# Not again, this time a police raid was involved



## Garbz (May 22, 2008)

Ok this entire country has gone nuts. 3 weeks ago it was "we shouldn't allow girls under 16 on a fashion catwalk", then a few big discussions on this forum about the vanity fair shoot, and now this.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23743217-2,00.html

Quick summary. The gallery of a prominent photographer was raided hours before opening of the exhibition. And not just any old photographer. The curator of the Art gallery of NSW called him a "master, no one in the world quite like him". Skip over the usual crap, some dodgy child protection group says "OMG there's a kid with no cloths on, PORN PORN PORN ALARM ouch ulcer."

But what gets me and the topic I want to discuss (since we debated the porn topic quite to death on the vanity fair thread), is the comments by the prime minister and the state premier. The state premier's comments are easy enough "offensive and disgusting", well it's art, not everyone needs to like it. But what really gets me is our Prime Minister's response: "revolting" and "the images have no artistic merit".

So rather than ask what is porn, think of what is art? Personally I find classic Picasso's art revolting and would never have that in my living room. After all it's just a bunch of squiggly lines. It doesn't even look like a real person. But I'm not the prime minister so no one listens when I decide what is and isn't art.


----------



## eravedesigns (May 22, 2008)

IMO some were a little bit too much like the girl standing up and her breasts were completely exposed. I understand the arguments for and against this subject but its hard to say what should and shouldn't be allowed. In our culture today (yea yea you can argue what this is but go with me on this one) taking photos of young girls and boys completely nude is considered wrong. Even if the photos are artistic it is still considered wrong. The vanity fair shoot I believe was ok because it still involved clothes and wasn't so exposing but these crossed the line.


----------



## Foques (May 22, 2008)

Being raised by the family with somewhat different standards, I am not able to understand what is so wrong with that...

Human body is a beautiful and unique mechanism. Body itself is an art.

That is rather sad that people consider erotic art to be a "Wrong" these days.


----------



## eravedesigns (May 22, 2008)

Foques said:


> Being raised by the family with somewhat different standards, I am not able to understand what is so wrong with that...
> 
> Human body is a beautiful and unique mechanism. Body itself is an art.
> 
> That is rather sad that people consider erotic art to be a "Wrong" these days.




I think its because people want kids to have fun (well what they think is fun) and just screw around....not doing nude photo shoots that can imply erotic things that they don't even understand. The problem I suppose is that the kids don't understand. ???? I could be totally off on that one


----------



## wallyir (May 22, 2008)

Has the Country gone nuts? Well yeah! We have politicians defining what is Art and what isn`t,Public Servants deciding were we can take Photos in N.S.W it`s an offence to take a picture on a Rail Station.


----------



## craig (May 23, 2008)

I hate to hijack this thread but I am going too. John McDonald from the Sydney Morning Herald brought up a good point 

"To me, the big shame is that the only time that we start looking at art and talking about art in the mainstream media is when it's banned, when it's supposedly pornographic, when it's doing something that's taboo," he told ABC Radio's AM.

Here is the ArtNet link to some of Henson's images (not the ones from the exhibition in question) http://www.artnet.com/artist/8135/bill-henson.html. What is art you ask? Certainly that is the most tired question of all. Let's discuss Henson's work. You go first Garbz since you brought it up.

Love & Bass


----------



## Lacey Anne (May 23, 2008)

I didn't find the photos erotic at all. I'm very conservative, but seriously, those photos spoke to me about the innocence and vulnerability of childhood. And of its fleetingness. They didn't seem sexual to me at all.


----------



## Alex_B (May 23, 2008)

By the definition of porn as far s I know those image were not porn at all anyway.


----------



## Senor Hound (May 23, 2008)

If you think Aussie land is bad, those photos would have put someone in jail for YEARS in America.  Our rules are a lot more clear-cut, but still stricter.  I've heard stories of naked children, like FIVE years old being taken down cause the girl was topless.  How absurd is that!?!

Now if you depicted someone getting their brains blown out, that's cool.  But a nipple, and "you're sending the wrong message to our children!"


----------



## Roger (May 23, 2008)

Lacey Anne said:


> I didn't find the photos erotic at all. I'm very conservative, but seriously, those photos spoke to me about the innocence and vulnerability of childhood. And of its fleetingness. They didn't seem sexual to me at all.



so nice to read words of sanity....I started a thread on another forum (Oz based) today and the fear is palpable. The message about the art from my perspective is that naked photos of children are just that, naked in innocence and childish beauty. Then adults have to project their fears onto the images and make the creator wrong for exposing their fear.....humanity has a long way to go.


----------



## Alex_B (May 23, 2008)

Roger said:


> so nice to read words of sanity....I started a thread on another forum (Oz based) today and the fear is palpable. The message about the art from my perspective is that naked photos of children are just that, naked in innocence and childish beauty. Then adults have to project their fears onto the images and make the creator wrong for exposing their fear.....humanity has a long way to go.



Exactly, only pedophiles will see more than innocent children when shown images of naked children. But those pedophiles will also see this in advertisement catalogues for bathing suits, on children playgrounds, everywhere, so would you want to declare all those things and places illegal?

To go a step further, no one ever complains when naked toddlers / babies are depicted in family albums, advertisements and everywhere. But lets face it, even toddlers are among the victims of extreme pedophiles. Anything between the age of just being born and just before puberty is on their menu! 
So if we follow this strange logic further, where everything should be forbidden which might be arousing to a pedophile, then sorry mums, no more pictures of you babies being half naked. Diaper changing only after dark and so on.

So should all us in a sense normal people give up that much freedom, just because of a few people with a mental disorder which makes them feel attracted to innocent pre-puberty children?


----------



## Garbz (May 23, 2008)

Well the **** has hit the fan. Not sure if it's hit the mainstream written media or not yet, but news radio reported about 2 hours ago that the police have taken 20 photos from the gallery depicting 2 13 year old girls, and are going to attempt to prosecute the photographer under a law that prevents the publishing of indecent materials. So give it time he may just get arrested for this. Although we are at somewhat of an advantage in Australia given our chief judges are not elected but earn their place and thus interpret the law as written and not through the eyes of popular opinion, but still. This is a sad day indeed. 

