Any Aussies been following the Bill Henson Saga recently?

What are your opinions?

I honestly used to think we were very open mined here in OZ but now I am beginning to wonder and what effect this decision will have on a broader scale down under, particularly with us digital types.....

I know this post won't make a lot of sense to most overseas readers but I'm not certain that a link to the news article would be allowed under Rendo's TOS.

For those that want to know more try a Google on

Bill Henson + Australia

My opinion..... I'm glad the police stepped in and I'm glad there are still police forces around the world in democratic free countries that aren't swayed by the infamous "but it's art" statement. Art is not a license to just do anything you like and cross some boundaries no one should ever be allowed to cross.

I wouldn't classify this as sensorship at all, even art should respect boundaries laid down in a society, especially when it comes to the vulnerability and exploitation of kids. The police and the prime minister didn't sensor anything at all, they protected a group that needs protection, they actually for once did their job right as far as I'm concerned.

I'm loathe to jump to either side of the fence, without knowing a little more about what I'm being asked to have an opinion on (and yes, I've read several of the articles Google has thrown up now).

The key issue for me on these works is, were the children sexualised? I don't mean, could the images be viewed in a sexual light - that's a purely subjective thing, and some people are going to se sex in every image that involves nudity. Was the intent of the artist in creating these portraits to create a sexually-charged image? If so, then the government and police are right in stopping this exhibition and investigating Henson. If not, then this IS censorship, plain and simple.

An artist cannot be held responsible for the way in which those who view his work react, because the potential audience is so vast, you can expect almost every possible reaction to be found amongst them. If a small group of people react in a way which is not acceptable, should the work which inspired that reaction be closed down? Because if so, then art should not exist - there is certain to be someone in the world who, viewing it, will have an adverse reaction. As a case in point (a ludicrous one, but that's why I'm using it), a child once committed suicide because he wanted to be reincarnated as Simba, from the Lion King. Should Disney be held responsible for this act? Should all copies of the Lion King (and its sequels) be pulled from the shelves, since it is possible that viewing it may cause suicidal urges amongst its target audience? Or should we accept that this was clearly not the intent of disney when making this film, and that what happened, rather than being an indicator of the piece of 'art', is an indicator of greater troubles within that individual's life, which the film has little or no bearing on?

Please note, though, that this is not a defence of Henson's work, since I do not know what the images under investigation actually showed. The press seem remearkably shy in coming down on either side of the fence on this one (which is VERY unusual for myself, as a Brit used to his native tabloid culture), so until there is a definite answer of whether or not these photos were created with a sexual intent, I cannot and will not offer an opinion on this case.

JonTheCelt

I agree with the basic point of the "double standard" comments coming from an Aussie "frontbencher" --

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23776083-5005961,00.html

Not being personally familiar with Australian law on the subject -- I assume that it's illegal in Australia for Joe the Janitor to take naked pictures of kids........so then why should it be legal for a member of the "artsy" set to do it?  If Joe the Janitor would go to jail for taking those same pictures -- then so should Bill Henson.  Whoever he is.  "High Art" excuse or not.

This is a controversial subject...obviously.

I've seen the image in question, and it's not sexual. In fact  it's very tastefully done.

Nudity does not equal pornography.  Some of the greatest master of art have nude infants/children in them. I'd hate to see the police go and raid the Louve , or tear down the Sistine Chapel ceiling.

I'm all for protecting children from sexual abuse and exploitation. However as I said above, non sexualized nudity does not equal exploitation and pornography.

I think more people need to spend time at a nude beach.  I've been to nude beaches. There are children and adults of all ages and shapes, all comfortable running around in their birthday suit.  We came into the world nude and there is nothing wrong with nudity.... even the nudity of a child.

Censorship is a monster... feed it and watch it grow.

Quote - This is a controversial subject...obviously.

I've seen the image in question, and it's not sexual. In fact  it's very tastefully done.

Nudity does not equal pornography.  Some of the greatest master of art have nude infants/children in them. I'd hate to see the police go and raid the Louve , or tear down the Sistine Chapel ceiling.

