As far as Labor Minister Michelle O’Byrne’s suggestion that the photos were of a pornographic nature is concerned, I would have expected a more honest and balanced appraisal from our very own Sir Les Patterson, Cultural Attache for the Yartz.

I don’t profess to be any great shakes at judging art ! i know i like those like Streeton, Tom Robert’s, and the like ,and it seems to me that the art community feel that anything “at all” is O.K. as long as it is labelled as ART ! i have seen what is on the net and have no problem with nudity however i must profess to having a problem with using children as models , and i can,t really see the need for it regardless of how bloody famous you are ! after all is it not done for others to look at ? and why would they wan’t to look at naked children regardless of how TASTEFULL it is supposed to be.
                      d.d.

While I wopuld support any member of the community to express or display their opinion, I can not help but to recall that there was once a time when 12-14 year old girls were considered the prime age to have children. Or was that just of the lecherous patriarchcal dominance of kings? Is 13 years old OLD ENOUGH or are we regressing back to the middle ages.

Surely the issue here should be one of consent? Most objectors seem to cite that a 13 year old might have later regrets about being exposed in this way. I think I heard that the model is now older and presumably, both her, and her parents are happy with the photos.
Personally, I have children and I quite like seeing them naked. Absolutely nothing sexual, but they just have such perfect bodies when they’re young and it seems such a shame that puberty, hormones, and probably fast food, will soon mess them up.
I also thought that the big issue with child pornography was the exploitation of the children used in the production. If someone has to get their jollies looking at a bunch of kids at the beach I feel sorry for them but are they harming anyone? I save my anger for the “adultification” of our children. Childhoods so short anyway, I strongly object to all the marketing trying to make eight year olds into teenagers!

Why is it that people cannot see without distorted perception? Steve, your honesty is a breath of fresh air. All I see are beautiful young children free of the constraints of adolescence and adulthood. I actually feel happy for these children revelling in such freedom.

Mr Rudd asked, ‘why cant they just be left to be children for God sake’? Well thats exactly what the photos represent, as long as one does not start to colour them with fear, desire and ignorance. There has been no harm caused or exploition of innocent young lives by Bill Henson. I have a large medical text book full of photos of naked children, amongst others. What should I do? Rip the pages out?

If Kevin Rudd was serious about addressing child abuse in Australia, why hasn’t he appointed a Children’s Commissioner and called for a royal commission into this insidious exploitation of innocence in our society? With so many incidences of abuse to children having occurred in state sanctioned care, Rudd and his government bear moral responsibility to first and foremost for redressing these iniquities. In choosing instead to deflect his outrage about abuse onto Bill Henson’s art, the Prime Minister has shown political cowardice and his own determination to continue avoiding taking responsibility for a system which has and continues to fail to protect Australia’s children.

Jane Rankin-Reid

I hope you’re not posting under your real name Jon. They’ll soon be kicking your door in to seize your text books!!
I don’t deny there’s some very nasty/sick people out there but more I wonder what goes on the minds of the so called moral people who seem to see sex everywhere. We get more like America every day.

Throughout history, children have been portrayed by artists in the nude. In classical times they have been painted and scuptured by the Greeks, Romans and all Mediterranean cultures. In the Church we see thousands of examples. Cherubs, seraphs and putti abound in paintings and murals. There was never a stigma attached to nudity or to portraying it. They were seen as portraying innocence. Leornardo da Vinci used a young boy called Salai as a model for most of his portaits of women - including the Mona Lisa and the Virgin with St. Elizabeth and St. Anne. During the Renaissance this was an accepted modus operandi for many artists. We see naked children in the Spanish school by artists such as Jose Ribera and Goya and in the French Classical period by Boucher, Gericault and Watteau etc. Rubens portrayed many of them.

It is only in recent times that prudery has come to fore backed by the possibility that some child molester or paedophile might get a sexual kick out of seeing these pictures, and this is clouding our judgements.

Despite consent from both parents and the model, at seventeen and three quarters, nudity is considered illegal and corrupting, but three months later it is perfectly OK. It is an arbitary line in the sand and makes no provision or compromise for differing situations or attitudes or cultures. In Western Society we are ruled by the prurient and puritanical who, unlike the second wise monkey, are incapable of seeing anything but evil. This is not backed by either the artistic community or the traditional church. Beauty and pornography are in the eyes of different beholders.

I think it ill behoves any of us to see evil in the works of Bill Henson where he portrays the beauty of youth and to project on him and his art our own narrow-minded and censorious attitudes. It says far more about the critics than the artist!

