The police did their job. They don't get to make a value judgement.
This is for the court to decide. They will no doubt rule that the exhibition is legal.
Dave Everett
Bill Henson Photos: Child Pornography or Art?
- Thread starter BillyJoe
- Start date
The police did their job. They don't get to make a value judgement.
This is for the court to decide. They will no doubt rule that the exhibition is legal.
Dave Everett
Hmm. Moody but not erotic. A teenage boy, shirtless if not nude, and a teenage girl wearing either a bra and panties or a bikini embrace. She appears to be kissing his chest or neck, while he has his hand on her thigh. You find this moody but not erotic.
Perhaps we are using different definitions of erotic here.
Do you see anything sexual here?
If it is pornography then at least by US definition it is child pornography if one or more of the participants is less than 18 or even appears to be less than 18, if I am not mistaken. So whether they look 6, 10, or 15 is irrelevant.
True, the girl is not naked, and I stated that I did not think this was pornography, otherwise I would not have posted it. But this is one of the pictures I could easily find on the internet. I have not seen most of the pictures that were deemed objectionable. They may be more or less suggestive than this one.
My first objective was to make moot the statement that just because there is nudity does not imply that there is anything sexual about the photos. Although true in principal, I do not find it credible to state that two near-naked teenagers embracing is somehow asexual. My second objective was to point out that just because Henson is a superb photographer producing fascinating works of art that some of his works are damn close to child pornography. As such, it is unfair to dismiss his critics as prudes, as many here seem willing to do, unless you have seen the works in question.
The same may happen here. Alternatively, the courts may decide that Henson crossed the line. Having no knowledge of Australian child pornography laws, or what most of the photos look like, I will withhold judgment.
Nope. Supreme court ate that stupid idea. Needless to say, legislating a subjective opinion into a felony of the highest order is the height of stupidity and was quickly shot down as unconstitutional and generally stupid beyond all measure.
Child pornography if and only if one of the participants is under the age of 18 at the time the photo or movie was taken. Eighteen years, one day, fine. Seventeen years, 364 days, no. That simple, that direct.
They might be more or less made of green cheese and more or less taken by aliens and more or less be evidence for the existence of Jesus, Buddha, Adam and Eve, Zeus, and Noah's Ark.
You also might more or less be implying something about photos that is more or less impossible to disprove because no matter how many are shown to be non-pornographic you can more or less state that there are other photos that are more or less suggestive. Understand your logical fallacy, more or less?
Pornography is obscene. Obscenity has no artistic value. Do his photographs have artistic value?
More or less?
Define art? This is a serious question as today virtually anything can be called art, from a crucifix in a jar of urine, to an unmade bed, to dissected dead bodies, to hard-core porn movies (Candida Royale's output). Sometimes governments just have to say "enough", regardless of howls about artistic freedom. Tell me, if these photographs are judged to have crossed the line, would you still call them art?
BTW my main objection to these photographs remains the problem of an immature child giving informed consent.
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
That's not much of an answer, although I get the impression you don't value art. That's fair enough to a degree, since I too don't value many of the things modern "artists" label art. Henson's work however is uncontroversially art.
Why do you think we value things which are uncontroversially art, then?
Is that a claim you can defend, or just an assertion along with an insult?
Sure, why not? I don't remember it being written down anywhere that it's impossible for the set of things that are art and the set of things that the law defines to be child pornography to overlap, particularly if the law is written by puritans.
This objection has been responded to in depth, yet you have not answered any of those responses.
Because I don't particularly like Henson's work I don't value art? I thought you could do better than that.
You keep on asking me to defend my opinions when all you can offer is that the photographs are "uncontroversially" art. And the law is written by puritans? Please defend these statements.
You keep on asking me to defend my opinions when all you can offer is that the photographs are "uncontroversially" art. And the law is written by puritans? Please defend these statements.
Here it appears I was mistaken. What the supreme court ruled was that it is illegal to attempt to distribute something you claim or believe to be child pornography even if the images depict people who are over 18, even if the images were digitally created, and even if the pictures don't exist. See this from the NYT report on the ruling:
So it is legal to own pictures that look like child pornography as long as the subjects are 18 or older. It is just illegal to claim that the subjects are under 18. I missed the subtlety of this ruling. My mistake.
Nope. Because this is entirely testable. All you need to do is examine all of the photos in the exhibit, which I assume to be a finite number. Unfortunately, all of the photos in the exhibit are not available on the internet, so I cannot do this, nor can you. The courts, however, will presumably examine them all before they have their say.
I do not think it unreasonable to suggest that people may shy away from posting in public forums the more controversial pictures because if they are found obscene those that post them may face child pornography charges. We might therefore be seeing only the tip of the iceberg. Alternatively, the most controversial images might have been posted, in which case the iceberg may be an ice cube. Until all the photos are examined, I cannot say.