I agree,  Acadia,  after seeing the image myself and finding nothing sexual about it - my fear is that now any form of nudity will be viewed as "sexual" and we will begin the a downward spiral into some strange morality as has been seen in other parts of the world.....

We wouldn't want any horrible censorship monsters freely roaming about the streets to devour innocent victims at will, would we?  It's amazing to see how many of those censorship monsters run off with kids these days, or else exploit children in the name of their own base self-gratification.  And then those censorship monsters call what they've done "Art"...........always a handy excuse for them.  There are other handy excuses for the censorship monsters, too -- such as "doing research" (against the hypocrisy of "evil Republicans", of course).

Bernie Ward

*Ward's indictment, and his claim that he was a researcher rather than an exploiter of children, focused attention on the strict federal law, which considers motive and intent to be irrelevant..........

In court papers, Weinberg had urged Walker to allow him to argue to the jury that Ward had a "First Amendment-protected right to research and comment upon societal mores," which included viewing pornographic images.

No court has recognized such a right, however, and a federal appeals court in Virginia rejected it in a 2000 ruling upholding a journalist's conviction. Justice Department lawyer Steven Grocki said in a filing in Ward's case that the defense asserted by Weinberg "would invite every defendant charged with child pornography crimes to suddenly become a legitimate researcher educating the masses via their blogs."

..........or enlightening the ignorant masses via their "Art" (my addendum).

"No censorship" might make for a catchy slogan.......but take it to its logical conclusion when it comes to matters involving children......and see the absolutely hellish results.

It's interesting to observe how modern social thinking always defines "freedom" in terms of the basement.  Dig down deep: find the lowest level that you can.......plant your flag of fierce ideological battle there........and then self-righteously declare to the world that you're "free": and inform the rest of "them" that they're all nothing but horribly oppressed slaves of archaic societal restriction.  Anyone who points out just how low into the mire you've sunk is a dangerous enemy......because they disturb comfortable delusions.

Poison candy is sweet, and it can be very tasty -- but it still kills in the end.

Regardless of the rest: there shouldn't be one legal rule for Joe the Janitor, and then a different legal rule for Andy the Artiste.  The same rule should apply equally to both of them.  A picture that would get Joe the Janitor into trouble should also get Andy the Artiste into an equal amount of trouble......with NO special exemptions from the same law which applies to everyone else for the sake of 'Andy the Artiste' being a member of a privileged overlord class of.....uh......"intellectuals".  A self-appointed overlord class who regard themselves as being so-o-o-o-o-o-o much smarter than the rest of us culturally illiterate dummies........us rubes who don't have the capacity to truly appreciate the deeper meaning of their bottom-feeding "Art": and who can't possibly grasp the subtler aspects of the situation -- as they, the golden-brained "Artistes", do.

So let's all get to the task of feeding the monster together.  He lives in the basement: and he likes to eat the especially tender flesh of children -- for scientific research / artistic-freedom purposes, of course.  He's a fully liberated monster.......so he's free from any old-fashioned censorial restraint.  Or at least he's working on it.  He's gaining in strength day-by-day, and he's getting closer to rising up out of the cultural basement any time now...........to devour his proud caretakers, as well as the children's bodies that he prefers to feed on.

Quote - > Quote - This is a controversial subject...obviously.

I've seen the image in question, and it's not sexual. In fact  it's very tastefully done.

Nudity does not equal pornography.  Some of the greatest master of art have nude infants/children in them. I'd hate to see the police go and raid the Louve , or tear down the Sistine Chapel ceiling.

I agree,  Acadia,  after seeing the image myself and finding nothing sexual about it - my fear is that now any form of nudity will be viewed as "sexual" and we will begin the a downward spiral into some strange morality as has been seen in other parts of the world.....

You know what it comes down to? Common sense. Plain ordinary common sense, and it seems that so many people have lost theirs.

Heaven forbid a parent take a picture of their kid splashing around in the bathtub because they may have the police and CFS knocking down their door and charging them with possession of kiddy porn.

