Bill Henson Photos: Child Pornography or Art?

[BillyJoe]

Interesting update. Henson is refusing to identify the children he photographed. If it was so innocent and harmless, why is he hampering the investigation in this way?

What? You have no idea why this might be so?

Maybe he is concerned enough for these children - already abused by the insensitive comments from none other than out great Prime Minister, who apparently finds the photographs of their adolescent bodies "absolutely revolting", and by certain morally outraged community leaders who, in their moral panic, find them pornographic - that they do not suffer any further insults by these bullies.

Maybe he is sticking up for art against the onslaught of knee-jerk politicians and certain morally-panicked community leaders.

Maybe he does not agree that there should even be an investigation.


Incredible, hey, that he might feel this way?

 

[lionking]

Well let's see if he is charged with hampering a police investigation. And what is incredible is that you have been saying that what these children have done, in collusion with parents, is roughly the equivalent of crossing the road. So, again, if these photographs are harmless why is he not naming the child?

To protect her? Of course he is! But he himself has created the problem.

And use of words like "moral panic" add precisely nothing to your arguments.

BTW I am waiting for an apology for your earlier claim that my position arises from some sort of religious standpoint.

 

[Chupacabras]

Well let's see if he is charged with hampering a police investigation.

Well, yes. Ok. Let's see. Until then, we are stuck with conjectures and opinions. BTW, I wouldn't disclose the names of my models either in this case, much in the way a reporter is able (in my country anyway) to keep his sources secret.

Every time I hear a case like this, I wonder if this time, finally, the issue will make it to the senate and result in a change in the Law, or better yet in a social change. I suppose I rather not hold my breath.

 

[Texas]

This is totally ridiculous. Nudity does not equal pornography! Sheesh. I never cease to be amazed at the way that some people think.

Just look at the complaining party. A bunch of nutcases to say the least, who have never met a child that has not been abused.

It is art. Good grief. And police are idiots if they can't find anything better to do.

This should not even be news. Trivial bs.

Would you allow your adolescent child to be photographed in the nude for national publication?

 

[lionking]

Well artists are not above the law, but for what it's worth I do not believe that this will go to court, not because there could not be a prima facie case against the artist, but because the Director of Public Prosecutions would not want an expensive show trial with any number of pro-bono civil liberties lawyers on the other side. This would be a pity because "artistic freedom" when it comes to naked children needs to be tested by the law, and not an internet forum.

 

[Boo]

Are the photos worthy of sharing with your JREF friends, or would you rather not?

DR

I'm not sure if they are still around. I had a couple of the proofs but they may have been lost in the 5 moves I have made since then. Secondly, the images belong to him and therefore I would not be allowed to publish them. I can tell you this, there was less skin then you would see at a swimming pool.



Boo

 

[BillyJoe]

Whatever, participatants in this thread do not warrant being patronised by Billy Joe in a number of his posts.

 

[lionking]

You are kidding, right? Go back and have a look, but particularly in your responses to mobyseven. But the self-righteous seldom see fault in themselves.

 

[GreyICE]

Well artists are not above the law, but for what it's worth I do not believe that this will go to court, not because there could not be a prima facie case against the artist, but because the Director of Public Prosecutions would not want an expensive show trial with any number of pro-bono civil liberties lawyers on the other side. This would be a pity because "artistic freedom" when it comes to naked children needs to be tested by the law, and not an internet forum.

And also they're not going to have a trial over something where there's no demonstrable harm. And we still seem to have no evidence for harm, just your word.

 

[lionking]

I'll cut you a bit of slack because you may not be aware of the legal and justice system in Australia, but police do not take action here if there is no evidence of an offence.

 

[BillyJoe]

So, again, if these photographs are harmless why is he not naming the child?

You did ask that question before. And I answered it. But, instead of attempting to explain why my answer is invalid, you just ask the question again.
You are indeed a puzzling fellow, lionking.

To protect her? Of course he is! But he himself has created the problem.

Yeah, not the Prime Minister calling the picture of that young girls adolescent body "absolutely revolting", and those morally indignant folk calling it "pornography" and threatening to prosecute her parents for child sexual abuse. My goodness, no.

And use of words like "moral panic" add precisely nothing to your arguments.

They see the public turning away from their constipated idea of morality and, in their panic at losing the moral high ground, abuse this artist and this young girl in their attempt to force politicians and the police to do something to force the public back into the fold.
Why? What did you think was going on?

BTW I am waiting for an apology for your earlier claim that my position arises from some sort of religious standpoint.

Hmmm...I don't remember that. Maybe you could remind me.

 

[GreyICE]

I'll cut you a bit of slack because you may not be aware of the legal and justice system in Australia, but police do not take action here if there is no evidence of an offence.