Well put Gerry.
This whole thing of age, sex and the law is a minefield. I recently met someone who’d just spent a couple of years in jail because of a sexual relationship with a sixteen year old (twenty plus years ago mind you) If he’d been in a state where the age of consent was sixteen he’d have committed no offence. Because he was in Tasmania and a thirty eight year old woman tells her shrink about her past, suddenly he’s a criminal?
Quite possibly there should have been more to the story but it seemed believable enough as told. People commit murder and serve similar sentences. Judging by the number of teenage mums about Tassie, the jails should be full, but somehow it doesn’t seem to work like that, until someone cries foul years later.

What interests me is how the police have taken a single complaint and built it up into an interstate investigation, well beyond the immediate matter of the offending material at the centre of the complaint. The case appears weak as a crime and the police seem to really be running on a moral issue, the NSW Commissioner reportedly saying that he not just a police officer but a father as well. The police seem to be going well beyond crime and into moral judgement and control, unless they know something we don’t. Their actions as moral guardians or censors is the most disturbing aspect of this whole issue as they seem to be taking on a role as gate-keepers of what is moral in our society which goes beyond the policing role. The actions of the police are socially and politically questionable in terms of the role they play in our society.

But it reminds me of two funny stories:
In one, a photographer was making images of a nude woman in a fountain at dawn in a public park and was arrested for public indecency. The magistrate asked the arresting officer who was there and was told; the photographer, the model, and the policeman. The magistrate dismissed the charge saying that the ‘police’ are not the ‘public’ and since there were no members of the public present there was no offence.

In the second, the police arrived at a social gathering and a wag called out ‘watch out, the pigs are here’. He was arrested for offensive language, but the magistrate threw out the charge saying that ‘pig’ was a common, recognised, slang term for police in the community and though the police officer may have been offended it is not a term that is offensive to the ‘public’.

In a way this may refer back to the Henson furore, the police seem to be offended and are strenuously chasing charges that will stick, but what is offensive to the police is not necessarily what is offensive to the public…

“It is only in recent times that prudery has come to fore backed by the possibility that some child molester or paedophile might get a sexual kick out of seeing these pictures, and this is clouding our judgements.”

    I can’t agree with that statement G.M. , can you remember a catholic priest being prosecuted 30—-40 years ago ? i can’t ! and this is because there has always been those that will prey on children and it’s only in recent times that the truth of what adults are capable of is being hilighted and prosecutions therefore taking place as well they should .

  Some will say ,what has that to do with the debate ? and to those who say that naked children are beautiful , may be right , i have never considered whether they are or not ! and i suspect that some may well be , and as with adults, others are not , the fact is that children should be seen as beautiful whether they be naked or fully clothed and nurtured in their innocence, because the full extent of what is in their future lives will come all too soon.

    A huge majority will never have impure thoughts of children , problem is that there IS a percentage that do ! and whats more act upon it , so i see no reason to put temptation in their way, and can anyone say that they have missed out on something by these photo’s not being exhibited ? there are much more important things and this is a non event ! however i suspect that the publicity will engender huge interest and i don’t believe that is benificial.
                d.d.

Jane asks, “If Kevin Rudd was serious about addressing child abuse in Australia, why hasn’t he appointed a Children’s Commissioner and called for a royal commission into this insidious exploitation of innocence in our society?”

If such a commission were to be honestly and ruthlessly undertaken where would it stop? I dont believe it is a matter of weeding out isolated wrong-doers as such, although uncontrollable paedophiles obviously need to be kept well away from children. Cruelty or abuse of young lives permeates our entire society.

How much suffering is to be endured by a child with a teenage mother who smokes, drinks, has little education and no job prospects? A child born into this situation has Buckley’s hope of living a desirable life. And what of children who are deeply indoctrinated with their parents religious views? How much suffering does this cause for an intelligent young person who, in later life, wishes to find out for themselves?
Many Tasmanians dont tend to value education and the potential benefits it can provide for their children, despite seeing the assets that education has helped provide for others. What sort of life are they advocating for their children? 

If we take into account the far reaching physical as well as mental abuse we place upon our innocent children, a Royal Commission is not an appropriate mechanism to deal with the issue. All it would likely do is fan isolated flames of a smouldering society.