I am just thinking I have a Time Life book from their photography series. This one on portraiture, and there are at least 3 full page images of nude adolescents. Can't wait for the day I get arrested for possession of that book.



wallyir said:


> Has the Country gone nuts? Well yeah! We have politicians defining what is Art and what isn`t,Public Servants deciding were we can take Photos in N.S.W it`s an offence to take a picture on a Rail Station.


Rail station is different. In NSW as well as QLD the Railway is privatised and covered under standard privacy laws. It's the railway itself which is to blame for not allowing photography, although in Brisbane anyway QR doesn't seem to care too much.



craig said:


> Here is the ArtNet link to some of Henson's images (not the ones from the exhibition in question) http://www.artnet.com/artist/8135/bill-henson.html. What is art you ask? Certainly that is the most tired question of all. Let's discuss Henson's work. You go first Garbz since you brought it up.


Craig this is my point exactly. I am not qualified to judge what art is. Picasso looks like **** to me and I wouldn't spend $20 on one of his paintings. Who does have the right to judge what art is.

Now a lot of people think his work is art. In fact the NSW national gallery thinks he's an artist too and feature many of his work on a government webpage. This interviewer (NSFW Images) seems to think rather highly of him as an artist too http://www.egothemag.com/archives/2005/08/bill_henson.htm

What do I think? It looks like art to me. Why? Because I feel something from the images. They convey a sense of the dark confused adolescent mind to me. They do not look like idle snapshot of young kids playing in the park, and they do not look like porn, far from it, even his most risqué shots don't look all that much worse than the vanity fair photo, even though they contain full nudity.



Lacey Anne said:


> I didn't find the photos erotic at all. I'm very conservative, but seriously, those photos spoke to me about the innocence and vulnerability of childhood. And of its fleetingness. They didn't seem sexual to me at all.



Those weren't the ones pulled in the gallery, he does have a whole series exploring the sexuality of adolescence. But even if that series were combined with nudity it most definitely shouldn't cause him to be prosecuted. The controversial ****storm will always be kicked up by a few conservative groups, but as I said before in this case it has totally blown out of proportion.


----------



## passerby (May 23, 2008)

I don't think this raid has anything to do with art but pornography. Every country or society have their own age limit to determine when is the starting of adulthood and when is the end of the underage. In Australia upto 16 is belong to underage. Using art as the excuse can not surpress the law from being implemented unto it.

Beside all this laws, as far as I am concerned I think the artist has gone too far. Most likely he has run out of ideas, or he is just plain pervert.

My liking toward sex is the same like everyone else. But there is a limit that I know when to slam the brake. My daughter is 8 yo now and I know what she likes. I would not like to see her standing naked in 4 years time in the front of other people, either men or women for the sake of art. Because I believe she would still be a snob and grumpy by then.

Oh btw, this link is a reminder of what is lingering in the minds.

*Top prosecutor faces porn charge*
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/07/07/1152240493796.html?from=top5


----------



## Foques (May 23, 2008)

Just to clarify, I was not referring to the picture of the mentioned photographer as being erotic. I was speaking in general.

I have seen a VERY few images by the artist in spotlight. More so, those that i've seen, were not containing any nudity to start with.


----------



## Lacey Anne (May 23, 2008)

Ok, quick question... How are his photos any different than the recent movie with Dakota Fanning where she was shown being raped? And for that matter, would we even be having this conversation if he had painted these images rather than used photography as his medium?


----------



## Garbz (May 23, 2008)

passerby what you are saying goes back into the debate of pornography vs art. When does a picture of a naked child stop being art and start being pornography? I loved running around naked as a kid, and my parents have plenty of photos to back that up. Does that make them liable under these laws if they happen to display them?

The laws in this country do cover pornography and the exploitation of children. Especially laws against underage children depicted in sexual acts. But does the mere lack of cloths make the act of taking the photo sexual or perverted?

As you said you can not picture your children posing naked in a few years, but does the fact that both the child and the parents consented to this mean that there was any exploitation? Expanding on that, the parents consented, so if this is judged to be child pornography can the parents be prosecuted for selling out their children in such a way?

As for the artist running out of ideas, I doubt it. He appears to have stuck with the same them for the last 10 years, and has nude adolescents dating back throughout his collection. I agree there's a line to be drawn, but I must say the last 25 years have pushed this line dangerously close to the absurd. I wonder when catalogues will no longer be able to depict clothed children. At this rate this idea isn't as strange as it seems.


----------



## MACollum (May 23, 2008)

I skipped most of the replies to this thread (forgive me) but wanted to make a comment. While the intended purpose was art, there is a serious issue surrounding the actual use of such imagery. An artist may intend for it to be art but if it is public there are going to be perverts who will use it for other purposes. Children should be protected from this sort of thing whenever possible. I have pictures of my kids naked but no matter how artistic they may be, they would never be made public for the simple fact that they would be used as pornographic material by some.

As for the Vanity Fair pictures, my real problem with that situation is that children should not be sexualized. Making sexy photos of teens sends a message to teens and society that they are sexy and, possibly, available sexually. Children are not sexy and should not be portayed as such.

Keep in mind that this is JMO, but parents should be leery of allowing this type of photography to be publicly displayed because of the possible USES AND PURPOSES of others. I wouldn't allow it because I have a real problem with the idea of some pervert (even just one) getting their jollies while looking at a picture of my kid. I am NOT questioning the intentions of the artist. However, an artist should be sensitive to these kinds of societal issues with regard to the art they create.


----------



## maytay20 (May 23, 2008)

I agree here while it is art, it should not be on public display for the protection of the subjects.  I even photoshopped my 3yr olds newborn photos to not show anything.  And yeah if that was done here in the US the photographer and parents would be in jail. There are actually parents that have went to jail because a 1hour film developing person called the cops for naked pictures of their kids.  And they weren't even sexual.  We all have our views of what art is but we also need to fallow our country's laws / rules.  There is NO way I would take a 12yr olds pics naked even if the parents said they were ok.   





