Search

[Chairman_Meow]

I think it has a lot to do with what the artist had intended, and much of the time it's somewhat apparent in the artist's work. I went through a few galleries, and I honestly feel that Bill Henson's point was for shock value. He just strikes me as the kind of guy who takes pictures of naked children under the guise of artistic expression and acts shocked when people have a problem with implied child rape.

These models don't give off the vibe of being used to being nude in front of adults. There's a big difference between these girls and pictures of topless young African women. One is simply taking a picture of a child in her natural environment, and another is an adult manipulating a young model at the cusp of sexuality- which is sleazy, creepy, and gross.

[Paracetamol]

You can't make laws that are dependent on what the artist had intended when they made the work. Only Bill Henson really knows what he was trying to accomplish when you make those pictures. The laws have to be made with ensuring that children aren't harmed in the making of this media. Child pornography is obviously severely detrimental and no right thinking person would advocate legalising it. The question at hand is whether photographing a child naked and displaying it in an art gallery is damaging to the child. Many of his former models feel that isn't the case, but obviously this isn't necessarily compelling evidence in its own right. The Australian government declined to press charges

Police will not prosecute artist Bill Henson over his photographs of naked teenagers, declared "mild and justified" by Australia's Classification Board.

The images that I have seen do not strike me as being made with pornographic intent in mind. If you feel that all nude images of children should be illegal that is fine, but it's important to understand that will mean plenty of other images will become illegal. That means teenagers being charged with child porn for taking images of themselves, or parents charged with child porn for having film of their children in the bath.

[Reverend_CJ]

I personally think it says alot that the australian government wont press charges against him when they will with the simpsons porn. But that crosses so many different premises in itself that is contradicts itself in those rulings.

[The Evil Sloth]

I'd like to reiterate how precisely the charge of child pornography works, so discussions of criminality can be had in context with how the actual crime works.

To take for example the NSW crimes act we find the offence set out as follows:

(1) Definitions In this section:
"child pornography" means material that depicts or describes, in a manner that would in all the circumstances cause offence to reasonable persons, a person under (or apparently under) the age of 16 years:
(a) engaged in sexual activity, or
(b) in a sexual context, or
(c) as the victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse (whether or not in a sexual context).

The first bit of the charge is critical to understanding what is criminal. The material must depict a child in a sexual context - query whether being naked is by itself a 'sexual context' - in such a way that 'in all the circumstances' a 'reasonable person' would be offended.

Now, all the circumstances means precisely that. It is relevant to the charge that Henson's works were created with permission of the children's parents, for an artistic purpose and are hung in galleries. Similarly it would be relevant that the a photos was taken by a parent for the purpose of being stored in a family album.

Secondly, you would have to prove that a 'reasonable person' would be offended, in all the circumstances. Now the reasonable person isn't an actual dude, nor is he the amalgamation of the views of society. That test is far closer to the 'ordinary person' test, which is used for example in the provocation defence. That is, courts have told us that the 'ordinary person' might in some circumstances retaliate to verbal abuse with physical violence, whereas the 'reasonable person' would never. The 'reasonable person' would for the purposes of this charge, probably be assumed to be well versed in contemporary art.

This is the second sticking point for prosecution; would a reasonable person be 'offended', as required by the act, if they knew both the artistic purpose and the artist. Bill Henson - whatever your views on him - is a Serious Business artist. You probably can't name another internationally renown Australian photographer, because there aren't any that even compare to him in terms of audience and fame. And his work - at least those parts of it which aren't naked pictures of children - is very good. The leader of the opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, owns a Henson original print (a landscape, not a portrait) and has rigorously defended his artistic integrity.

It may well be the case that the ordinary person is offended by Henson's work, but the reasonable person test would operate as a quasi 'artistic purposes' defence to ensure that legitimate art is not criminalised by this law.

Legally speaking there's a robust and adaptable framework in place to deal with issues like this that can make subtle distinctions and seems to be working well.

Speaking personally, though - what in the hell? It's a sad indictment on the art world that a gallery - any gallery - would stoop so low as to display these pieces. I detest contemporary art culture for its 'shock = genius!' mindset, and this is that mentality at is most depraved. If it were up to me, these works would be censored because they are fundamentally immoral. But I recognise that if it were up to me, piss christ would have been censored on the same grounds, and lots of people disagree with my opinion there.