Undeniably. Which was my point in presenting the scenarios such as "what if she were naked, what if they were having sex, what if they were 6 instead of 15" to which you objected above. You can't have it both ways. Here you seem to be arguing no photo deemed to have artistic value can be considered pornography. This may be true in the US based on supreme court rulings.
In my mind, however, a photo where a 6 year old appears to be performing fellatio should be considered pornographic even if it is done with fuzzy back lighting.
edited to add: and of course the question here is not how the US supreme court defines child pornography but how the Australian courts do. Their standards may be looser, stricter, or on different grounds than those in the US. Does anyone have any information on Australian pornography laws?
Last edited:
You get asked for an apple, so you give an apple, but it's no good because it's not an orange. You ask for an apple and you're given an orange with a few sour grapes thrown in. After a few more rounds it's all fruit salad.
Anyone else have that feeling.
Anyone else have that feeling.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]I received this in my email today.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]I subscribed for a free trial of an online newsletter called "Crikey". I couldn't afford the subscription fee so I let it lapse, but they keep sending me little snippets while reminding me what I'm missing out on by not subscribing. Anyway, here is their email. I cannot give a link because I cannot access the information on their website without paying the subscription fee.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The parts in italics are opinions by the author and the bolded bits are the facts of the case (as understood by the author of course)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]I hope this puts the whole issue in some context.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]regards,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]BillyJoe[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]I subscribed for a free trial of an online newsletter called "Crikey". I couldn't afford the subscription fee so I let it lapse, but they keep sending me little snippets while reminding me what I'm missing out on by not subscribing. Anyway, here is their email. I cannot give a link because I cannot access the information on their website without paying the subscription fee.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The parts in italics are opinions by the author and the bolded bits are the facts of the case (as understood by the author of course)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]I hope this puts the whole issue in some context.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]regards,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]BillyJoe[/FONT]
Last edited:
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
Maybe you should back up a few steps and respond to what has actually been said to you. (As opposed to convenient straw men).
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
And that has what to do with Australian Law?
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
There are a number who claim it can, but how many of them actually have reliable scientific data to support their claims? Psychologists have claimed a lot of pretty whackjob stuff over the decades; very little of which has been borne out by real-world observation.
Not interesting, simply smart and responsible. The last thing these kids need is to be harrassed and manipulated by a bunch of agenda-driven reporters looking only to sensationalize the issue and make a few bucks. They're far more exploitative of these kids right now than Henson even approaches. No ethical artist would ever reveal the identify of a subject without the subject's express permission.
Once again to play devil's advocate, no unethical child pornographer would reveal the identity of a subject without a court order, if then. So this behavior is not particularly helpful in distinguishing between the two.
Just a wild prediction but, in response to this apple, you will get an orange and few sour grapes in return.
Last edited:
The short of it is that a certain newspaper columnist with extensive political and media connections writes a derogatory piece about Bill Henson's photographs on the eve of the opening of his exhibition. "Concerned members of the public", presumably in response to this article, complain to a child assault action group partly funded by the state government. Its executive director immediately fires off emails to the commissioner of police and the arts minister. The result is a raid on the art gallery by the police, and a couple of minder mediated responses by the premier of the state of NSW where the photgraphs were about to go on display, and the prime minister of Australia, who respectively described them as "offensive and disgusting" and "absolutely revolting".
Child abuse by the photgrapher or by certain politicians and newspaper columnists, I would like to ask.
We do not have images of the 22 photgraphs seized by the police, but we do have an image of the particlar photograph described in the original newspaper article that triggered off this whole sorry business.
Here it is again:
http://www.sauer-thompson.com/junkforcode/archives/2008/05/25/HensonBuncensored.jpg
So, what do you think?
Is this pornogrpahy?
If not, there is no issue here, at least as far as this particular photograph is concerned.
Child abuse by the photgrapher or by certain politicians and newspaper columnists, I would like to ask.
We do not have images of the 22 photgraphs seized by the police, but we do have an image of the particlar photograph described in the original newspaper article that triggered off this whole sorry business.
Here it is again:
http://www.sauer-thompson.com/junkforcode/archives/2008/05/25/HensonBuncensored.jpg
So, what do you think?
Is this pornogrpahy?
If not, there is no issue here, at least as far as this particular photograph is concerned.
Don't know. In America, probably not, because it is not entirely without artistic merit, which is part of the standard set by the supreme court.
In Iran, it probably is, because she does not have her head covered.
In Australia, I do not know. No one has posted a link detailing their legal definition of pornography.
If your question is whether I consider this pornography, no.
One down, 21 to go.
Some wish to condemn Henson as a purveyor of smut without having seen the pictures. This is wrong.
Some wish to condemn the authorities in this case as prudes who are overreacting to a little nudity when there is absolutely nothing sexual in his work without having seen the pictures. This is also wrong.
Some would like the photographs examined by intelligent people versed in the relevant legal standards who can then determine whether it is artistic freedom or the children that have been assaulted. They are called critical thinkers.
And I prefer bananas.