MACollum said:


> While the intended purpose was art, there is a serious issue surrounding the actual use of such imagery. An artist may intend for it to be art but if it is public there are going to be perverts who will use it for other purposes. Children should be protected from this sort of thing whenever possible. I have pictures of my kids naked but no matter how artistic they may be, they would never be made public for the simple fact that they would be used as pornographic material by some.
> 
> As for the Vanity Fair pictures, my real problem with that situation is that children should not be sexualized. Making sexy photos of teens sends a message to teens and society that they are sexy and, possibly, available sexually. Children are not sexy and should not be portayed as such.
> 
> Keep in mind that this is JMO, but parents should be leery of allowing this type of photography to be publicly displayed because of the possible USES AND PURPOSES of others. I wouldn't allow it because I have a real problem with the idea of some pervert (even just one) getting their jollies while looking at a picture of my kid. I am NOT questioning the intentions of the artist. However, an artist should be sensitive to these kinds of societal issues with regard to the art they create.


----------



## MACollum (May 23, 2008)

Maytay, I think you nailed it. The article in question appeared to be assuming that the photographer is a pervert (which is not cool). He probably is a decent guy who was looking at the naked form as art. Sex probably never even crossed his mind, which is why he can't understand the public's reaction. The public at large though, tends to be less trusting of a person's motives. I'm sure there are many who are simply questioning the uses to which the photos could be put.

Of course, I don't know how much of a problem child abuse is in Australia but in the US, it is rampant. The statistics are staggering, especially considering that they are based on actual reports. It is well known fact that many incidents are not reported. All of this combined leads to public paranoia. With regard to this particular issue, paranoia may be the best reaction, if only to protect children from the few who would exploit art for perverse reasons. The damage to children can be immense and permanent.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (May 23, 2008)

The problem a lot of you are having is trying to define _intent. _Hey, if I shoot pictures of hands and there is a hand fetish pervert out there, he will use my shots however he wants to, to please himself. There is not a damn thing I can do to stop that. Some of you are implying, well, we should not give material like this to perverts. You would let common sense be overruled by a few wackos? Get real.

This crap is absurd. There is absolutely nothing sexual in those photos. Sally Mann and Jock Sturges have been doing this type of photography for years. When I view their works, I see artisitic beauty symbolized by youth and innocence. I see absolutely nothing sexual in the images. For those that do, then that is their problem.

Man has been painting nudes, photographing nudes, even nudes of children, since time began.

I, for one, am sick of the thought and morality police. This is not porn. And those who view it as such, really should get a clue and get a life.

There is not one damn thing wrong with taking a beautiful, artistic, nude photo of a child. Nothing. It is not pornography, except for those with tiny, dimwitted minds.


----------



## MACollum (May 23, 2008)

Rick Waldroup said:


> The problem a lot of you are having is trying to define _intent. _Hey, if I shoot pictures of hands and there is a hand fetish pervert out there, he will use my shots however he wants to, to please himself. There is not a damn thing I can do to stop that. Some of you are implying, well, we should not give material like this to perverts. You would let common sense be overruled by a few wackos? Get real.


There's quite a difference between a hand fetish and pedophilia. Pictures of naked children encourage pedophiles. Pedophiles don't think about these things in the same way as normal people. I think you, like the artist, are having a hard time understanding it because you (I assume) don't look at these types of pictures that way. If you were a pedophile and saw an artistic photograph of a nude child your mind would be screaming free (and legal) PORN. I wouldn't think they were pornographic either unless they were overtly sexual but children still need to be protected from perverts.

I wonder if these children and their parents would have consented if the photographers would have told them that there was a possibility that some people would be getting off at looking at the pictures of the children but it's OK because the artistic element is more important. I think there's something seriously wrong with people who would put children at greater risk simply to make an artistic statement.


----------



## craig (May 23, 2008)

This where conversations like this go south. We assume that there was a victim and an evil photographer with bad intentions. MacCollum needs to post some articles or anything proving that the children and parents had no idea what was going on.

Hensen is a nationally if not world renowned artist. Why would Roslyn Oxley 9 Gallery put them selves in a dicey situation with the subject or their parents? I believe all parties involved had good intentions. It is the closed minded government officials who are to blame.

Love & Bass


----------



## Socrates (May 23, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> So if we follow this strange logic further, where everything should be forbidden which might be arousing to a pedophile, then sorry mums, no more pictures of you babies being half naked. Diaper changing only after dark and so on.



The logic isn't so strange if you look at the flip side and forbid nothing.  Sorry mums, the billboards will display photos of baby rape and, if you don't like it, don't look.

Just about legal decision has the problem of determining just where to draw the line and just about everybody wants the line moved in one direction or another.

By the way, I haven't seen these particular shots and it's entirely possible that I'd agree with you in this case.  Then again, I might say "Hang him!"


----------



## Joves (May 23, 2008)

Well reading some of these posts Im guessing many of the painting depicting under aged people would be banned fro the Louvre or, any other art museum. If anything I looked at the photos and, they are very dark&harsh images. I personally didnt find them the least bit erotic because they were more towards the gothic end of imagery. If anything Struges, Hamiltons and, Mann  images to less extent are more in the erotic end but, not in the porographic end in any way. Alot of Hensens seem to depict the darker edge of people and, places.
 Also I must add in the US nude photography is not outlawed but, what is pornogrphy and, not is clearly defined. Photographing anyone under the age of 18 in lewd or, poses which are sexual in nature is illegal. And that is very easy to interpet because it is obvious. Some store or processor calling the cops over the naked baby on the bearskin rug just doesnt survive the pornography test. The one thing that seem lacking anywhere, anymore is common sense when it coes to this matter. All of the over reaction to anything really has become the norm.


----------



## Garbz (May 23, 2008)

The public at large isn't involved in the case of bad intentions. The only person who should be concerned about this is the subject and the parents. As stated before, the perverted pedophiles will find there gratification in things as basic as an under wear catalogue, or even just a normal photo of a child playing. (I've seen cases of someone reporting a flickr account where all the accounts favourites were photos of children on other accounts).

So does it mean in the name of protecting the children we should never display their pictures ever? Another opinion of mine is that you're not protecting a child by removing his photograph. The only time protection by hiding the photo comes into it at all is if the subject is under witness protection or in hiding. How does it hurt the model if some twisted person missuses the photo for sexual intentions? How is the subject put "at risk" in any way if they are neither abused nor exploited.