I notice that many here are quick to jump to Henson’s defense ! and why ? do any of you know Mr Henson ?  because i don’t !  and to say that someone is innocent until proven guilty is of course how things “SHOULD BE” !  but hold on !  we are talking about interaction with children here! and who of us this place would allow our child to participate in this folly, and to say it is down to “consent” as stated by Steve , i ask , whose consent ?  the childs ? at that age they have no perception of what is done today may well come back to haunt them ! and how much further on before posing for Playboy is O.K. and Christ know’s they get paid enough for that!

      I do not agree with censoreship usually ! however! when it comes to children we,the adults !  must err on the side of discretion.
                        d.d.

In reply to Don Davey’s question; yes I do know Bill Henson since he was selected to represent Australia at the Venice Biennale in 1995 if memory serves. He’s a modest unaffected man in real life and unused to media attention of any kind; he’s certainly not seeking it. His art may not be to your taste (or mine), but the debate -sparked by our new prime minister’s adverse reaction to Henson’s imagery- is not about the artist’s character but his portrayal of young women in his work. The PM’s lack of commitment to the real issues of addressing child abuse in our society are patently clear; it’s much easier to shoot at an artist than it is to take responsibility for the uncomfortable issues artists raise in our society. In other words, artists like Henson are just doing their job while our politicians simply aren’t.

What we need to be very wary of in our community is the politically manipulative me-too-ism parroted in our politicians and senior bureaucrats’ response to Henson’s work. Our state arts minister Michelle O’Byrne also thinks Henson’s work is “unacceptable and inappropriate”.  But has she added her voice in calling for a royal commission or national inquiry into child abuse? Can we be certain she will protect Tasmanian artists’ right to express themselves on any subject? Or are local artists now also going to be censored for creative protests against Gunns or for observing the state sanctioned destruction of nature for instance? Are the arts safe in this state from this sort of opportunistic political gainsaying over artistic content? Sadly, I fear not.

Finally, it’s worth remembering that the Henson controversy is not a new story in contemporary art circles. Decades ago during Ronald Reagan’s regressive 2nd term as US President, US artist Sally Mann was heavily criticized for her “At Twelve: Portraits of Young Women” and “Immediate Family”, for showing images of her own children naked or semi-clothed, in poses and costumes they devised for themselves.
http://images.google.com/images?ndsp=20&um=1&hl=en&q=Sally+Mann+Immediate+Family&start=0&sa=N
These widely celebrated images have been described as “unflinching and unafraid”. The enclosed essay by writer Valerie Osbourn on Mann’s work with her children is well worth reading in this context, as are Mann’s kids’ more recent comments about the process of being photographed by their mother.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/76038/sally_manns_immediate_family_the_unflinching.html?cat=2

Henson’s work may indeed provoke strong responses from viewers sensitized to child abuse in our society, so it may be considered a success from that point of view. What’s missing in the resulting furor is any strength or commitment to political accountability for this abuse in our society.
Jane Rankin-Reid

Don, Bill Henson is a well known professional photographer, the children and their parents consented to the photo sessions. All photography sessions include the parents and other individuals assisting the photographer. How else could one improve upon these safeguards?

Don; I’m struggling to understand your viewpoint on this. Most people on this thread seem to be of the view that most of the indecency exists in the minds of those who are putting their own interpretations on to essentially innocent photos. You appear to agree with this but you also seem to have a moral cringe of your own?

History tends to side with the artist, not the censor. Censorship is a moral judgement and frequently from a very narrow-minded puritanical viewpoint and often is a projection of the censors own latent fears and prejudices. In the case of Bill Henson, they are projecting on to him and his art an attitude to which he himself almost certainly does not subscribe. This was an exhibition in an art gallery, and had it not been for some prurient minded person reporting this to the press and police, there it would have remained and only have been seen by those people who frequent such establishments. Paedophiles are not generally in the habit of going to art galleries.

In the past, artists have frequently run foul of the censors board. Notable people are D.H. Lawrence for his paintings and Lady Chatterly’s Lover, James Joyce for his novels Ulysses and Finnegan’s Wake, and throughout history, artists have been hounded by the self-elecrted moral guaedians. Since then, moral strictures have eased and these works have been declared ‘masterpieces’.

