Thread: DPP to consider charging Henson

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. I personally hope he goes to gaol but it’s more likely the cops will be told to just let it slide to save from the chance that this creep might win a court challenge.

To say that this is artistic is nothing but crap, it’s the exploitation of a child in a pornographic way and is no better than those brain dead school teachers that tell their vandalistic pupils that graffiti is nothing more that a form artistic expression, when it is actually vandalism.

For my money, gaoling Hensen is too good, although if they do maybe the inmates might not find his photographs to their artistic liking, one can only hope.

having kids i see this as taking it a it too far, from the artists point of view.
images of people in an artistic sense are all well and good, BUT when you bring kids (below age of consent) into the scene it crosses a whole new boundry.
personal thoughts are destroy the prints and negitives/hard drive copies and let the aritist go with a fine (payable to charity) to work on something new.

cheers
yorkie

I haven't seen the photographs and so cant really "pass judgement" so to speak. I believe that most people have probably passed judgement based on the descriptions made by the media rather than seeing it, and that is a worry in itself. Also the complaint stemmed from a child protection leader who will have viewed it from an extreme perspective - not that this is a bad thing.

I have no opinion on the matter, except I cant help but wonder why if this artist exhibits all over the world and has been doing so for the last 20 years or similar with this type of art, has he not been pulled up for it earlier.

Originally Posted by drivesafe

To say that this is artistic is nothing but crap, it’s the exploitation of a child in a pornographic way and is no better than those brain dead school teachers that tell their vandalistic pupils that graffiti is nothing more that a form artistic expression, when it is actually vandalism.

It's always nice to be insinuated that as a teacher that I'm brain dead and then to be compared to somebody that deals in child porn. I considered you a decent intelligent human being up until now, where I am just stunned by your comments. Well done my friend.

It's going to depend on legal definitions of pornography.

A random dictionary grab --> "Pornography is the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal."

Is it likely that Henson's work has a specific goal of sexual arousal? I'd say his goal is to create artwork.


Contrast this with Germaine Greer's book which is overtly pornographic and created purely for, in her words "to advance women's reclamation of their capacity for and right to visual pleasure". She goes on to say "it seeks to redress heterosexual women's insensitivity to the boy as sexual object." (What a nut.) The Beautiful Boy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a tough one - in one of the original links a person who posed for Henson spoke of it, and naturally there was consent - so I'm not sure that they really have been exploited per se.

How does the law operate if say 'Gran' photographed her 5 year old grandson who was running around the yard naked and then emailed it to family (or uploaded it to her blog which she uses to keep in contact with family) ?

Never seen the pictures and never likely to but we need to remember some of the greatest art works of all time are of naked children, also consider our own kids naked bath pictures or pics of our kids running naked around the yard that we quite happily expose to the public and brag of the day that picture was taken. We call them happy times. Is some pedafillier in the minds of society, do we make it worse than it is. I would be the first to stand up for any child that I believe is in danger (have done in the past and will do again) of any sort, our kids do need protection, but do we go to far as I believe this is and then for some poor kids we dont go far enough or act quick enough.
Got some riper pics of our kids that come out on special occaisions, birthdays, meet the girlfriend/boyfriend for the first time etc
cheers
blaze

Originally Posted by bblaze

Never seen the pictures and never likely to but we need to remember some of the greatest art works of all time are of naked children, also consider our own kids naked bath pictures or pics of our kids running naked around the yard that we quite happily expose to the public and brag of the day that picture was taken. We call them happy times. Is some pedafillier in the minds of society, do we make it worse than it is. I would be the first to stand up for any child that I believe is in danger (have done in the past and will do again) of any sort, our kids do need protection, but do we go to far as I believe this is and then for some poor kids we dont go far enough or act quick enough.
Got some riper pics of our kids that come out on special occaisions, birthdays, meet the girlfriend/boyfriend for the first time etc
cheers
blaze

I would love to deny that but I guess parents just love doing it. Damn you mum, we could have had a life together but you scared her off!!!

Open that can of worms.

The SMH decided to make a story of it, a child abuse advocacy group called a talkback radio station and said their piece and then it became an issue.

Imagine the response on this forum if a 4wd backed over a kid and Harold Scruby issued a press release; to put it into context.

Some of the legal issues-

Is the gallery publishing child pornography by showing Henson's pictures on their website, except that it's hosted overseas, and it clearly presents itself as an art gallery website promoting art.

I doubt that there are many people who have been on the internet who haven't seen a porn site at least once, and after having seen one, it would be pretty difficult to confuse a porn site and a site that explicitly isn't a porn site.

Is Henson producing child pornography?

Except that child pornography is illegal just about anywhere you care to name, and so is by definition a covert activity, and exhibiting it in a public gallery at well publicised times and dates kind of shows an intent not to be doing something covert and illegal.

This is not exactly the common situation of someone hiding Gb of kiddie porn on their hard drive and getting their IP traced.

I think that there is probably a need to prove that firstly Henson was producing sexually explicit material, and that he was producing it for sexual gratification.

There is a big difference between taking pictures of people with no clothes on and porn. Part of Henson's work is examining the boundary between the two. That doesn't necessarily mean that he is making kiddie porn, it may just mean that he's a really good artist, and since he's recognised as the best photographic artist in Australia, he probably is.

Cheers
Simon

Cheers
Simon

The reaction to the photographs is a reasonable reflection of community standards, that is, they are not appropriate. Be that for public viewing or the source being an 11 or 12 year old girl having photographs taken of her naked it's just not right.

The argument of legality in relation to the Police confiscating the images and then whether or not it falls into the definition of child pornography is one that will be tested in court. We've all had mum and dad take photos of us in embarassing situations and had them dragged out at 21st's and bux nights but these images are for sale (profit) near $25,000 and what permission or coercion was arranged with the child for that outcome??

The images are sexual, they are of children in poses that are suggestive and i don't give a toss what artistic bent or human rights BS anyone comes up with to defend this grub because he's clearly a devo and the parents of these kids should be cleaned up with him.

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. I don't think it would be a successful prosecution because of the legal argument but for christs sake, do you really believe taking these sort of images and posting them in an art gallery is a good thing??? They're bloody kids!!!!