I can't even count how many pictures we have of my brother or me in a bathtub when we were infants and toddlers.  I thank God everyday that my parents weren't prudes and didn't make us feel embarrassed about our bodies.

......should those same parents be allowed to -- say -- set up a subscription website, and then sell those pictures of their naked toddlers in bathtubs to the public at large via online credit card payments?  It's been done......all in the interest of innocent Art, of course.

Quote - ......should those same parents be allowed to -- say -- set up a subscription website, and then sell those pictures of their naked toddlers in bathtubs to the public at large via online credit card payments?  It's been done......all in the interest of innocent Art, of course.

:rolleyes:  And what does that have to do with this artist's photograph which was hanging in a gallery, have to do with your example above?

Quote - :rolleyes:  And what does that have to do with this artist's photograph which was hanging in a gallery, have to do with your example above?

Good dodge -- but it isn't an answer. 

As for the "artist's photograph which was hanging in a gallery".......it holds pretty much the same value.  If it isn't OK for parents to take naked pictures of their kids and then sell those pictures online........then it isn't OK for an "Artiste" to do it, either.

Even if he does it for bigger money: in a setting of self-aware-sophistication.

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

"......should those same parents be allowed to -- say -- set up a subscription website ..." 

Umh, I think that's where the "common sense" part comes in, though granted it's an endangered species these days,  Unfortunately, the easy solution is simply to create intellectually lazy one size fits all rules and common sense be damned.  There is a world of difference between family photos on Flickr and 'All nude babies all the time only $49.95 a month automatically renewing' Yes, it would be easier to simply ban both just as it was easier to suspend the little girl who came to school with her Mickey Mouse purse that had a chain handle - violated the 'no weapons' policy you see. Easy but insane. Somewhere between the extremes lies sanity.  

What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.  If it's perfectly fine for an Artiste like Bill Henson to take naked pictures of kids, and hang them on a gallery wall -- then it should be equally OK for the 65-year-old man who lives next door to you to do the same thing.

Here's where the intellectual confusion comes in: it isn't OK in the case of the 65-year-old man -- and pretty much everyone instinctively knows that it isn't OK.  But they tend to get confused about the issue when the title of "Artiste" is hung on a sign around someone's neck.

Quote - 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.

Oh, there's no rule which states that Joe the Janitor can't be Bert the Businessman......after all, neither of them are Artistes -- and they are both therefore equally disqualified from taking naked pictures of kids.  Joe in his overalls, and Bert in his three-piece power suit.

On the other hand, Andy the Artiste is good for it.......even deserving of praise.  Because he's different from other citizens: and he therefore should be exempt from the laws that everyone else is required to follow.

cough

Taking things in such a simplistic fashion doesn't work, though Xenophonz. If we take another crime - gun crime for example. Shooting another person is wrong, correct? Especially if done without provocation, or where there was no threat to the shooter by the victim. And yet this becomes muddy when commited by soldiers in times of war, when innocents are, both accidentally and deliberately, shot and killed by members of the armed forces. Should soldiers who do such things be brought up on criminal charges? Or are they exempt from this because of the fact they are in a high-stress environment, having to make split-second decisions in order to save their own lives and those of their squad-mates? Because you could argue that for a gange member on the streets, life is a high-stress situation, and they have to sometimes make split-second decisions in order to save their own lives and those of their compadres as well. I'm not condoning either action, only saying that you cannot lay down a blanket rule and enforce it equally in all areas. Hell, the legal system is full of loopholes, amendments, get-out clauses, exceptions and os on. If we had a legal system that was so cut-and-dried, we wouldn't need a legalprofession. We could simply ascertain whether or not a given person commited a given act that contravened a simple set of rules, and they would be punished accordingly. But life isn't like that.

JonTheCelt

Quote - Taking things in such a simplistic fashion doesn't work, though Xenophonz.