[Pandajuice]

So if Bill Henson took these pictures and never showed anyone else them they would no longer be pornographic? I can understand that these particular images in question offend you, but I'm not sure what you're arguing for. Should we make all pictures of nude children illegal? Should only family members be able to photograph their children? Should we just ban Bill Henson from taking pictures of children?

We're not necessarily arguing about whether or not these images can be classed as "pornographic". That's irrelevant, at least to me. The pictures are suggestive enough to me to be morally corrupt and should not be shown publically or and Henson should be reprimanded to having taken them in the first place. There is a huge difference between these public, sexually suggestive images and the innocuous ones taken by your mother when you were in the bath. One picture of you naked in the bath in your mother's photo album is a world apart from an album full of naked photos of the neighborhood children. It scares me a little that some who have posted here don't easily see the difference there, as it's clear to see the intent in either case.

Parental consent is also irrelevant as society has shown us time and again that simply holding the title of "parent" doesn't make a person morally responsible, nor should they be in complete control of their child. If a parent consents to their child to walk around naked in public all the time, society says "Sorry, that's against the rules. Your being the parent is meaningless. Put some clothes on the child". I don't see this situation as being any different. Society needs to step in and say "Sorry, that's against the rules" to these parents, and to Henson.

[Glenn]

We're not necessarily arguing about whether or not these images can be classed as "pornographic". That's irrelevant, at least to me.

If they aren't pornographic, then what is the problem. Are images of children never to be used for any purpose whatsoever? Can children appear in movies?

The pictures are suggestive enough to me to be morally corrupt and should not be shown publically or and Henson should be reprimanded to having taken them in the first place. There is a huge difference between these public, sexually suggestive images and the innocuous ones taken by your mother when you were in the bath. One picture of you naked in the bath in your mother's photo album is a world apart from an album full of naked photos of the neighborhood children. It scares me a little that some who have posted here don't easily see the difference there, as it's clear to see the intent in either case.

The reason why people like me resist argument for censorship is because we are 'scared a little' of people who use the words 'morally corrupt' as a justification for censoring something. Your morals are not my morals. Half the films in hollywood if not more might be classified as morally currupt.

You say it is clear to see the intent. You're right. The parents are taking a picture of their child because they think it is cute and they want to remember. The artist, the photographer, takes a photo because he wants to make some kind of artistic statement. The motives are crystal clear, yet you insist on making the artist a pedophile. I assure that this conclusion is anything but clear, and it scares me a little that you jumped to that accusation.

Many don't like like artistic statements because lately they seem to have been designed to shock, or evoke disturbing ideas. I have some sympathy for that. I also don't think children should be naked for any commercial purpose, artistic or otherwise. Even if it was explicitly illegal though, parental consented pictures taken by an artist are not the same as pictures taken within the context of a pedophilia ring.

I think we agree that those types of artistic pictures shouldn't be taken. We disagree on why. The why is important though.

[Paracetamol]

So if Bill Henson took these pictures and never showed anyone else them they would no longer be pornographic? I can understand that these particular images in question offend you, but I'm not sure what you're arguing for. Should we make all pictures of nude children illegal? Should only family members be able to photograph their children? Should we just ban Bill Henson from taking pictures of children?

We're not necessarily arguing about whether or not these images can be classed as "pornographic". That's irrelevant, at least to me. The pictures are suggestive enough to me to be morally corrupt and should not be shown publically or and Henson should be reprimanded to having taken them in the first place.

Society needs to step in and say "Sorry, that's against the rules" to these parents, and to Henson.

I'm still not entirely clear on what you think should happen in this instance. What new laws and / or changes to society do you think we should bring into place to stop these images being made? If you think things should go no further than reprimanding Bill Henson, that probably isn't going to stop him or other artists making works like these again.

Evil Sloth gave us a fantastic summary of child porn laws in Australia, and it appears to be the position of the Australian government that Bill Henson hasn't done anything illegal here. The average person certainly seem to disprove of these images, but society has also essentially told Bill Henson that he's free to keep making them. What changes would you make to correct this?