Also given the fuss about pedophilia world wide, I am sure there isn't a parent in the developed world at the moment who doesn't have an idea that any photo of their child can be used for some perverted means. Rick highlighted that well. There are plenty of fetishists out there that could take a perfectly normally photo of a fully clothed person of any age and make it perverted. Should we no longer post any portraits ever in the name of protecting the subject?

Craig you hit it right on the head. Roslyn Oxley 9 publically defended him and have sworn the gallery will be reopened as soon as possible. The curator of the state gallery of NSW has publicly defended him. The only people who seem to attack him are those who have a problem with seeing the human form as anything other than pornography.


----------



## Jedo_03 (May 24, 2008)

Interesting discussion...
So what would the Mods do if someone posted an 'artistic' image of a nude child to this board...???
Jedo


----------



## passerby (May 24, 2008)

Garbz said:


> passerby what you are saying goes back into the debate of pornography vs art. When does a picture of a naked child stop being art and start being pornography?


 
There is no reason to undress the child to produce an artistic expression. The universe and it's content is an artistic expression in it's own, a grandeour gigantic creation, endless. The earth is spacious for never ending landscape of artistic expressions, and there are billions of adults ready to perform naked.



> I loved running around naked as a kid, and my parents have plenty of photos to back that up. Does that make them liable under these laws if they happen to display them?


 
I know it is just kind of rhetorical question from your behalf but I can't see the reason why they will do that.



> The laws in this country do cover pornography and the exploitation of children. Especially laws against underage children depicted in sexual acts. But does the mere lack of cloths make the act of taking the photo sexual or perverted?


 
Garbz I can't see why the child must pose naked to make an artistic photo. Is this the only way for his vast ability that earned him "master" title to produce artistic expression?. _Art is the expression of the heart_. What art to you not necessarily as an art for me, or for anybody else. 
That naked children pose were from his heart.



> As you said you can not picture your children posing naked in a few years, but does the fact that both the child and *the parents consented to this mean that there was any exploitation?* Expanding on that, the parents consented, so if this is judged to be child pornography can the parents be prosecuted for selling out their children in such a way?


 
Yes they can, this is pure exploitation for the defensless creatures. Parents should work like me and make the kids happy with the material produced, not the other way round. In my belief children are a God's trust on our shoulders, not the source of income, or fame. That is what I believe in. As long as they are children they are belong to God, and we are the temporary guardians.

You know ever since the government produced that *Baby bonus* payment for every childs born, now the number of prams roaming the shopping centres increased? Did they do it for the love of children? no man no, they get pregnant and gave birth because money. They don't give a sh?t about those defensless creatures. They keep them as long as they can milk them. The parent of that childr is in the same boat, heartless greed. 

Baby bonus is worth $5000 per baby btw, here is the link. 
http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/pay_how_maty.htm

And for the fame and money or both, some human become so heartless and fail to see the limit. 

http://www.chron.com/commons/person...ebobPost:090862f2-c681-4019-bfdb-abb8aae0c306


----------



## RubyMagic (May 24, 2008)

Your views are fascist and unjust, passerby.


Im simply disgusted with Government in general.


ANARCHY!


----------



## usayit (May 24, 2008)

Just making a few points

I do not have a problem the photos displayed in the gallery.  I actually find the Miley Cyrus photo in its original content within Vanity Fair a more disturbing.  The reason is the way the photos are being displayed/used.  These photos were in an art gallery..... thus being displayed for the intention of art... they are also out of the public eye.  Don't like it don't go to the gallery.  Art has always been subjective according to the eye of the beholder.

On the other hand,

The difference between art and pornography is such a grey and subjective area.  Law's are concrete and thus are limited in defining what is pornography and what is art.  It is difficult to write into law guidelines that define one photo of a nude child as art and another as pornography.  What the laws can do is write limitations based on age which is a concrete.  Yes.. the laws do protect children from exploitation.  Yes... the laws do make some "artistic" photographs of nude children illegal.  It is an imperfect system erring on the side of protection from child exploitation... we have to live with it until a better solution is available.


With that said...  I have no problems with the ARTISTIC nudes of children in that gallery BUT if laws were violated, then those involve must fiight to have those laws changed (for the better) or take on the consequences.  If the government is intentionally expanding the laws beyond their original intent (like here in the US.... trampling over freedom of speach) then I also have a problem with it.  Laws are agreed upon... whether you agree or disagree we should abide by them and work towards change if necessary.


I like pot.... I smoked it in the past and still turned out to be a decent person in our society.  I see no problem with it BUT I also know it is illegal thus no longer touch the stuff.  If at some point, the laws change.... serve me up more.  The only thing I light up now are cigars...


----------



## Socrates (May 24, 2008)

RubyMagic said:


> Your views are fascist and unjust, passerby.
> 
> 
> Im simply disgusted with Government in general.
> ...



Just dripping with logic and thought.


----------



## usayit (May 24, 2008)

Jedo_03 said:


> Interesting discussion...
> So what would the Mods do if someone posted an 'artistic' image of a nude child to this board...???
> Jedo



This is a wonderful question!  Who on this forum is going to play judge between artistic and pornographic?

I just checked the FAQ and didn't see anything referring to nudity... Any Moderators want to comment?????


----------



## Garbz (May 24, 2008)

Well passerby my parents wouldn't post them anywhere. But what if they did? That is the point I am making. You're getting caught up on the whys and not the whats and it's derailing the topic. 

Of course a child must not pose naked. Of course you could use adults. But should I never take a photo of a wasp simply because there is a perfectly good bees nest around? Should I throw away my macro lens and stop taking photos of tiny spiders simply because my friend has a rose tarantula the size of an adult hand? In fact why photograph portraits at all, when I have a perfectly fine pair of scissors on my desk for a still life?

Your arguement makes zero sense to me in the context of this discussion. You are telling the photographer how he should do his art, and that's not how art works. It's his idea, his visualisation, if the photo was done with adults, or clothed it would be an entirely different photo, probably with a completely different dynamic too.

Pure exploitation of a defenceless creature? Have you ever tried getting a 13 year old to do something against their will?  I find it very hard to believe the parents exploited their children in the name of fame in this case.