Actually, getting to the core of the issue, and stripping away the extraneous modern-sophistry does work.  Rather: it is attempts to muddy the issue via the agency of bringing up totally unrelated (not strained -- broken) analogies that doesn't work.*

*The problem with the gun example lies in its premise.  Namely: that harming "innocent victims" in warfare -- such as the citizens of Berlin in 1945 -- equates to a bank robber shooting a hapless bank customer who just happened to be transacting his business at the wrong time.  Sorry -- the moral equivalence isn't there.  You can't stop Hitler without destroying his nation's capacity to fight.  But there is no such similar moral justification for killing someone while engaged in robbing a bank.  The two situations simply don't equate.  And neither situation equates to the central subject here.

I'm going to have to call it a night, folks.  Work tomorrow and all of that -- so y'all hammer it out without me, for now.

Have a good one --

Quote - Regardless of the rest: there shouldn't be one legal rule for Joe the Janitor, and then a different legal rule for Andy the Artiste.  The same rule should apply equally to both of them.  A picture that would get Joe the Janitor into trouble should also get Andy the Artiste into an equal amount of trouble......with NO special exemptions from the same law which applies to everyone else for the sake of 'Andy the Artiste' being a member of a privileged overlord class of.....uh......"intellectuals".  A self-appointed overlord class who regard themselves as being so-o-o-o-o-o-o much smarter than the rest of us culturally illiterate dummies........us rubes who don't have the capacity to truly appreciate the deeper meaning of their bottom-feeding "Art": and who can't possibly grasp the subtler aspects of the situation -- as they, the golden-brained "Artistes", do.

We have very strict rules against child pornography here in Germany. You may not create it, you may not sell or buy it, you may not own it. No photos, no cgi. But naked children aren't concidered to be pornography here. You would need some sexual context to make it illegal.

By the way, that's the same for Joe and for Andy here. I haven't seen the pictures in this case, but i seriously doubt that it would not be allowed here. In my opinion, there is no reason to change that.

Quote -
I agree,  Acadia,  after seeing the image myself and finding nothing sexual about it - my fear is that now any form of nudity will be viewed as "sexual" and we will begin the a downward spiral into some strange morality as has been seen in other parts of the world.....

I'm a Yank living in Oz for the past 7 years, and my impression of Aussies (living up here in Bris-Vegas) that by-and-large they are a bit more conservative than where I came from (SF Bay area). So, to them, any form of nudity IS sexual. Not sure about other parts of the country - I suspect the same feeling doesn't necessarily prevail in some of the southern States.

One needs to see this form of art and the subject matter in the context of what has been happening to children in this country, and the outrage it has caused. Children - and their right to be children - are an embattled group in our society: not just here, but in other parts of the world as well. Whilst Henson's art might have been tasteful and non-sexual, it does little to help the cause of our defenseless children.

Art is a difficult area to set boundaries to. Artists don't like to be told what is appropriate, but in order to be accepted in society, their art needs, to some degree, to reflect an understanding of and respect for issues that might affect the appropriateness of a particular subject matter. Artists have a responsibility - they cannot simply justify doing as they please under the "But This Is Art" concept.

I think we should all take our clothes of and dance about a bit.
And tell the PC brigade where to go when they turn up and start kicking arses and taking names.
If we were meant to wear clothes we would be born with them.
It's all too infantile to take seriously.

Quote - "......should those same parents be allowed to -- say -- set up a subscription website ..." 

Umh, I think that's where the "common sense" part comes in, though granted it's an endangered species these days,  .... There is a world of difference between family photos on Flickr and 'All nude babies all the time only $49.95 a month automatically renewing'

Thank you!  That was my point above when I asked what his example had to do with the picture hanging in a gallery.

If the photo I've found via Google is the right one, all I can think is that anyone who's ever rendered a nude, casually posed Aiko with no morphs other than Realistic and Breast Morph 1 set to about 0.2 or 0.3 -- heck, maybe not even that much -- is guilty of producing c***dpR0n.  No "ifs, ands or buts" about it. Art is no excuse. Nor does "But she's not real" carry any weight when it comes to unclothed representations of any human figure that might even remotely be considered a minor in a judge's eyes. Even if said judge is blinder than an entire air corps of bats.

