FineQuote:
Originally Posted by 29dinosaur
If anyone else has any constructive critisism about my signature, posts, attitude or whatever please have the decorum to indicate this to me via pm not in posts.
Printable View
FineQuote:
Originally Posted by 29dinosaur
If anyone else has any constructive critisism about my signature, posts, attitude or whatever please have the decorum to indicate this to me via pm not in posts.
Serious question. What actually were the pics?Quote:
Originally Posted by drivesafe
I ask this as I understood that it was a pic of a girl standing there naked with her hands covering her genitalia. If thats the one, it's actually quite a miserable looking picture.
Sorry to all of those that will disagree with me, but for my money, there are 3 groups of people here that should be charged:
1) The photographer
2) The gallery for showing the photos
3) The PARENTS - what were they thinking allowing their 12yo daughter to pose naked for photos?
If it is classed as porn or art is irrelevent. The simple fact remains that he has taken photographs of a young girl, displayed them publically, and expects to receive payment for them.
No doubt the "model" will receive some payment, but as she is under the age of consent (still 18 last time I checked) then the parents / guardians are still responsible for her health & well being. And that is not just her physical health, but her mental health as well.
The facts are the facts, and the intention should be discussed in front of a judge & jury. Lets trust the legal system - its not perfect, but it is all we have.
If any or all are found innocent, then I will accept that. I may not like it, but thats what justice is about.
Oh, and why I am at it, there is no way any of my 3 daughters are doing anything like that while I have any say in it. (I even told them that they wernt to kiss a boy until they were 35). The youngest 2 are still under 10, so I have a couple of years until then.
Reminds me of my son's comment a few minutes after his first child was born, and it became apparent that he had a daughter - "NO BOYS!". Conveniently ignoring the fact that he did not have this attitude when he first met the girl who was to become his wife! (They were 16 and 14 - now been together for twenty years and married for fifteen)Quote:
Originally Posted by Basil135
Now with three daughters (like yours the oldest is ten in a couple of months), he is perhaps a little more realistic. The fact is that while you are responsible to some extent for your children until they are eighteen, legally they (rather than you) begin to be responsible for their actions from about the age of ten, and from about twelve they are the ones who will get locked up if they do something serious enough.
They can legally engage in sexually activity from the age of sixteen (in SA this is limited to same age partners and in all states it cannot be with someone in charge of them).
So the law clearly recognises the gradual transfer of responsibility from the parent to the child - the parent who continues to exert (or try to) absolute control over teenagers will not only have little legal support, but is likely to be unsuccessful. In my experience (admittedly limited to my own children) open communication and discussion (backed by parental example and love) is far more successful than trying to control them by edict.
I would be interested if this case goes to court, although on what I have heard (and I have not seen the pictures, and am not really interested in them, although I am in the case) it would be pretty much a waste of money and court time.
But your point is very good -
"The facts are the facts, and the intention should be discussed in front of a judge & jury. Lets trust the legal system - its not perfect, but it is all we have."
John
From this morning's SMH
Board clears Henson images - Arts - Entertainment - smh.com.au
CheersQuote:
Board clears Henson images
David Marr
June 2, 2008
Images declared "absolutely revolting" by the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, at the height of the Bill Henson controversy have been cleared for general release.
Late last week the Classification Board swiftly assessed five Henson images taken from media websites and rated them all "G" or "very mild". Some or all of the images are partly censored with black bars covering nipples and genitals. The assessment followed a complaint about images on media websites after NSW police closed his Sydney exhibition on May 23. The main complaint is said to involve a slide show of seized photographs on The Daily Telegraph's website.
Last Thursday, the Minister for Home Affairs, Bob Debus, said images from media websites has been referred to the Classification Board. They were cleared the same day. An internet censorship expert Irene Graham told the Herald: "The fact that the Classification Board has become involved in this and then worked so quickly to reach its verdict is a sign of just how politically sensitive the Henson issue has become."
Responsibility for policing the net was given to the Australian Communications and Media Authority in 2006. Since then, it has referred less than a dozen complaints to the Classification Board. The Henson complaint is the first to be cleared absolutely by the board, which is is expected to release a full report on each of the five images today.
Mr Rudd also assessed the photos on the basis of images partly obscured with bars. "That's the first time I have seen them," he told Channel Nine on the day of their seizure. He declared them revolting and without artistic merit.
Uncensored Henson images are also being investigated by the authority following police complaints about the original photographs on the Roslyn Oxley9 gallery website. That website is hosted on a foreign server.
Simon
So instead of posting or pm'ing me about anytime within the 3 weeks ago the signature was on here, you decided yesterday when someone else was having a go to put your boot in,Quote:
Originally Posted by 29dinosaur
mate you need to grow some.
Perhaps instead of letting him surf the net take your son out for a drive or help him maintain your Land Rover with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dobbo
You already made a mention of that dobbo... and now again?Quote:
So instead of posting or pm'ing me about anytime within the 3 weeks ago the signature was on here, you decided yesterday when someone else was having a go to put your boot in,
mate you need to grow some.
Heed your own advice, PM him.
Firstly...On Topic :D
Says it all about the pics in my book, if it were truly art, why is it being censored. From what I have been reading there were 41 pics of naked girls and boys...note not men and women and there were displays of youngs girls genitalia.Quote:
Some or all of the images are partly censored with black bars covering nipples and genitals.
Off Topic
Despite living in a Stevocentric Universe :p, I have to concur with Dobbo on this one. Comment was irrelevant to the thread...much like this one, and really if you have a bone to pick with someone, do it privately. Also in terms of young son, how young, I have a 13, 11,9,5 and a 7 wk old, obviously the ones that read, I wouldnt let them read General anyway. Yes we are a family site, yes we have a G rating, but the general content in General is all about adult topics, not topics for children to read.Quote:
Originally Posted by 29dinosaur https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...016/08/768.jpg
And your signature is really offensive mate... !! How about cleaning that up too. My young son frequents this list and frankly your signature about vibrators pleasing so many at once is over the top.... this is a family list!
Other sections for sure, but if I am standing around chatting to my mates on a range of issues etc......it is not something that my children are involved with. 29Dinosaur, if you are going to have that attitude about your young son reading about a vibrator and dependant on age probably knows what one is anyway, then there are many many topics, expressions, posts, threads that would be deemed potentially more inappropriate than that. Just my opinion of course :),
Regards
Stevo
I love the irony:Rolling:Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo68
I have my moments :p, though I did quantify my comments with it being off topic :DQuote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo68 https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...016/08/768.jpg
Comment was irrelevant to the thread...much like this one,
Regards
Stevo
I love the irony:Rolling:
Regards
Stevo