Controversy is raging in Sydney, Australia over an exhibition of photographer, Bill Henson which was closed down by NSW police a few days ago. Several of the photographs depicted a nude 13 year old girl who posed with her parent's permission for a series of photographs. Here's a link to a report in The Age newspaper (be aware that the link contains an image of a naked 13 year old)
All depends on what the law is in Australia concerning a 13 year old female being photographed in that fashion.........regardless if it is called whatever, if the law says it's against the law for a certain aged person to pose in that fashion, being called art or pornography is a moot point............we can call it anything we want to........but if it violates the law, then it's illegal......regardless if the parents gave consent.........
"I gave my consent to have my 13 year old daughter to be a call girl".........wroooong.....
I think it is exploitation. A 13 year old doesn't have the legal or emotional...let alone intellectual where-with-all to decide what the consequences of this type of thing could lead to. The law sees her parents as the ones to decide what is in her best interest, and they fail her miserably by exploiting their own daughter, and allowing a photographer to exploit her as well. If she was of age - it would merely be another ho-hum nude among millions of equally average nudes. It is only her age that makes it garner attention.
It's always difficult drawing lines. What age is the right age? 18? 17? Or is that even the right question? In most Western and Western colonized countries, the law clearly states 18 and this is an accepted norm. It seems obsurd to draw such a bright line, but then how do you police a grey line? And you need some form of a boundry or abuse will occure.
As a father with an 11 year old girl, I'm glad there are such protections. I agree with 1_of_9 that a 13 year old can't handle that. Most 18 year olds can ... but not all, but for that matter most 17 year olds can, but a few less than 18 and a few more than 16 .... you see the slippery slope?
But, then what about the 2 year old streeker that spontaneously takes off his/her clothes and runs across the room ... funny shot, especially if from behind the child showing cute cheeks and laughing faces of adults .... again, hidden slippery slopes.
Its child porn. He is just calling it "Art" to avoid the stigma of being a child pornographer. I arrest people who do child porn, and sexually assault young girls. Images like this, he would be looking at 2-20 years here in Texas, and a well deserved 2-20 years IMHO. And if he had more than three images like this on his computer or camera, I could and would get him prosecuted under the Federal Child Pornography statute. Child Porn is child porn, regardless of how you dress it up as "art".
Sheila, Henry makes a good point. Even looking at your link probably violates US federal law. You should warn people about following that link, because I had no idea that the link led to what is likely child pornography.
Grognard wrote:
I arrest people who do child porn, and sexually assault young girls. Images like this, he would be looking at 2-20 years here in Texas, and a well deserved 2-20 years IMHO.
I agree with that last bit about a warning. I'm and work and was thinking "It's probably just soft core"... *click*. (I didn't bother reading the post until after I clicked link. Normal habit for me.)
WHOOPS!
Anyways, she's under age... it's child porn. Nuff said. (We've even got some sort of authoritative figure saying as such here, two posts up.)
Thats all fine and good now, but I have to go by State law, and as such, it rates as child pornography IMO. Would I lose in court, maybe, maybe not, you never know what a jury is going to do. Having been involved in the investigation of Child Porn cases, I think I could make the case and get it indicted. We just got a computer with 2000+ images that ranged from what is in the paper, to images that made you want to throw up. Plus you get a little annoyed at people who exploit young girls like this, after you have a seven year old tell you that when daddy stuck his penis in her vagina, and she told him that it hurt, he replied; "Don't worry, I'll keep sticking it in till it fits"..... He only had 300+ images on his computer.
Grognard wrote:
...Having been involved in the investigation of Child Porn cases, I think I could make the case and get it indicted.
First off let me say that I bet you have a tough job and I don't envy you one bit having to look at true filth and the sad cases of child exploitation. OTOH - this ain't it IMHO. Find a set of the "Kodak Library of Creative Photography" series. There are several tasteful examples of teen and pre-teen nude studies. They are not porn and I doubt they could be published if it was against the law. They are very similar in many ways to the published link - except I really think the link is a terrible photo aesthetically. My only comment about the Kodak series would be that was back in an earlier time when kids seem to be more innocent and not influenced unduly by a culture that glamorizes sex. Perhaps this photographer was trying to capture that innocence before it is lost? Just because some nut job will get sexually aroused by it does not intrinsically make it porn - after all some people wear costumes for sexual gratification - doesn't make Halloween an orgy...
Regards,
Jon
Grognard wrote:
Its child porn. He is just calling it "Art" to avoid the stigma of being a child pornographer. I arrest people who do child porn, and sexually assault young girls. Images like this, he would be looking at 2-20 years here in Texas, and a well deserved 2-20 years IMHO. And if he had more than three images like this on his computer or camera, I could and would get him prosecuted under the Federal Child Pornography statute. Child Porn is child porn, regardless of how you dress it up as "art".
Dude, get a grip. Lumping this photographer in with people that sexually assault children does not help your case.
I guess you think the Pulitzer prize winning photo of Vietnamese napalmed girl Kim Phuc was child porn too? I guess everyone at the World Press that voted it photo of the year are perverts too.
Did you google it to see which one I was talking about? If so, do you plan to turn yourself in?
The issue is not as clear cut as you seem to think it is.