It must also be remembered that people who view these things are not converted into immediate sex maniacs by looking at them. If this were true, the same judgement could be made about people who read ‘Adult’ magazines. Because they gaze on naked flesh, they do not go out and molest the first female they see, neither do I think it increases the potential for rape. If it did, then the censors board may have a point, and these sort of magazines should also be banned on the same grounds: pictures of children encourage paedophiles - pictures of nude young women encourage rapists! Basically unsubstantiated and totally false logic and wrong thinking. After all, adult magazines are far more explicit than Bill Henson’s work. The pictures are innocent - it is the people who are not. It is quite possible that deprivation of any form of surrogate material could actually increase the potential for sexual molestation.

By censoring anything, those that do it are passing a moral judgement on the audience and saying to us that ‘we are holier than thou.’ They are attributing to the public an attitude that is basically untrue, and certainly not flattering. They are judging the effect it will have on you and also your attitude of mind. They refuse to recognise that people are entitled to judge for themselves and draw their own conclusions. They are thinking for you and in their mind, they are morally superior to you. You are not to be trusted and can be corrupted by these pictures and this must be prevented. Censorship is the Thought Police at work ... Mother Grundies…..and believe me, they ALL love their work!

This world is rapidly becoming so bloody politicaly correct that some will not air their views HONESTLY because they want to be seen as just that ! “politically correct” and i personally don’t give squat to differing veiws when it comes to childrens welfare,  and as for consent ! that’s bullshit ! a child of that age is not capable of such a decision which may have an affect on his or her future life , but as you say, the parents gave their consent , so you , i assume ! would give your permission with your children in similar circumstances ,is that fair comment ?
                        d.d.

(7)
    “I don’t deny there’s some very nasty/sick people out there but more I wonder what goes on the minds of the so called moral people who seem to see sex everywhere. We get more like America every day.”
          ——————————
      Sex everywhere ?  you’ve got that right ! one cannot turn on the television, or pick up a womans magazines whilst in the doctors office,  and read the miscelaneous columns of the local rag where sex is sold openly ! of course it is everywhere ! and adults are peddling it for monetary gain ! for all that they are worth ! whilst bleating about the current generation and their lack of morals !      so just how can kid’s differentiate between right and wrong ? and most especially when the porn capital of Australia is bloody CANBERRA !

                      d.d.

I have always had a problem with the issue of censoreship ! 

    I will agree that most RIGHT thinking adults DO NOT need to be told what is right and or wrong.

    Censoreship ! is necessary to safeguard children ! and Steve ask’s where i’m coming from ?  well ! that’s easy ! i’m honest enough to say i’m all FOR censoreship !  FOR THE YOUNG AND IMPRESSIONABLE !
    Is that not our duty ? and once again let me ask , just who ! among you would allow your child to participate in the same folly just because she or he had made a 12 year old’s decision to do so ! 
 
    Now ! don’t all speak at once !  because if you are honest the answer would be no !  and if so, then why is it ok for some one elses kids to participate ? 

    That’s the problem with these type of debates because you lot are pretending one thing , but in reality saying , but, not in my back yard !
                      d.d.

I am not an artistic individual , which is most likely why i don’t see your points of veiw ,i look at things from the view of a parent and a grandparent. 
    You are entitled to your opinions ! as for me the world has become far too sexually orientated where there is no longer the mystery of the chase and ultimately the winning of a heart and sex being the icing on the cake assuming that you have done what all male animal life on the planet has done since the beginning of time “spending the best part of their lives trying to get their leg over” !
   
    One only has to spend some time in the company of the present generation at the local watering hole and listen to the conversations that take place, and as for the language ! christ ! enough to make a wharfie from my era blush ! and the female of the species is more than likely to initiate sex than the guy ! and to men of my generation that’s not at all a turn on ! what happened to the thrill of the chase and hopefully the inevitable prize?
   
  I have five sons and three daughters and various assorted grandchildren and am more than familiar with generational change , and one day my grandson said something quite unusual , and that was, ya know Pop ! the bloody girls today seem intent on proving they have bigger balls than us guys and seem intent on mentally castrating us !  pretty profound from a 15 year old i would have thought and worrying !  no wonder there are so many failing marriages ! 
 
  O.K.  so i may have drifted from the original concept and lapsed into some pleasant memories, memories of which this generation , sadly ,will not get to enjoy !  but ultimately for me ! it,s all part and parcel of the same problem.

                    d.d.

20; I’m getting a clearer idea of where you’re coming from Don, but it’s hard work!
Re the question; would I let my daughter participate in such a photo/ I don’t have a strong opinion on the subject. I would judge the situation, at the time, on its merits. My daughter is younger than that and you, as a grandfather, may well have a deeper insight into these matters, but on the face of it, I have no immediate “no way” reaction.
I would think the main consideration is whether there’s likely to be any serious consequences in later life. I can’t really see some employer saying “oh no, you were photographed nude by Bill Henson when you were twelve. We can’t employ you!”

