Thread: DPP to consider charging Henson

I cant believe that people cant tell the difference between naked and porn.

I can remember in history class I was learning about the war in Vietnam and the history book had some pictures of naked kids running away from the soldiers etc who had just been killing their family / people in that area.

The picture was black and white and captured the situation that these people were facing well as they were running for their lives etc.

In this case the nudity was 110% NON sexual and I believe was totally appropriate, as this is what happened, It was just recording the event etc.

However there is a really fine line between acceptable nudity involving children and un-acceptable. I think It's probably best to lean more towards being a bit conservative and protecting the kids if there is any kind of doubt.

It's a really evocative subject though really. Personally It's not my cup of tea but I would support whatever judgment the police etc make in this case because ultimately they are there to enforce the law.

Cannot comment specifically on the Henson photos as I haven't seen them. Doubt if I would regard them as unacceptable unless there was obvious sexual innuendo by an under age girl. The trouble is the widespread attitude that equates adult nudity with sex and child nudity with paedophilia.

Those of us - unfortunately a minority of the population who have been in non sexual social situations where people of all ages and both sexes are nude, such as on a nude beach are among those who recognise these as separate issues. With photos of people nude, whether or not they could be defined as unacceptably pornographic depends on the details and context , not just if female breasts and genitals of people of both sexes are clearly shown.

Really, what is the big deal about these. Everyone in the world has one of two basic types of bodies and within each there is a range of variation in sizes and shapes of all the components. Also are lots of what at least some people perceive as imperfections.

Going nude when other nude people are present, or posing nude for photos is also largely a separate issue from sexual morality. Recently I came across a woman who was a real prude regarding taking her clothes off to go swimming despite having recently worked as a prostitute. The latter was not immoral from the point of view of cheating on her boyfriend. It was with his approval - except for some misgivings about safety issues by both of them.

I think one of the most immoral things is adults from a position of relative power and trust molesting children for their own sexual gratification purposes. Something worth noting is that a disproportionately large number of the loudest morals and anti pornography campaigners, especially clergymen, have been exposed as paedophiles. It seems that having sexual issues more out in the open is the best way of combatting them.

Meanwhile, I see nothing wrong with tastefully done photos of nude 13yo girls, which many people would find attractive in non sexual ways. As those with paedophile inclinations can usually obtain such things easily anyway, having such things more commonplace may even reduce their obsession with something that is forbidden.

Originally Posted by drivesafe

It amuses me no end at how many times people, trying to justify this kiddie porn as being harmless “art”, by comparing it to snaps in a family album.

There is no comparison between some happy snaps taken by family members and photos of naked children taken by an individual who’s only reason for taking them is to make a buck.

Dress it up anyway you want, this is kiddy porn.

There is absolutely no reason, if Hansen is so good a photograph, why he couldn’t have used young adults to achieve the same goal, if his goal was as he is trying to make out.

Maybe you can explain why, in your view, the fact that a picture is sold changes it from a "happy snap" into "kiddy porn", and how you write a law to distinguish the two without criminalising a lot of activities you claim to be harmless.

I make not attempt to second guess Henson, but while there may well be no reason why he could not have used older models, there is also no valid reason why he should as the law stands. And you have yet to give any reason for it to change other than "Dress it up anyway you want, this is kiddy porn" which says nothing except perhaps about the speaker.

John

For a starter, I have not made any suggestion that the laws should be changed.

The laws governing this kind of inappropriate behaviour are already in place, otherwise the OTHER 2800 pedophiles being persuade by the authorities wouldn’t have a thing to worry about and if someone can’t tell the difference between family snaps and kiddy porn then I think it pretty well explains their stance on this subject.

While initially, Hansen enjoyed some support from some high profile people, but as time goes by, more and more people, high profile and otherwise, are no longer intimidated and are having their say.

As posted earlier in this thread, I have not seen the original photos, just the doctored one shown on the news, but others that have seen them, such as the guy on ABC radio on the weekend, made it VERY clear that these photos were not acceptable.

Again, I fail to see how photos of young children taken in naked sexual poses differs from child pornography just because the sicko basted that took them calls it “art”

Personally, I believe that whether one believes that these photos are porn or not are a matter of each different person's own perception. Like many others, I have only seen the doctored versions of a couple of the photos in question on the news, and I didn't personally see them as pornographic (according to my own definitions of porn).

But I don't believe that the perception of porn or otherwise is the issue.

The issue is that a supposedly mature adult has chosen to take photographs of a naked 12 or 13 year old child - for WHATEVER reason. To me, this action displays that there is something severely wrong with the "thinking" of the photographer. The fact that he and others choose to call it "ART" is irrelevant. There is a broad range of what most of us would call "worthless garbage" out there that some wacko's in the community justify by calling "ART" (and some of the worthless bludgers even want US to subsidise their "works" in the form of taxpayer funded grants).

The bottom line, as many have previously stated, is this - would you allow someone to take photographs of your 12 or 13 year old child standing naked ? I know that anyone who had tried to do this with my kids (one girl, one boy) when they were at that age, would have been contributing to the aesthetic nature of the countryside by pushing up a few daisies shortly thereafter.

Originally Posted by BMKal

The bottom line, as many have previously stated, is this - would you allow someone to take photographs of your 12 or 13 year old child standing naked ? I know that anyone who had tried to do this with my kids (one girl, one boy) when they were at that age, would have been contributing to the aesthetic nature of the countryside by pushing up a few daisies shortly thereafter.

WELL PUT

Personally, I believe that whether one believes that these photos are porn or not are a matter of each different person's own perception. Like many others, I have only seen the doctored versions of a couple of the photos in question on the news, and I didn't personally see them as pornographic (according to my own definitions of porn).

But I don't believe that the perception of porn or otherwise is the issue.

The issue is that a supposedly mature adult has chosen to take photographs of a naked 12 or 13 year old child - for WHATEVER reason. To me, this action displays that there is something severely wrong with the "thinking" of the photographer. The fact that he and others choose to call it "ART" is irrelevant. There is a broad range of what most of us would call "worthless garbage" out there that some wacko's in the community justify by calling "ART" (and some of the worthless bludgers even want US to subsidise their "works" in the form of taxpayer funded grants).

The bottom line, as many have previously stated, is this - would you allow someone to take photographs of your 12 or 13 year old child standing naked ? I know that anyone who had tried to do this with my kids (one girl, one boy) when they were at that age, would have been contributing to the aesthetic nature of the countryside by pushing up a few daisies shortly thereafter.

DOUBLE WELL PUT. I think some have who have had the opposing view, have not read or understood the guts of what most have been saying, but trying to make it about "other things". Like "oh but centuries ago" or " some insinuatation that some of us maybe have an issue with nudity or can't tell the difference between a cute little bubba like the one screaming in the back ground atm versus say a young girl or boy around the same age as my 10 yr old son and 11 yr old daughter getting photographed naked. For me, whether it may have been viewed as porn or not, was not the issue, my stance has been as a father.

As for this comment

Meanwhile, I see nothing wrong with tastefully done photos of nude 13yo girls, which many people would find attractive in non sexual ways.

just gives me the creeps and would find it very difficult for that to be coming from a fellow father,

Regards

Stevo