Which means a heckuva lot of people ought to be thrown in jail, yes?

If you have to go to jail or not when keeping the render to yourself I don't know, but I know one thing, you're not allowed to showcase that image in your gallery here.

I do think the difference is when you take stuff like this to the public, that's when it becomes an issue. Also adding textures or not makes a huge difference. Untextures most of the poser figures I do use, just look like barbie dolls, but as soon as you start to texture them, they suddenly don't look that barbie-like anymore.

I do think there's a difference between rendering digital barbie dolls (taking away the textures & nipples and such) and rendering more realistic figures.

Purely as an experiment, I rendered Aiko the way I described. Placed it alongside the questionable photo and asked my sister, who is not an artist and is vehemently against the sort of stuff even conservatives would consider to be tasteful erotica as opposed to the P-word, which of the two images looked like porn. Knowing her, I expected to get an earful about "those dirty pictures on the computer".

She looked at the screen, said, "Huh? Porn?" then looked at me as if I had been smoking a very funny cigarette recently and been on the beer as well. "What porn?" So then I told her about this guy's work getting pulled from art galleries and why. Her reply was something along the lines of, "Oh heck, the wackos are going nuts again, aren't they? Next thing they'll be closing up all the museums and tearing down those statues and palaces out in Rome. Just having no clothes on isn't porn, you'd think they'd have better sense."

She's right, too. :-)

Quote - Actually, getting to the core of the issue, and stripping away the extraneous modern-sophistry does work.

No. It really doesn't. Decent, well meaning, moral people find plenty of room for disagreement on this and most other issues. That's why the pendulum swings. If it were not the case, nearly every matter of contention would have been  thoroughly resolved and written in stone long ago. Life's complicated. You and the right-wing brigade insisting otherwise doesn't change that.

if they've got due process of law there, the cops can raid the galleries and grab what they
believe is kiddie porn as evidence, then the prosecuting attorney(s) can review said evidence
to decide if any charges will be filed.  it carries far more weight if a jury decides that
the stuff is kiddie porn.  judges and juries in democratic societies have come to realise in recent
years that the right of children to be protected from predators outweighs the desire of artists
or pedophiles to sell, distribute or display nudie pix of kids.  I ain't a lawyer.

however, it's completely moot in regard to poser sites. hundreds of sites (and site owners)
are involved in poser, and none of 'em allow users to post explicit nudie pix of kids.  the
negativity surrounding these discussions of kiddie porn just re-inforces the poser site
owners' vigilance in regard to explicit nudie pix of kids IMVHO.

True, true. Pretty sure my Aiko dolly's not a kid. But I ain't gonna take no chances.

Hey, Xeno. If you don't mind terribly, I'll be over to your place around 8:00 PM tonight. I've been wanting to give your wife a pelvic exam for quite awhile, and I now see that you are agreeable to this arrangement, so I'm on the way...

What!? But, but, if Gary Gynecologist can do that, then why can't Eddie Everyman?

Wiggle your way out of that one :) I'll even save you a bit of time by getting rid of what would probably be your first response: no, a gynecologist is NOT performing a vital, lifesaving service. People got along for literally thousands of years without gynecologists. Also, please don't bother with the following:

"I'm not married! What wife?" - you're bound to have at least some female relative who sees a gynecologist. If you aren't married, then replace wife with whatever is appropriate. This is only hypothetical, after all.

Also, what about pediatric doctors? Same as gynecologists, not really necessary, just a modern convenience.

Boy this topic always brings out the lunacy in people!

Surely you're not talking about me!? The voices all say I'm perfectly sane, even the one that usually disagrees with the others ;p

We should take into account that the standards what is ok and what not tend to differ in different places. In a large part of the world, nude pictures aren't legal or accepted at all, no matter how old the model is. So, there is no common agreement about what is ok to show and what isn't. Obviously so, if you follow this discussion.