Don,

I would have no problem with sending a child of mine to be photographed without clothes, in the close confines of people I trusted, professional or amateur. After all, don’t snap happy parents, relatives and friends do this every weekend as they look joyfully at naked little ones running around having a good time.

To be honest Don and I say this respectfully, I’m far more disturbed by your generation’s expectations (21) on human sexual behaviour, female submissiveness and male domination of females than I am about any harmless Bill Henson photos.

(22)

      “I would think the main consideration is whether there’s likely to be any serious consequences in later life. ”  your Quote not mine!  so, in view of that concern , why would you risk it !

    (23) Quote :  “in the close confines of people i trusted ”  it has been reported that the majority of child abuse cases has being carried out by those trusted by parents , in most cases they being members of the extended family.

      Famous last words ! 

    As for your enjoyment of children running around naked ! one would assume and hope that they would not be of the age of this young lady having been photographed as we are not discussing 2—-3 olds here !  also as per your statement regarding my generation !  i would ask ,just what particular part of my post (21) do you find objectionable ?
           
                  d.d.

24; Whether there was a risk would be what I would be considering, in exactly the same way I consider the risk involved in anything that I am required to give consent to. My concern in the instance being debated here is that people appear to be having a knee jerk reaction to nakedness based on their own prudery more than any risk to the child. They also consider that their opinion is more valid than the parents.
Gerry (17)has put it better than I can but I do find peoples obsession with nakedness a bit strange.  It’s a bit of a “who cares” issue to me. Most people are improved by clothing and it’d be a bit chilly without it, but I’d imagine if one joined a nudist camp the novelty would wear off. I doubt many nurses get any titillation from naked people. All this shame business comes from the god botherers. “They ate from the tree of knowledge” etc

(25) 
    It is not just about nudity ! it is about child exploitation ! which is exactly why no television station nor paper will show the photo,s in their entirety ! I have problem with your so called liberated views !  so you can believe what you will !  I no longer have the stomach for this debate.
            d.d.

One thing I have learnt in regards to this issue is that I have different perceptions to that of Kevin Rudd and the masses, and for that I am very grateful. All I see is innocence in a youthful human form. I really think this concern over paedophilia is an unbalanced response by people who cant see past their prejudices and fears.

In the interests of respect towards other posters on this thread I think I have said enough.

26; Thank you for calling me liberated Don. I’m actually quite conservative really, never have tried pot for example. It’s just this debate seems silly. I understand from the news that sanity has triumphed and I think the quote that “nudity is not pornography” says it all.

Bill Henson has been vindicated, albeit, grudgingly, and today all charges have been dropped and the pictures returned to the Gallery.

What it has done, of course, is to alert everybody of the content, and given him and the pictures huge publicity. Because of this, it might now attract some audience with the wrong attitude which it would hitherto not have done had it just remained a gallery exhibition. In trying to censor this work, the censors may have created the very effect they were trying to avoid.

26; Don. After posting my previous reply I couldn’t help but reflect. Exactly which of my “so called liberated views” (so called by whom, certainly not me?!) do you find so hard to stomach. I think, to date, that I’ve said that:
1)I quite enjoy seeing my children running around naked and see nothing obscene in it.
2) If my daughter wished, or was requested, to appear naked in a photo, I would assess the situation on it’s merits rather than instantly refusing.
3) I’m not particularly excited or revolted by nudity.
I don’t recall commenting on child exploitation which, of course, I abhor. Perhaps you, like others, are reading something into a situation that doesn’t exist…?

(27)
  With your respect for the others this post John !, it appears to me that they weren’t entirely sure of their ground and bailed out as quickly as they entered.

  Perhaps some good old fashioned common sense prevailed after second thoughts ! as it has become all too fashionable to take up causes in the name of “artistic licence” without first putting brain into gear !
            d.d.

For many years I lived under the Apartheid regime in South Africa, where politics were dominated by the ‘moral’ attitudes of the Ned Geref Church. (Dutch Reform) Censorship was total and absolute. It covered everything from politics to art, and magazines which in Australia we would take for granted were overprinted with black bars and stripes, and they even tore out pages from some foreign magazines before they would allow them to be sold. Television was local and all international news and programs were jammed so that the people of South Africa could get no news of the outside world unless it had been passed by the censors board, and that was rare. You could be prosecuted for possessing a magazine that showed an uncensored topless girl.