Unless I'm misreading this, you just said that there was no evidence of any harm. Which is what everyone has been saying all this time.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Lionking, godofpie:

I can understand overlooking this once. But to miss a post of this size twice leads me to believe you are avoiding the question.

I have a question for godofpie, lionking, and others who think it was wrong of the artist to take these pictures. I realize I risk accusations of a slippery slope, but here goes...

Would it have been ok if the model had been wearing nothing but pasties?
Would it have been ok if the model had been wearing nothing but a g-string?
Would it have been ok if the model had been wearing underwear?
Would it have been ok if the model had been wearing a bikini?
Would it have been ok if the model had been wearing a one-piece bathing suit?
Would it have been ok if the model had been wearing cutoff jeans and a tank top?
Would it have been ok if the model had been wearing sweatpants and a T-shirt?
Would it have been ok if the model had been wearing a 3-piece business suit?

In other words, if you consider this to be pornography/exploitation, at what point is it not pornography/exploitation?

And once you've answered that question, please explain why you have chosen that point.

Thanks.

 

[BillyJoe]

You are kidding, right? Go back and have a look, but particularly in your responses to mobyseven. But the self-righteous seldom see fault in themselves.

There is no need for you to protect MobySeven.
If he feels offended he can easily say so himself.
As far as I know we are still friends.

But the self-righteous seldom see fault in themselves.

No, no, I'm fighting self-righteousness here, Don't pull that one.
But maybe if you would point out these faults, I would glad to examine them.

 

[BillyJoe]

I'll cut you a bit of slack because you may not be aware of the legal and justice system in Australia, but police do not take action here if there is no evidence of an offence.

You are joking right?


edit: And I see you have no yet offered an opinion about that photograph.

 

[lionking]

You are joking right?


edit: And I see you have no yet offered an opinion about that photograph.

Are you suggesting that police took action for no reason at all? Some day you may have to acknowledge that Australia does not operate according to your moral code. In the meantime, enjoy your imaginery highground.

Neither you or anyone else has put a convincing case for the ability of a child to give informed consent to nude photographs of themselves.

 

[BillyJoe]

Are you suggesting that police took action for no reason at all? Some day you may have to acknowledge that Australia does not operate according to your moral code. In the meantime, enjoy your imaginery highground.

They reacted to a complaint by a morally indignant member of the public who is a campaigner against child pornography. I have no problem with the campaign against child pornography. But she chose the wrong battleground. The police had no reason to seize the photographs because they are not pornographic. There is ample evidence that photos such as these have been on exhibition at art galleries in Australia for about ten years now without even a hint of complaint.

Neither you or anyone else has put a convincing case for the ability of a child to give informed consent to nude photographs of themselves.

I have given reasons in many of my posts. I have also provided resons provided by other in my links. That they are not convincing to you is not my fault. That you have not provided any reasons at all of your own to have these photos banned is your fault.

 

[lionking]

They reacted to a complaint by a morally indignant member of the public who is a campaigner against child pornography. I have no problem with the campaign against child pornography. But she chose the wrong battleground. The police had no reason to seize the photographs because they are not pornographic. There is ample evidence that photos such as these have been on exhibition at art galleries in Australia for about ten years now without even a hint of complaint.




I have given reasons in many of my posts. I have also provided resons provided by other in my links. That they are not convincing to you is not my fault. That you have not provided any reasons at all of your own to have these photos banned is your fault.

The photographs may be pornographic, this has not yet been proven. The police did their job. Are you suggesting some sort of political conspiracy?

And I have given reasons for the inappropriateness of the photographs due to the inability of a child to give informed consent. Please excuse me for being underwhelmed at you finding fault in my reasoning.

 

[BillyJoe]

Opposition leader (sic), Malcolm Turnbull, had this to say:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/turnbull-defends-hensons-art/2008/05/28/1211654092604.html

A senior Liberal frontbencher has launched a passionate defence of beleaguered photographer Bill Henson, saying police should not be "tramping" through art galleries.

"I think we have a culture of great artistic freedom in this country and I don't believe the vice-squad's role is to go into art galleries."

"But we live in a free society and it's important that artists, writers and journalist be able to express themselves freely ... within the law."
Before policemen went "tramping through art galleries and libraries" people should reflect on the fact "freedom is what makes this country great".

 

[BillyJoe]

Meanwhile Prime Minister Rudd, stands by his revolting statement:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/photos-still-revolting-pm/2008/05/28/1211654079734.html

Mr Rudd described the images, that were seized by police last week, as "absolutely revolting".
Mr Rudd today said he was unapologetic and would stand by his criticism.
"I gave my reaction, I stand by that reaction and I don't apologise for it and I won't be changing it," Mr Rudd told reporters in Canberra.
"I am passionate about children having innocence in their childhood."