As for the last comment that is way off topic. The population of the world has almost doubled over the last 60 years, and the baby bonus hasn't been around that long, and it doesn't exist in every country. If find it hard that our population of 20million contributed to a 3billion increase in the human race. After all lets get pregnant go through 9 months of pain so I get a quick $5000 only that I need to spend somewhere in the order of $1m over the next 25 years before the child finally moves out. Yes makes a lot of financial sense.

The baby bonus is under review anyway in case you haven't been watching the news.


----------



## Socrates (May 24, 2008)

usayit said:


> This is a wonderful question!  Who on this forum is going to play judge between artistic and pornographic?
> 
> I just checked the FAQ and didn't see anything referring to nudity... Any Moderators want to comment?????


_You agree not to post any links or messages that lead to material which could be deemed obscene, discriminatory, unlawful, or threatening in nature by TPF Staff. TPF Staff reserves the right to edit, delete, or otherwise remove any material which is deemed to be an infraction of this rule, based solely on their discretion._

It doesn't matter what the law says or what the majority of the members of society believe.  It only matters what the TPF Staff believes.


----------



## usayit (May 24, 2008)

Socrates said:


> _You agree not to post any links or messages that lead to material which could be deemed obscene, discriminatory, unlawful, or threatening in nature by TPF Staff. TPF Staff reserves the right to edit, delete, or otherwise remove any material which is deemed to be an infraction of this rule, based solely on their discretion._
> 
> It doesn't matter what the law says or what the majority of the members of society believe.  It only matters what the TPF Staff believes.




It still doesn't answer my question.. as with the previous poster...   how far will the TPF Staff go?  If those photos in that gallery were posted here, would they react in much the same manner as the Australian authorities.  Would they deem those photos as obscene or "artistic".  

If so... then we are being too hard on the Australian police...  The photographic community being a bit hypocritical.


----------



## Socrates (May 24, 2008)

usayit said:


> It still doesn't answer my question.. as with the previous poster...   how far will the TPF Staff go?  If those photos in that gallery were posted here, would they react in much the same manner as the Australian authorities.  Would they deem those photos as obscene or "artistic".
> 
> If so... then we are being too hard on the Australian police...  The photographic community being a bit hypocritical.



I'm not challenging your statements but, rather, expressing a bit of concern that "how far will the TPF staff go" is *"based solely on their discretion."*  That, of itself, is being more than a bit hypocritical.  This thread is discussing the rights of society to write laws that are not universally accepted.  However, the TPF staff reserves the "right" to control this forum without any regard whatever to the beliefs of society and/or the members of the forum.  On several occasions, my posts have included commonly used words, such as **** and ****, but, as you can see, the forum censor automatically deletes them.


----------



## Joves (May 24, 2008)

usayit said:


> It still doesn't answer my question.. as with the previous poster... how far will the TPF Staff go? If those photos in that gallery were posted here, would they react in much the same manner as the Australian authorities. Would they deem those photos as obscene or "artistic".
> 
> If so... then we are being too hard on the Australian police... The photographic community being a bit hypocritical.


Actually it is not hypocritical on their part. This forum is theirs and, therefore theirs to dicide the rules and, what content will be allowed. It is easily public viewable so, if anything that is considered vulgar or, obcene is posted here it reflects on them. The authorities in this case closed something down in a private gallery to look good for their next re-election.
 Now you are free to make your own forum and, allow whatever you want on it.


----------



## usayit (May 24, 2008)

Joves said:


> Actually it is not hypocritical on their part. This forum is theirs and, therefore theirs to dicide the rules and, what content will be allowed.



The same could be said about the authorities that shutdown the gallery.  It is their discretion to determine what is acceptable and not acceptable within the guidelines of the laws on the books.... 

On one hand... there is outcry when the police acted against what we considered art.  On the other hand... If the moderators here (and i'm just using them as an example..  they are doing a good job) were to do the same, it would be acceptable.

There is a time and place for everything...  that's my point..  regardless of content.


----------



## Garbz (May 25, 2008)

Actually it's at the discretion of the judges. The authorities in this case police are just the middle men. But the point is the same.


----------



## usayit (May 25, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Actually it's at the discretion of the judges. The authorities in this case police are just the middle men. But the point is the same.



Yes that is what I meant... authorities meaning the whole group that enforces laws.  But also be aware that the first person to make a decision based on their understanding of the law are the police on the streets... the final say so is done in court.


----------



## passerby (May 25, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Well passerby my parents wouldn't post them anywhere. But what if they did? That is the point I am making.


 
There was time when the people were naked in the past long time ago. There was time when many people were semi naked in some places not long time ago. Those people who were naked in the past were in situation not by choice. The moral religious teachings have been around for long time, and covering the body was/is part of those moral teachings. 

When everyone are naked wearing clothes by one individual will become an attention. Fully dress now in this age is our normal life - base on those constant and tireless moral teachings preached from very long time ago.
Walking among the crowd today naked is not normal and not acceptable.

Societies also have their laws in determining when is the childhood and when is the adulthood. Here in Australia today upto 16 is belong to the "childhood" era. Children are under protection and responsibilities for those in the adulthood position, here in Australia. In other part of the world maybe they have different rules.  

Undressing a person that is still under 16 fall into two law breakings, moral law and Australian law. These two laws are acceptable to the society at large where the whole society here in Australia see it as normal. 

Also different dress can create different look to person. A person who wears an overall as his work dress will look differently when he is wearing a three pieces suit, just for an example. A different dress will create different expressions. A true artist has endless seeing eyes. 

As for the baby bonus, I used that as prove how money was/is the driving force for those parents to have child or to have more children. There is no responsiblities in it let alone love. Love in the western world does not exist. Maybe even the whole world. Unless of course if you or anyone else here willing to define it for me.

Oh btw before I lost it. Do you know that under the bed for the children is very secure place to hide? Standing behind the father when there is a scary commotion also very secure place for them.

Just incase some people out there don't know it.


----------



## Arch (May 25, 2008)

usayit said:


> This is a wonderful question!  Who on this forum is going to play judge between artistic and pornographic?
> 
> I just checked the FAQ and didn't see anything referring to nudity... Any Moderators want to comment?????