I have three degrees in fine art from a couple of top art schools in England and I have taught in an art school myself as well. I am also a photographer, and have worked a lot in the ‘glamour’ field for several international magazines. In South Africa my work was highly restricted by the thought police and I have had several brushes with the censors board, and on two occasions having a police raid on my studio due to malicious reports from narrow-minded people, which incidentally came to naught, but caused a considerable amount of inconvenience.

I later had a major hand in discrediting and demolishing the censors board when I discovered that they and the police between them had raised all the complaints that they investigated during a complete year of operation, bar one. A singler petitioner from the public had given them their justification for all their draconian actions and for their very existence. When this became public, the new government abolished the board.

Censorship steps over the boundaries of law and applies moral strictures to their judgements, but the problem is, morals and ethics are a moveable feast. ‘Pornography, a matter of geography’ holds true. I am not an advocate of pornography and I abhor exploitation of children, the more so since I myself was a victim in my youth, but censorship without truly real grounds I see as an impingement on my mental probity. I hate anyone making a moral judgement on my behalf without consulting me, as I rarely subscribe to their narrow views or premises. By making such a judgement, they are saying, ‘I am holier than thou,’  and my judgement is superior to anything you may make.

I find it offensive.

It appears indeed that i am outnumbered in this issue ,however my views remain solid !

    From this old man’s point of view ,which most this place feel to be outdated ! adults can ! and do ! whatever they wan’t ! however,  if and when they have children it is encumbent upon them to remember that although they may hold a particular point of view they should look closely as to whether those veiws are are indeed correct in the eyes of the society i which they live!  and in the society that i wish to be in ,there is no place for child exploitation regardless of what spin you all try to label it with.
   
    There are many things wrong with our society but it just happens to be the one we have ! and it changes on a daily basis as it has always done , we can only hope it does for the better ! but the one thing that remains (or should) remain constant is that we are not just parents ! but teachers ! and if a child makes a decision to act as did this young lady it should have been taken into consideration as to whether she in fact was mature enough to do so , and i maintain that she wasn’t ! and should have been counseled to that end.
    I have no problem with “Norman Lindsay’s” nudes as it is my belief that they were all consenting adults ! however had he produced a work such as this , i would have been of exactly the same opinion and that cannot be changed and quite frankly am surprised that i seem to be alone on this issue , but not elsewhere it appears according to the papers !  and yes ! the law seem to have dropped the case which i feel was purely in the interests of publicity anyway.

    G.M.
      It is unfair to compare South Africa in any way to Australia , most of my age know only too well of the atrocities perpetrated in that country, and you state that you were a photographer publishing in the glamour industry !  I don’t believe that 12—-13 year olds should be seen as such!  or sexy ! as they are presently being depicted ! in the fashion industry , christ all mighty ! what’s going on ! why the f—-k can’t children be allowed to be exactly that instead of becoming the source of wealth from money grubbing parents , because we all know that that happens ! as ask any girl that age if she wishes to be a model and she will agree without hesitation.

    Last and not least, we have all experienced and complained of much on the television and because we have a democracy ( of sorts ) we are free to voice our concerns (as we are, concerning the mill )  so ! as for censoreship !  does anyone with children really believe that we should have open slather ?  don’t all speak at once !
         
            I am done with this debate.
                   
                  d.d

Gerry, I found your post to be an excellent response from someone with experience on this issue. It is certainly food for thought. I fully understand your concern over dictatorial censorship but is it any worse than mass public opinion?

33;You keep rabbiting on about exploitation Don. I ask once again; what exploitation? No one has said that the girl was old enough to make a mature decision, as I understand her parents were involved in the decision. Do you consider that your opinion is more valid than her parents?

I changed my mind because this topic is far too important to bail out of !  and i dislike leaving business unfinished.

    As just “one” of the animal species that inhabit this planet ” human’s are ” , and always have been the least trustworthy ! a trait that acompanied cunning which enabled them to avoid being eaten !  and to eventually go on to (presumeably) bigger and better things over the past few million years
   
  And along with cunning came greed ! inasmauch as the easier things became to attain ! the more we took until eventually one day we had to have lawmakers and others to look after things like morality (not needed by other species) and so we come to censoreship ! put in place essentially to look after our children because that old adage still survives ! and that is ,  give e’m an inch and they’ll take a mile !  which brings me to a piece in todays Examiner ! apparently some twisted Jerk in Melbourne (on the back of the Henson decision) is now having a showing of 11 year old’s! 
   