Just one further thing to the "different standards" discussion - for me, the difference is in the intention. If someone sells nude pictures of children on the internet he obviously has a differen intention as someone showing (usually a few) pictures in a gallery. For me, this obviously is a different case, clearly to see for me. The pictures from the gallery can still be used as a turn on by sick minds, but if we try to ban everything what can be arrousing to pedophiles... think about burkhas or such.

Obviously, there must be a line which art may not cross. Obviously this line in not the same in different countries. Australias gouvernment is about to redraw this line - nothing more, nothing less. I don't agree with the australian gouvernment, but there is no true "right" or "wrong" in this question.

Just my 5 cents, keep it or spend it.

I was going to weigh in on this subject but now that the flaming has started I think I'll just leave. R_Hatch, you might have been trying to make a point but the way you did it was wrong and no little, clever joke can cover for it. How about a little respect for others, even when they don't agree with you?

I apologize if I came off as mean-spirited, but specious arguments bring out the worst in me, particularly when it comes to subjects like censorship.

Let's keep it civil.

All of this entirely misses the point.  I am an average guy who likes beautiful women, therefore, when I see a nude, reasonably attractive woman, regardless of the artist's intention, I have sexual thoughts.  When a pedophile sees nude children, he (and it is statistically almost always he) has sexual thoughts.  And the last thing anyone should want to do is feed that kind of monster.  All this outcry about artistic "rights" is all well and good, but just because you have the "right " to do something, doesn't mean you should.   Although I'm so liberal it would make most of the people commenting here look like the "moral majority", in the final analysis, I'd rather protect kids than artists.

Contrary to popular belief, paedophilia is NOT about child nudity. It's not even about sex.
It's about abuse of power, about the degradation of those who are less powerful.

Child porn: the same. It's not about nudity, it's about the degradation and abuse of children, and that is why it is so despicable. That's also why it is totally different from those family photos depicting a toddler playing in a bathtub.

In general, it's fairly easy to recognize the intent of the image. But there's always a grey area. In that case, I tend to agree with regaltwo: it's better to err on the safe side.

Since I haven't seen the photographs in question, I do not have an opinion on whether they're wrong or not.

The girl's parents finally spoke out

Parents Defend Bill Henson

Quote - When a pedophile sees nude children, he (and it is statistically almost always he) has sexual thoughts.  And the last thing anyone should want to do is feed that kind of monster.

A pedophile gets sexual thoughts when he sees children playing at a playground. He can get sexual thoughts when seeing them on their way to school. Not to mention public pools.

I think it's nearly impossible NOT to feed that monster.´Pedophiles exist, they have to control theirself - if they cannot do that, society have to take care of them.

Following some of the links in that article, I read that one expert is concerned that the photos may have already been posted to pedo sites & groups. This worries me on two fronts: first that some very sick people are perving over a real, live minor and could be motivated to do more than just fantasize and second, that artists might be considered "accessories" or "enablers" or whatever the legal term is if their work found its way into some child molester's collection. Say for example Dirty Old Man X goes thru someone's Rendo gallery, downloads a ton of naked Aiko fairies or Hiro elves or what-have-you -- heck, maybe even fully clothed renders of Matt & Maddie at the Annual Poser Picnic -- and uploads it to KiddyF***ers Dot Whatever. All without that person's knowledge and certainly without their permission, mind you. Some time later Artist Y gets dragged out of bed in the middle of the night by the cops, who proceed to search his house and seize his computers because suddenly he's a felon. Probably even got his name in the Sex Offenders registry too, from which it will likely never be removed. Guilty in the Press and the Court of Public Opinion even if a judge & jury should find him innocent.

All because of a stolen piece of art that a pervert used for porn.
 

I really don't understand why any artist ever should be held responsible for what some other individual does with their art. That's like saying it was Jesus's fault that some people burned witches in his name, or that when a writer writes about a fictional attack on the nation's capital, then he is responsible for all such future attacks that may occur.

Fact is, some folks are sexually turned on by earlobes, or toes, or belly buttons, or eyebrows. Does that mean if someone acts out and sexually molests someone based on exposed toes or lobes, or whatever, the guy or gal who didn't cover them up should be considered an enabler?

