Fun Stuff > CHATTER
Child Pornography or Art? Is there a line, if so where?
ViolentDove:
According to the Herald, Henson could face up to ten years in gaol if prosecuted successfully:
--- Quote ---Police are expected to lay charges under a recent section of the NSW Crimes Act that covers the production, dissemination and possession of child pornography. If found guilty, the photographer could face a maximum penalty of 10 years' and the gallery owners five years' jail.
Legal experts have told the Herald that a successful prosecution before a jury under this barely tested section of the Crimes Act was highly unlikely. Those charged would be able to argue in their defence that the photographs were produced "for a genuine artistic purpose".
--- End quote ---
Regardless of the different emotional responses in the work of Anne Geddes versus Bill Henson, both depict naked children. However, I don't think either of the artists puts their models in an explicitly sexual context, and thus neither should be considered pornography. As for consent, Geddes is arguably worse, as most of her subjects can't speak.
To be honest, I think the whole Henson thing is a media beat-up, partly by conservative columnists (pretty much stemming from Miranda Devine's article on the subject, if I remember correctly- Devine is a pretty well-known conservative columist in Australia, and was one of the first to raise the issue), and partly by the gallery/artist himself, which the police responded to so as to not be made to look inept, yet again, by the media.
I doubt it'll make it to court, and if it does, Henson will almost certainly get off.
Another hypothetical question- If the 13 year old model herself (or another 13 year old) took the shots, would that make it alright? Would there be a similar response?
KharBevNor:
--- Quote from: RedLion on 28 May 2008, 15:16 ---No government in the world (except France) recognizes it as genocide.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, no government except France. Oh, and Italy. And Germany. And Switzerland. And Canada. And Argentina. And Austria, Chile, Russia, Sweden, Vatican City, Poland, Uruguay, Belgium, Slovakia, Greece, Lebanon, the Netherlands and Armenia itself.
Just a massacre.
Nothing to worry about folks.
ackblom12:
--- Quote from: ViolentDove on 28 May 2008, 20:06 ---
Another hypothetical question- If the 13 year old model herself (or another 13 year old) took the shots, would that make it alright? Would there be a similar response?
--- End quote ---
Actually, there's already been a case that involved that idea and the couple, who were both minors, were both charged with possession of child pornography despite their claims of not intending to sharing the pictures.
http://politechbot.com/docs/child.porn.laws.apply.to.minors.020807.html
gardenhead_:
--- Quote from: n0t_r0bert_b0yle!! on 28 May 2008, 15:22 ---I think we should all ignore Pi's arguments because he quoted wikipedia, that article was probably written by a peadophile.
--- End quote ---
That doesn't make it any less valid. I am not a paedophile, yet I made the same argument last page. I'm surprised at how many people are failing to address the question at hand and instead decide to jump into calling eachother names and oversimplifying everything to the point of making it look absurd (not referring to you, by the way).
Tom:
Tommy, gardenhead_, I wasn't at all being serious when I suggested that we ignore Pi.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version