    Wake up to reality ! before it is too late ! you so called free thinker’s ,  as you all individually , may well have your heads in the right place (as opposed to up your asses) however sadly, the majority of humanity still have a long, long, way to go ! and the floodgates are rapidly widening !  It surprises me that you don,t see it happening about you on a daily basis.

                  d.d.

Oh well Don. I think I’ll bail out of this debate now. You are making little sense in your almost incoherent responses and you are ignoring questions posted in response to your earlier posts. I have stuck with the debate so far, basically as a matter of courtesy. You wished to discuss; I was happy to do so. Discussion appears to have boiled down to a tirade of “I’m right, you’re wrong” so you can have it yourself.
I’ll borrow Jon’s exit. In the interests of respect….

Steve ! i have read and taken in your correpondence without retaliating with terms such as “rabbitting on” and a couple of other snide inuendo on your part and some of those that agree       with your views , said behaviour, which in itself is always usually adopted when the opposing party becomes unsure of the ground they have adopted ! and usually before first putting brain into gear without correctly taking in that which was put forward by THEIR opposing party .
 
  In answer to your statement:
        “You keep rabbiting on about exploitation Don. I ask once again; what exploitation? No one has said that the girl was old enough to make a mature decision, as I understand her parents were involved in the decision. Do you consider that your opinion is more valid than her parents?” 

  That’s easy ,  YES ! SHE WAS A CHILD !  Allow me to repeat ! from my post (33) “but the one thing that remains (or should) remain constant is that we are not just parents ! but teachers ! and if a child makes a decision to act as did this young lady , it should have been taken into consideration as to whether she in fact was mature enough to do so , and i maintain that she wasn’t ! and should have been counseled to that end.”
   
  Because i’m getting on in age doesn’t allow me to profess to be wiser than anyone else ,however i’ve survived a life long school of harder knocks
than most (some would say the most influential) and i’m no scholar , nor have i ever professed to be ! but i do know what is right for children and it’s not what you and your fellow posters are projecting !
                d.d.

Don it is pretty obvious that you are quite disturbed by what is happening on this planet. So am I and most others on this site.

What I dont think you realise is that there are people ‘out there’ who aren’t interested in possessions or gain, “getting a leg over” as you suggested elsewhere, harming children, greed or exploiting anyone or anything. Being untouched by these afflictions leaves some individuals far more open to seeing and appreciating beauty than others. I sincerely doubt most people who attend art galleries to see the work of people like Bill Henson have any ulterior motives. They are there to appreciate the imagery and imaginative capacities of the artist. You may not be able to appreciate these qualities (as you suggest) but why not just accept that there are people who do, and leave them to their own devices without carrying on about gross ideas like paedophilia and exploitation, concepts that are not being entertained by those who truly appreciate art.

Because whether they be in a minority or not or as to whether they visit art galleries is of no consequence (what makes you believe they don’t) as more deviant behaviour takes place among the so called upper classes than anywhere else.
   
    As for getting ones leg over ! that was an attempt to inject a little humour into what really is a very serious subject that instead of improving as we supposedly become more sophisticated , is in reality becoming more of a problem, one only has to check out the television programming e.g. big brother, desperate dingalings, and just recently “balls of steel”, “girls of the playboy mansion”  need i go on ? i think you get the picture and to even suggest that we have NO censoreship is just a crazy, stupid, recipe for further mayhem, as the purveyors of this shit will and do try to open that envelope even further on a daily basis.

    Everyone here has experienced a porn site appearing , when attempting to check out an unknown site, and “Stumble” , along with “U.TUBE” are big offenders especially with computer UNSAVVY individuals like myself , and that is not to say that i am a prude and haven,t in the past deliberately checked out porn, anyone saying they havent is lying ! and i may be old but i aint yet dead !  that said ! let’s face it,  Meat ready for market, how sad.

    Of course the large majority of folk are decent , that doesn’t mean that we don’t watch for those that are not, to not do so, would be irresponsible.

            d.d.   

                  d.d.

(39)    “You may not be able to appreciate these qualities (as you suggest) but why not just accept that there are people who do, and leave them to their own devices without carrying on about gross ideas like paedophilia and exploitation, concepts that are not being entertained by those who truly appreciate art.”
        Art and depravity have gone hand in hand since Christ played full back for Jeruselem, so to hide your head in the sand and suggest that gross idea’s like paedophilia and exploitation don,t exist in that world is laughable , because it does !  and most likely moreso ! because much can be passed off as “ARTISTIC” as was the case that started this furore !

