Xenphonz, I think you're taking things a little out of context here. Of course child pornography is wrong, and it's insane to claim otherwise, or to try and defend it using freedom of speech or 'artistic' claims; but to sweep all nude images of children into this category is equally insane.

Yes, to set up a subscription site in order to make money out of pictures of your naked children is morally repgunant - but this doesn't mean that taking the pictures in the first place is wrong. I have several pictures of my children in the bath. They are in no way sexual; I gain now sexual pleasure form looking at them, only the warmth that comes from remembering them in that young stage; and I would never dream of setting them up in a public webspace for others to view. Am I a pronographe for taking these pictures?

Having finally seen one of the images which Henson has had seized by the police (thanks, Acadia), I feel that I can at least offer some opinion specific to this case. The image in question is not sexualised, but it is shocking - we just don't see it very often, which gives it its power. I honestly believe there was no intent by Henson to protray this model as a sexual object of being. That some might view it as such (and I find it interesting that it's the two most opposed camps - the paedophiles and the puritans, for want of a better set of terms - who present the strongest danger to such images) is down to their subjective viewing of the piece, not the subject matter itself. I can honestly say, as a parent, that if a well-respected photographer came and asked if my daughter could appear in such a photograph I would (after consideration and research into the artist, his work, and the places he has exhibited) agree to such an image being taken. And I do not believe I am sick, twisted, deviant or in any way a 'monster'.

Which kind of brings me to another point. Paedophiles are NOT 'slavering monsters living in a basement' (to paraphrase Zenophonz). Paedolphilia is a sexual preference, much the same as homosexuality or heterosexality. A person does not choose to be sexually attracted to children, it is something beyond their control. What is within their power, however, is their decision to act upon it. There have been interviews I have read with people who recognise the desire in themselves but have never acted upon it, recognising that within our society it is a morally wrong thing to do.To have that strength of will, to recognise where one's dsires lie and yet realise that they are not attainable, and so turn one's back on it - I consider that to be an incredibly good character trait, not a monstrous one. That said, those who do act upon it regardless of society's dictates are clearly wrong, and need help - not demonising or castration, but genuine counselling and rehabilitation. Only those who consistently show themselves to be beyond rehabilitation, who continually reoffend or break society's laws, should be punished in the traditional sense and locked away indefinitely.

There is also the danger that by creating this mental picture of Joe the Janitor sitting in his basement, slavering uncontrollably over the images of children he downloaded this morning while doing unspeakable things to himself or other children, we mask ourselves to the perfectly nice-seeming busniessman who sits in the park every afternoon, in his shirt and tie, calmly watching the children, and planning to kidnap and abuse them. We do not recognise him as a danger, because he does not fit the mental image we have of someone who would do such things. But if history has shown us anything over the last century, then it is that the true sociopathic creatures out there who prey on others without care or concern for societty, are often the most skilled at wearing a civilised mask and passing for one of us.

That was a far longer post than I originally intended, and I apologise for getting up on my soapbox.

JontheCelt