Well, since you asked.

The answer is fairly straight forward, we as a moderating team would discuss the implications of allowing such as image on the forum. This forum is privately owned and therefore the best interests of the owner is the first priority. This is NOT a high end art gallery, therefore things can be interpreted in different ways by all members of the public.
I would have my say... and so would the others, but the final decision would be based on how appropriate the image is... the history of the poster and the context in which the image is based.
You can read on to find out what my views are the matter... but those views would not be final, they would only play a part in the overall outcome.




Socrates said:


> ..expressing a bit of concern that "how far will the TPF staff go" is *"based solely on their discretion."*  That, of itself, is being more than a bit hypocritical.



Err.. not really, as mentioned this forum is privately owned, therefore we have rules, and NO i dont want to read vulgar swear words... if you dont like our rules, no one is stopping you from going elsewhere.



passerby said:


> There was time when the people were naked in the past long time ago. There was time when many people were semi naked in some places not long time ago. Those people who were naked in the past were in situation not by choice. The moral religious teachings have been around for long time, and covering the body was/is part of those moral teachings.



ok imo if your going to go historical you need to at least be factual. There are places in this world TODAY where people are still semi-naked... this has little to do with history... nor with religion.
Also saying that those people where not naked by choice is very closed minded, some tribes did and still do choose to not wear modern or full  clothing.



passerby said:


> The universe and it's content is an artistic expression in it's own, a grandeour gigantic creation, endless. The earth is spacious for never ending landscape of artistic expressions, and there are billions of adults ready to perform naked.



Also the philosophical appoach you mentioned here doesn't hold up either... if you want to talk philosophy then why not see the human body in its purest form... for what it is... at any age... after all our bodys are beuatiful...
It is are own FEARS, politics and laws that make people think the worst of any so called 'taboo' topic. Im not having a go at you, i think you have some very valid points, but some of these views are stated as fact which arn't really true 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, as you all may have guessed (having been a student of art) my viewpoint on the whole matter is simply being appauled that an artists work would fall under such mindless labeling.
I also find nothing wrong with showing these images in an art gallery, and it is my belief that the people that are most shocked by this are the people that have little understanding of art or art galleries. There has been FAR worse than this over the years and to me this is nothing in comparrison. I can imagine to some however, that know nothing of the history of art, that these images could appear like something new and dangerous.

Just one example of art being shocking in order to provoke a reaction from the viewer can be seen from the Chapman Brothers (extremely Not Safe for Work)
 which is a sculpture depicting a series of children naked, some with penises on thier faces.
However, this kind of art is suppose to be shocking.. its suppose to test you.. (i went to London and saw this exhibition, it was really quite powerful) and it was still deemed exceptable at the time.

The photos from the artist in question however, i see as simply a celebration of the human form.. yes they are young... but they don't portray pornography or anything out of the ordinary. They simply are what they are... why should you feel uncomfortable.

As mentioned before i believe that fear is the main part of this cycle. Yes there are pedophiles out there, but as some have said, they will get thier gratification from anywhere... mainly i may add, the internet. But there really isn't a pedofile on every street corner waiting to pounce on your childeren, in the same way there isn't a terrorist about to blow up your home, personal belongings and pet hamster.

This is entirely my point of view, and so the kind of perspective i would have if a questionable image should reach the forum, i am also however *very strict* on what i would perceive as art in these circumstances... and so wouldn't take this matter lightly... im sure too that other mods would disagree with me, thats what makes the team work.

Bottom line is... an art gallery is something of a place of human expression, no matter what the subject... you go there, you are shocked and amazed.. you experiance joy and happiness, sorrow and despair, innocence and beauty... it is a place of salvation, no law, no government is ment to take that away.
This on the other hand, is a photo forum on the www... enjoy it and have a nice day


----------



## Socrates (May 25, 2008)

Arch said:


> Err.. not really, as mentioned this forum is privately owned, therefore we have rules, and NO i dont want to read vulgar swear words... if you dont like our rules, no one is stopping you from going elsewhere.



Err...
This is no different from civilized society.  Every civilized society of which I am aware also has rules of behavior.  If you don't like the rules, no one is stopping you from going elsewhere.


----------



## Garbz (May 26, 2008)

Arch said:


> Bottom line is... an art gallery is something of a place of human expression, no matter what the subject... you go there, you are shocked and amazed.. you experiance joy and happiness, sorrow and despair, innocence and beauty... it is a place of salvation, no law, no government is ment to take that away.



Exactly. It can be seen on this very forum that there are two very different opinions on this topic. I completely disagree with pretty much everything passerby has said about both the moral and legal issues, as well as the whole mentality of the responses, but that would most likely stem from our different backgrounds.

The original topic of who defines art clearly shows that passerby seems to side at least partially by the Prime Minster's response of it being disgusting, shocking and of no artistic value. Yet these pieces would not be even remotely out of place in some prestige European galleries where works that display some of these same "despicable pictures" and far worse would be considered almost priceless. Now if the local national gallery in Canberra gets the privilege of displaying some of these in an exhibit, would the police raid it too? Or would they be exempt by some logic defying thought?


----------



## Socrates (May 26, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Exactly. It can be seen on this very forum that there are two very different opinions on this topic. I completely disagree with pretty much everything passerby has said about both the moral and legal issues, as well as the whole mentality of the responses, but that would most likely stem from our different backgrounds.
> 
> The original topic of who defines art clearly shows that passerby seems to side at least partially by the Prime Minster's response of it being disgusting, shocking and of no artistic value. Yet these pieces would not be even remotely out of place in some prestige European galleries where works that display some of these same "despicable pictures" and far worse would be considered almost priceless. Now if the local national gallery in Canberra gets the privilege of displaying some of these in an exhibit, would the police raid it too? Or would they be exempt by some logic defying thought?



I'm curious as to where you would draw the line, or would you draw it at all?  Would you accept ANYTHING AT ALL in the name of art?


----------



## Battou (May 26, 2008)

Arch said:


> Well, since you asked.
> 
> The answer is fairly straight forward, we as a moderating team would discuss the implications of allowing such as image on the forum. This forum is privately owned and therefore the best interests of the owner is the first priority. This is NOT a high end art gallery, therefore things can be interpreted in different ways by all members of the public.
> I would have my say... and so would the others, but the final decision would be based on how appropriate the image is... the history of the poster and the context in which the image is based.
> ...



