has crossed it. .........

Like you, I have not seen the photos, but it needs to be pointed out that photographing of naked children is not in itself illegal in any Australian state or territory, so you are right, there is no grey area. It is not even illegal in the USA, where so much of our popular culture comes from, or as far as I am aware, in any western country.

If the viewer finds images of naked children automatically obscene, I suggest that it says more about the viewer than the artist*.

Images of naked children may be pornography, but this depends entirely on whether the child is portrayed in a sexual pose or not - and there may well be a difference of opinion about what constitutes a sexual pose.

With the proliferation of digital cameras, the proportion of parents/grandparents with photographs of (their own) naked children would be very high, and it is unlikely that modifications to the existing laws to ban them would gain popular support. Look at the furor over the proposal a year or so ago to ban parents from taking photos at school swimming carnivals! (the proposal was quickly dropped).

The question of consent is a separate one, but it is worth noting that in this case both the girl involved and her parents have, through their lawyer, pointed out that the photography and publication were approved by them and still has their approval.

I, for one, am very wary of the modern idea that our lives should be guided by the assumption that everybody (else) is untrustworthy in the worst possible way. I suggest a perusal of the article in the June 2008 Scientific American on the biological basis of trust is worthwhile - it has an interesting comparison of how much people trust each other by country; the countries with most trust are the ones most people would consider to be good places to live. Australia is fairly well up the list.

John

*An excellent, well documented case of this is the one of Mark Foley. A US Congressman, he was a campaigner against child abuse, introducing the "Child Modeling Exploitation prevention Act of 2002" (which failed, largely because it would have made all commercial photography of children illegal) and campaigning against programs for teenagers at a Florida nudist resort. He was also a supporter of other legislation against child pornography.

In 2006 he resigned from Congress when his relation with teenage "Congressional Pages" over the previous ten years came to light, initially through publication of explicit emails from him, but he had been warned a year earlier by the Clerk of the House.

Originally Posted by mudmouse

<snip>

If the argument of 'art' is going to be fair dinkum, then any behaviour can be artistic - can I take a dump on the steps of an art gallery and say, no its art! No because thats offensive and not in line with community standards. <snip>

Umm, maybe not on the steps, although organised with the art gallery, sure.

Inside the gallery. It has happened as art more than once, both literally and figuratively.

Salvador Dali sent some of his in a mailing tube, **** Christ, Chris Ofili did it with elephant dung.

Cheers
Simon

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Like you, I have not seen the photos.

If the viewer finds images of naked children automatically obscene, I suggest that it says more about the viewer than the artist*.

Images of naked children may be pornography, but this depends entirely on whether the child is portrayed in a sexual pose or not - and there may well be a difference of opinion about what constitutes a sexual pose.

With the proliferation of digital cameras, the proportion of parents/grandparents with photographs of (their own) naked children would be very high

My refference was to not seeing the originals, as posted just above, they have been displayed in numerous news sessions, in a doctored form and they are nothing like the photos one takes of their own babies in the bath tub at home, to even try to compear them to the family snaps is a joke.

These photographs are of a child in deliberately sexually explicit poses and are nothing short of being out and out pornographic images of a child.

Originally Posted by dobbo

No imprisonment, he is a dangerous animal, he should be put to sleep like you would any other rabid and unpredictable dog.

If it were a Rottie that scared or scarred a kid, and had the potential to do it to others in the future it would be destroyed within the hour, can someone tell me what the difference is between these two animals?

IF ONLY

The guy is not being charged with displaying pornography but some other lesser charge about displaying inappropriate photograghs.

Let me say up front that I do not agree with the taking nor display of these photographs and anything like it - but as a society, we do have to put some things into persepective and have a look at some double standards.

About the same time that story broke "Funniest Home Videos" on the TCN/WIN network was showing home videos of very young children running around in their birthday suits, and yet no one has been complaining about this and in my view is worse than the photos in the gallery.

I certainly accept the right of a family in a family setting to record the good times but the boundary is crossed when they are sent to TV stations for public display - yes a different circumstance but we seem to allow this sort of thing.

If we accept these sort of displays are unacceptable ie no naked photos of anyone under 18 then it should apply in all circumstances - but where is the line drawn?

Garry

Originally Posted by drivesafe

Hi Slunnie, I’m not apologising for my comments about teachers condoning graffiti by stating it’s a form of artistic expression, as this has been raised a number of times over the past few years in Sydney press.

As to passing judgement on the photographs with out seeing them, they have been displayed in numerous news sessions, in a doctored form and they are nothing like the photos one takes of their own babies in the bath tub at home.

These photographs are of a child in deliberately sexually explicit poses and are nothing short of being out and out pornographic images of a child.

This sicko pedophile belongs in gaol and as someone else pointed out, so does the child’s parents.

I have no problems with your henson comments. I also think that you'll find if you go beyond the media that teachers that condon graffiti are absolutely isolated cases - much the same as sparkys that accidentally use the wrong coloured wires.... they all pedos anyway and should have their nuts cut off.

Lock the "Rockspider" up I say....hiding behind Art is no excuse..naked kid is a naked kid...oh and the parents who consented 5 lashes each...

As I said on another forum, I have an 11 almost 12 yr old daughter, forget whether/ or how it maybe viewed, there is nothing whatsoever that I could think of in every fibre of my being, that as a parent would consent to have my child photographed naked for public viewing. That for me is it in a nutshell.

Home photogrpahs of your generally very young children playing naked in the bath tub is one thing, I saw someone somewhere try to draw a distinction between these photo's and the famous photo of a young girl in Vietnam during the war....what an Fwit. In a nutshell it is quite clear whether it be media or any forum that has this topic, young children should not be photographed for any kind of purpose,

Regards

Stevo