Thread: DPP to consider charging Henson

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 disagree. My point is that it has to be in the childs interest not the photographer and not the art lovers. Is there an issue with nakedness? in some contexts there most certainly is. Not in all however. It is based on the situation and the society. I think using the word "intrinsic" is saying it is unnatural for a human to be able to be naked. That's not the argument. It is unnatural in todays society however for a child to be used in such a way.

Xav

I agree with Xav. The issue for me is not the nakedness or the poor victim photographer (as some are making him out to be), it's with the exploitation of a child who is is not emotionally mature enough at 12 to make the decision to pose for such 'art'.

If the 'art' is what's important to Henson, why didn't he use an 18yo??
As I said earlier, IMO it's not the art but the money! Controversy=money

Originally Posted by Xavie

I disagree. My point is that it has to be in the childs interest not the photographer and not the art lovers. Is there an issue with nakedness? in some contexts there most certainly is. Not in all however. It is based on the situation and the society. I think using the word "intrinsic" is saying it is unnatural for a human to be able to be naked. That's not the argument. It is unnatural in todays society however for a child to be used in such a way.

Xav

I can't agree with you. It is only "unnatural" to the extent we allow a small minority of deviants to dictate our attitudes. "Today's society" is a catch phrase used to mean whatever the speaker wants, usually to justify a suppression of freedom or the overturning of previous restrictions - it is used both ways and hence is meaningless.

It is certainly not unnatural in any real meaning of the word, "contrary to nature".

I am not sure you mean by "it has to be in the childs interest not the photographer and not the art lovers" - this would seem to mean that any art has to be in the interest of the child, which could apparently condemn almost any depiction of children in art, an opinion that would hardly gain much support, and even if it does, should it be extended to all aspects of life, not just art?

And for that matter, if, in your opinion, neither the child nor the parents are a judge of "the child's best interests", bearing in mind that the model and parents have apparently all approved this photography, and continue to do so, who is to be the judge of the child's best interest? And who appointed this person?

John

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavie
I disagree. My point is that it has to be in the childs interest not the photographer and not the art lovers. Is there an issue with nakedness? in some contexts there most certainly is. Not in all however. It is based on the situation and the society. I think using the word "intrinsic" is saying it is unnatural for a human to be able to be naked. That's not the argument. It is unnatural in todays society however for a child to be used in such a way.

Xav

I can't agree with you. It is only "unnatural" to the extent we allow a small minority of deviants to dictate our attitudes. "Today's society" is a catch phrase used to mean whatever the speaker wants, usually to justify a suppression of freedom or the overturning of previous restrictions - it is used both ways and hence is meaningless.

It is certainly not unnatural in any real meaning of the word, "contrary to nature".

I am not sure you mean by "it has to be in the childs interest not the photographer and not the art lovers" - this would seem to mean that any art has to be in the interest of the child, which could apparently condemn almost any depiction of children in art, an opinion that would hardly gain much support, and even if it does, should it be extended to all aspects of life, not just art?

And for that matter, if, in your opinion, neither the child nor the parents are a judge of "the child's best interests", bearing in mind that the model and parents have apparently all approved this photography, and continue to do so, who is to be the judge of the child's best interest? And who appointed this person?

John

Cuppla things, my daughter is 11 1/2, soon to be 12, she is a child and any parent with a right mind would know it wouldn't be in the childs best interest.

Bolded part, based on that, taking it extreme, if say the parent and the child were having an intimate relationship and they had a person taking pics and all approved...who is to be the judge of the childs best interest. Society is, just as society is if the parents in this case can't be the judge.

Based on your opposing arguement John, do you think it would be acceptable to have 41 images of full frontal nudity of pre teens hanging in a gallery. Simple question, yes or no?

Regards

Stevo

Originally Posted by stevo68

......

Based on your opposing arguement John, do you think it would be acceptable to have 41 images of full frontal nudity of pre teens hanging in a gallery. Simple question, yes or no?

Regards

Stevo

Yes, provided that there is nothing sexual about the pictures - and any court in this country would agree with me. Not in photography, but painting, I would be pretty certain that any large art gallery would be able to meet that specification.


John

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo68
......

Based on your opposing arguement John, do you think it would be acceptable to have 41 images of full frontal nudity of pre teens hanging in a gallery. Simple question, yes or no?

Regards

Stevo

Yes, provided that there is nothing sexual about the pictures - and any court in this country would agree with me. Not in photography, but painting, I would be pretty certain that any large art gallery would be able to meet that specification.


John

Bolded part...havent you just refuted your position. This is about photography...not paintings...why is it now not acceptable for full frontal nudity photographs of pre teens?

Also in terms of court agreeing with you, all the photo's have black outs over the private parts of the children, so in effect, no the courts would not agree with full frontal nudity of pre teens,

Regards

Stevo

Originally Posted by stevo68

Bolded part...havent you just refuted your position. This is about photography...not paintings...why is it now not acceptable for full frontal nudity photographs of pre teens?

Also in terms of court agreeing with you, all the photo's have black outs over the private parts of the children, so in effect, no the courts would not agree with full frontal nudity of pre teens,

Regards

Stevo

You are twisting my words, or maybe I was not being clear. The reason you would not find the photographs in any major gallery is simply that there are vastly more paintings in major galleries than there are photographs. And perhaps you could explain the essential difference between photography and painting in this context.

My comment about courts agreeing with me had nothing to do with the specific Henson photographs, simply with the history of legal decisions over the past hundred years or so. Let me spell it out again - photographs of simple nudity , regardless of age, are not illegal in any state in Australia, and have not been for at least thirty years (and probably never have been in the case of children).

John

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo68
Bolded part...havent you just refuted your position. This is about photography...not paintings...why is it now not acceptable for full frontal nudity photographs of pre teens?

Also in terms of court agreeing with you, all the photo's have black outs over the private parts of the children, so in effect, no the courts would not agree with full frontal nudity of pre teens,

Regards

Stevo

You are twisting my words, or maybe I was not being clear. The reason you would not find the photographs in any major gallery is simply that there are vastly more paintings in major galleries than there are photographs. And perhaps you could explain the essential difference between photography and painting in this context.

My comment about courts agreeing with me had nothing to do with the specific Henson photographs, simply with the history of legal decisions over the past hundred years or so. Let me spell it out again - photographs of simple nudity , regardless of age, are not illegal in any state in Australia, and have not been for at least thirty years (and probably never have been in the case of children).

John

Look John as you have stated you are a nudist, so naturally are going to be very biaised in your opinion. Im not looking at this as to whether it is legal/ illegal but from the perspective of a parent with young children. With that, I think this woman says it best on another forum:

Guess what?

I was the subject of 'nude' art photos at age 12. Who took them? My uncle. Who consented? My mother. I agreed, unwillingly, because I wanted to please my mother and she said it was no big deal.

I'm 37 and those photos haunt me.

I have been counselled for sexual abuse over them. No-one calls them 'pornography' because they are 'tasteful'. In fact, it's hard to get anyone other than my counsellor to call a spade a spade. But my heart aches over the violation I feel about it. And yes - I do feel violated. Deeply, disturbingly violated. Turns out my uncle also raped my 13- year-old cousin around the same time.

I'm not comparing my uncle to this photographer; I just want you to be aware of how pitiful these 'the naked body is a beautiful thing' arguments are when there is no way I could have protected myself as a 12 year old.

My uncle said the same thing, too. And in the name of art, everyone believed him.

What about me?

Kids deserve protection.

Regards

Stevo