I did not want to get involved in this one but...


*The definition of art* is an impossible thing to have, simply due to the fact things can be interpreted in different ways by all. What I would call porn you may call art and visa versa yada yada, you've already covered that sufficiently. Having been a student of sociology I want to add some things. This Forum is a form of society with it's own social structure, Modern society is operated in much the same way as this forum. It (for the most part) operates on the same type of team work you and the other moderators use to come to the conclusion as to what is and what is not permissible. However in the larger picture of real world society the factors in the decision making process differ slightly. 

For centuries the church played a major role in laws and behavioral codes, the church decided what was unacceptable, and for centuries these ideas and behavioral codes have been passed down from generation to generation to generation, So much so that it is literally engraved into our social structure whether we are a part of the church or not as the modern morals of the society. However now modern morals are being challenged, this is the root of the fear that surrounds much of what this discussion is about, nudity. 

Now you pair this with what is commonly believed to be the age at witch an individual is considered to be able to make their own decisions, this age varies from community to community but it averages sixteen years of age. Common fear surrounds the decision making ability of the subject. It's commonly believed that a minor child is incapable of coming to an informed decision pertaining to anything that goes against moral standards. For this parental consent and accompaniment is required, However in resent years people don't pay enough attention to the whole story to know who really made the decision and immediately scream that the child's inability to make a conscious and informed decision was taken advantage of.

In truth this goes way beyond the stereotypical pedoperve around the corner, this goes to the core of conflicting ideology within the social structure. Laws are made to protect the best interests of the society as a whole, In this case a society that firmly believes a minor child can't make decisions and is currently challenging the ideology that nudity is inappropriate. Then individuals gather and decide whether or not the subject at hand is acceptable or not. Sadly in this case those in the position of the moderator with any artistic knowledge or perspective are in the minority and was deemed inappropriate overall.


Do not get me wrong...I Find the Prime Minster's response vulgar and uneducated to put it bluntly. It's statements like this that hinder the ideology that the human body in any state and/or condition is acceptable. It's just as bad as smacking a young boys penis with a wooden spoon the first time he gets an erection. It's just reiterating an outdated ideology that human nature is appalling, the fact it comes from a politician in a public statement only makes it worse. Despite what I do for a living I view child nudity on a case by case basis, I have even created on more than one occasion lolicon drawings. Even as a person who's job it is to protect the welfare of children I can find nothing wrong with showing these images in an art gallery, however I am just one individual who's ideology is in contrast to the majority of the community. There is only so far my voice can carry regardless of how well I understand both sides of the issues. We live in a world where majority rules and until the majority can get past outdated ideology, this battle will never end muchless get to the one that will soon follow.


----------



## Garbz (May 26, 2008)

Socrates said:


> I'm curious as to where you would draw the line, or would you draw it at all?  Would you accept ANYTHING AT ALL in the name of art?



No I have a line. My own personal line is the point where the image stops being about the human form and starts being about sexual arousal. A naked man or woman of any age just standing there is fine (well if it has artistic merit, obviously a P&S snapshot of a naked kid would make me err on the side of uncomfortable as to the intentions of the photographer and the purpose of the picture).

Things beyond acceptable to me as art: naked girl with legs spread at all showing full genitalia, male naked with visible erection, things designed to arouse for me stop being about art and start being about pornography. This includes two naked models with any kind of arousing interaction (kissing is really pushing it, licking is over the line). 

Now I did mention met-art in the other thread, that even some pornography still has some artistic merit. Where I draw the line there though is if the model is under age, that IS child pornography and is not on regardless of the intentions of the picture, that is my moral boundry. But then given the above criteria even some of the met-art (well about 4/5th of them actually) stop being artistic in showing the form and start being pornography, not that there's anything wrong with it given their models are of legal age, but it gives a very different meaning to the photo.



Battou said:


> We live in a world where majority rules and until the majority can get past outdated ideology, this battle will never end muchless get to the one that will soon follow.



And that to me is a sad truth. The world changes and ideologies change in very different ways. The word terrorism wasn't common vocabulary at the turn of the century, now the ideology of fear has set in. Just like this whole debate wouldn't have happened in a gallery in Europe, or 20 years ago where the topics of paedophilia wasn't in the public agenda. (I hope that's what you meant by that statement, at least that's how I understood it)


----------



## Senor Hound (May 26, 2008)

I don't see what the problem is.  The photographer was OBVIOUSLY trying to push the envelope with obscenity here.  You don't take photos of underage children naked and expect people to be okay with it.  If he did, he's an idiot.  But he's not.  He knew exactly what he was doing, and I think in a way, the photographer is happy that his photos got pulled.  Cause it caused discussion, and created intrigue and interest.  Now, people will better remember the photographer's name, and the model might even get some career play off of it.  Sure, there's a question as to whether its art, but having many differing opinions debate on the definition of an undefinable subject is silly.  You all are wasting your time trying to have the other understand your viewpoint.

And you Australians should be lucky, cause as I said before, if this was done in the US, the photographer would be in jail for YEARS and have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his LIFE because he was creating child pornography.  There would be a trial, but there might as well not be one, cause it wouldn't matter.


----------



## Joves (May 26, 2008)

usayit said:


> The same could be said about the authorities that shutdown the gallery. It is their discretion to determine what is acceptable and not acceptable within the guidelines of the laws on the books....


Depends on if the gallery is a private gallery or, privately held. If it is a private gallery then it is at the discretion of the owner what to display so, long as it does not break the law. If it is public then the government has the right to close it down. Maybe Garbz can tell us which it is. Either way it is a political closure, to make some officals look like they are protecting the sheeple.


----------



## Battou (May 26, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Battou said:
> 
> 
> > We live in a world where majority rules and until the majority can get past outdated ideology, this battle will never end muchless get to the one that will soon follow.
> ...