        I do not accuse this artist of being so inclined, however i believe he erred on the side of exploitation in the taking of these particular photographs.

I wonder just how many of the “Henson” supporters watched and disagreed with what was shown on 60 minutes this evening and who could not agree that there is no connection !
     
      This generation is sexualising children as never before and it has to stop, what parent would purchase bikini pants for an eight year old with “Daddy wants a blow job” written across them and this is the filth that is peddled by multinationals ! and at the launceston market i saw childrens tee shirts depicting stick figure art depicting the same action across the front ! and what’s worse Actually purchased by parents ,and we have bloody do gooders who oppose censoreship ! what absolute bloody minded bullshit ! 
    We need to charge these individuals and the manufacturers of this shit with pedophilia now!
               
                  d.d.

Don, settle down. You cant charge the manufacturers of clothing items with paedophilia LOL. Also, try not watching rubbish like Sixty Minutes and I’m sure you will notice increased peace of mind. I have to admit though “Daddy wants a blow job” is very upsetting.

(43)

    How about incitement to paedophilia !  for christ sake John , your telling me to settle down and not watch 60 minutes !  Well ! of course they show some crap ! but not all of it is crap ! and the items that were shown that were available as those i have mentioned from the stores and or the manufacturers should be seen as criminal offence!  and the sooner the better.
   
  Not watching something confronting, is hiding ones head in the sand and is not an option that i can agree with when dealing withs kids welfare !  and excatly the same can be said for this present govt’s attitude in “even listening” to the “knockers” of the system put in place for the aboriginal children up north by Mal Brough, as for the first time in my long life something good is happening albeit bloody slowly.
   
  Take a tip John ! in regards to sixty minutes anyone with a modicum of grey matter can sort the shit from he facts.
                      d.d.

(43)
  “I have to admit though “Daddy wants a blow job” is very upsetting.”

    That was your statement John ! you found it upsetting ! and yet you would not have known about it had i not told you where i saw it !  and you then tell me to settle down,and not watch"Sixty Minutes” , so what are you saying ?  do you believe it would be better the subject matter not be canvassed at all.? whilst the problem escalates out of all proportion.
                    d.d.

Don, there are far better methods and media outlets by which to become familiar with the issues of this world.

Yes the clothing is certainly disturbing, but seen in the context of other horrific things happening all over the globe I’m afraid it pales in significance. This is what shows like 60 Minutes dont provide- contextual perspectives that deliver a broad understanding of issues at hand. It is merely in your face sensationalism of a topic so people’s interest and emotions are aroused. It is only designed to stir up the masses in order to sell advertising. And yes it works, and the people keep buying.

I am all for confronting reality Don. If you knew my background you would understand. But it is so important to see all things in a broader context.

No,I’m afraid I dont think having grey hair is necessarily an indicator of heightened perceptive abilities or sound understanding. This only comes from a trained mind in deep reflection. The world is full of fools, both old and young.

(46)
  quote!  “Yes the clothing is certainly disturbing, but seen in the context of other horrific things happening all over the globe I’m afraid it pales in significance.”

    I,m am surprised that you see it that way, i can’t see anyhing of MORE importance, and as for the load of pretentious frogshit i have just read if i wanted to read or see that crap ! i need only to visit salamanca and listen to all the other elitist Latte sippers that frequent those establishments.
 
  As usual as does bonham ,you disregard what is put forwood for discussion and attack the messenger and as for my statement that you were not aware of the problem until i told you ,  then conveniently glossing over it with your continued attack upon those who brought it to our attention’ in this case 60 minutes.

  With attitudes like that and people who choose to not wipe the shit from there eyes ,no wonder things are out of control , and unless someone else has something of substance to add ,
    i’m done !
                d.d.

Hi Don

“....i can’t see anyhing of MORE importance…”

All I can say is that I am really unsure if website blogging is your cup of tea. I’m all for informed discussion that educates Don, but your bad language, bias, emotional outbursts and irrationality make sensible discussion rather difficult to pursue. Have a good day anyway.

Jon

(48)

  If some like yourself paid attention and “addressed exactly” that which was said by others’ rather than trying to score cheap points , then they wouldn’t raise the ire individuals like me !  i can’t abide fools !
                d.d.