Child nudity? Ban it or not, using whatever arbitrary standard you like and let's all fight over where the lines should be drawn to our hearts' content -- but let's not pretend that what is and is not stimulating to these monsters (or anyone else for that matter) is in any way objective. Lust, or the desire to abuse power, is in the personality of the offender, and the individual who acts inappropriately should be held responsible for their own behavior, and no one should be able to later claim someone else enabled them to do it. It should be behavior -- not thought or image -- that gets prosecuted.

This debate has also surfaced again on Live Journal as they've just changed their policy to allow the kind of art that got folks banned last May.

Quote:

**Our policy on Non-Photographic Images of Minors is being removed. What this means is that we will no longer be requiring the removal of this content, or suspending people who have posted it. We feel that with the introduction of the adult content flagging system, we do not need to take any further action on this type of material.

****We have also stated within the policy that non-graphic, non-sexualized nudity is not considered explicit adult content. This includes things such as an image of a mother breastfeeding their child, or a non-sexualized work of art such as the Statue of David. We have also extended this to our policy on default userpics; non-graphic, non-sexualized nudity is no longer considered a violation of our default userpic policy.

**In other words (I'm quoting again 'cuz this guy sums it up much better than me): **Art involving fictional characters is never "child pornography" in the US, because it doesn't depict living children.

**

I've seen the photo.
There's nothing sexual or provocative about it. It is a tasteful, beautifully shot nude. This photographer knew what he was doing when he set up the lights and the pose.

"Feeding the monster?" The monster gets fed everytime it sees a child, nude or not. The only way not to feed the monster is preventing children from being in public places, preventing them from interacting with society, preventing them from going to school, the sports club, a classmate's birthday party, preventing them from going outside whatsoever.
Which would be a horrible crime against the children.

No, the best way to protect our children from the monsters out there is to be on guard, to teach our children to be careful, and most of all, to teach our children to be a part of society. Which they can only learn by interacting with society.

Starting witch hunts is not the way. Witch hunts only bring misery to everyone involved.

Very true, svdl.

Quote - **Art involving fictional characters is never "child pornography" in the US, because it doesn't depict living children.
**/quote]

That's different here in Germany. Drawings, CGI, photos - all treated the same. Nude child is allowed, sexual context not.

Quote - This debate has also surfaced again on Live Journal as they've just changed their policy to allow the kind of art that got folks banned last May.

Quote:

**Our policy on Non-Photographic Images of Minors is being removed. What this means is that we will no longer be requiring the removal of this content, or suspending people who have posted it. We feel that with the introduction of the adult content flagging system, we do not need to take any further action on this type of material.

****We have also stated within the policy that non-graphic, non-sexualized nudity is not considered explicit adult content. This includes things such as an image of a mother breastfeeding their child, or a non-sexualized work of art such as the Statue of David. We have also extended this to our policy on default userpics; non-graphic, non-sexualized nudity is no longer considered a violation of our default userpic policy.

---

**In other words (I'm quoting again 'cuz this guy sums it up much better than me): Art involving fictional characters is never "child pornography" in the US, because it doesn't depict living children.

The second quote doesn't sum up the first at all. The first paragraphis saying, if it's not a photo, then it's ok - nothing about being fictional characters. I could make a painting of a real person, and it would be covered under this new ruling.

The second paragraph simply states that if an image is non-sexualised, then it's ok. That's all; nothing about real or fictitious here, either.

So quite how the ruling that non-sexualised or non-photographic images of people is accepatable became 'kiddie porn of fictional characters is allowed' is quite beyond me.

JonTheCelt

That bit confuses me too. Anyway, you can read all about it right here: http://community.livejournal.com/lj_policy/1935.html?page=1#comments

Edited to add LJ's new policy page link: http://www.livejournal.com/abuse/policy.bml?proposal=1#non-photo

Glad to see that common sense has prevailed down under with the Australian censor saying that the images in question were not pornographic and in fact some of them had been rated PG.

NSW Police will no longer continue to prosecute the case and the photos will be returned to the Gallery.