No it's not, but don't think I fault you for your interpretation though, It's not that far off. The core ideologies do not change as rapidly as the world around it. The outdated ideology of which I speak is that of the human body in it's natural state as being viewed as inappropriate and automatically sexual. Contrary to popular belief the majority is beginning to accept nudity at some level (thus the increase and maintaining or profits in the pornography industry). However  people are still a little hesitant to admit that they believe there is nothing wrong with looking at nude imagery much less traditional porn simply because they where raised to believe that the human body and sexuality should be concealed. When it comes down to children and their involvement with anything pertaining to nudity these hesitations become amplified and warped. Pedophilia is a diagnosed mental disorder and it does exist, however what is it is also warped by fear and speculation. When you add this fear and speculation to ones unwillingness to admit they find the human body acceptable it becomes unacceptable. 

Where all of this really gets shot in the foot is the _*common misconception*_ of what pedophilia is. People seem to believe that anyone who looks at an underage individual in the nude or in a sexual way is a pedophile....*Wrong*. That that determines underage is local law, laws can not in any way shape or form cause mental illness. So what exactly is pedophilia....well It's a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Prepubescent is the key word here, explain to me how it is that the word pedophilia comes up pertaining to fourteen, fifteen and sixteen year olds? It's modern ignorance. This ignorance paired with conformed cases in some of the worlds most sacred places is driving up the public awareness of pedophilia to unnatural levels reiterating the fears that there is a pedoperve around every corner. Now with that fear at such high levels anything that would provide the slightest resemblance of the dictionary definition of pedophilia tendencies gets blown that much further out of proportion just as you said. In a world where majority rules, any cases where judgement is involved those who understand the situation in it's correct context will alwas clash with those who don't, and in this case, those who understand it are in the minority.


----------



## Garbz (May 27, 2008)

Just an update. The ABC just displayed all the pictures that were confiscated censored of course. This is actually rather far from the line I mentioned above. At no point were genitalia (male or female) visible in any of the photos. In 2 of the photos the girl had her breasts exposed. The photos themselves provoke a very similar feeling to his previous photos, and he brings the theme of uncertainty in adolescence across very well.

The most revealing photo was a photo of the girl shot almost front on, standing up and looking to one side slightly. Beautifully backlit, low key, and with dark cold tones like the rest of his photos. She is naked but her hands are crossed in front of her so only her breasts are visible. And that is about right up there with every other photo of nude girls which can be described as artful and in no way at all pornographic or sexually provocative. 

Battou great timing on the definition of paedophilia. Because the report interviewed many artists, gallery owners, art associations, but also interviewed some stuck up psycho from the Bravehearts group (some child protection group) who seem to think that 1/5 people have been sexually assaulted (a statistic which I find hard to believe and is entirely off topic anyway) But the point is that she said they are "actively trying to prosecute the photographer, called the photos pornographic in nature, and used the the word paedophilia several times.

I am beginning to think the only person who is having a problem with this photo is her (probably because the girl in the photo looked fit, and the woman interviewed was the size of a small blue whale, but I didn't just say that  )


----------



## Battou (May 27, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Just an update. The ABC just displayed all the pictures that were confiscated censored of course. This is actually rather far from the line I mentioned above. At no point were genitalia (male or female) visible in any of the photos. In 2 of the photos the girl had her breasts exposed. The photos themselves provoke a very similar feeling to his previous photos, and he brings the theme of uncertainty in adolescence across very well.
> 
> The most revealing photo was a photo of the girl shot almost front on, standing up and looking to one side slightly. Beautifully backlit, low key, and with dark cold tones like the rest of his photos. She is naked but her hands are crossed in front of her so only her breasts are visible. And that is about right up there with every other photo of nude girls which can be described as artful and in no way at all pornographic or sexually provocative.
> 
> ...



I'm glad to see this is not going unchallenged just because a politician agreed so publically with those who started the ball rolling. Challenging it publically is the only way to really get the point across that not everyone is out to sexually exploit everything they see.


----------



## Roger (May 27, 2008)

Sadly a similar discussion I started on an Oz forum, had most people buying into the hysteria and agreeing with the censorship and criminal proceedings. Ignorance and fear reign supreme and a number of people said that children need to be protected and there's no way a 13 y/o girl is capable of consenting to such photos and to top it off they felt the parents had no right to give permisson and should also be investigated and or charged. I can't believe it. Garbz the woman you mentioned is on a mission as she is a survivor of CSA and so is not able to be objective at all. She is calling for a review of all of his works in all galleries....she smells power for her cause at present and if not stopped will do a lot of damage. Sadly her mission will damage the very children she says have been abused by this photographer, the amount of publicity, public hysteria and political posturing will cause these kids embarrassment and humilation. Some idiot legal person said the children might be able to sue the photographer later on if they feel they've been traumatised by this event. Well they are certainly trying to make sure of that!


----------



## Socrates (May 27, 2008)

Garbz said:


> No I have a line. My own personal line is the point where the image stops being about the human form and starts being about sexual arousal. A naked man or woman of any age just standing there is fine (well if it has artistic merit, obviously a P&S snapshot of a naked kid would make me err on the side of uncomfortable as to the intentions of the photographer and the purpose of the picture).
> 
> Things beyond acceptable to me as art: naked girl with legs spread at all showing full genitalia, male naked with visible erection, things designed to arouse for me stop being about art and start being about pornography. This includes two naked models with any kind of arousing interaction (kissing is really pushing it, licking is over the line).
> 
> Now I did mention met-art in the other thread, that even some pornography still has some artistic merit. Where I draw the line there though is if the model is under age, that IS child pornography and is not on regardless of the intentions of the picture, that is my moral boundry. But then given the above criteria even some of the met-art (well about 4/5th of them actually) stop being artistic in showing the form and start being pornography, not that there's anything wrong with it given their models are of legal age, but it gives a very different meaning to the photo.


What would be your reaction if someone took and displayed photos of children that fit your description of pornography?


----------



## passerby (May 27, 2008)

I saw in today paper even the actress Cate blanche making personal plea to the PM.

Maybe the best way for this is just make it legal to hire any youngster to drop their clothes in the name of art, by anyone who think he/she is an artist. If the artist credantials is questionable than he should not publish the photos but he is allow to keep it.

I have the right to claim to be an artist since I have a camera just like that master. So yeah why not, lets do it at anytime anywhere in hiring the youngsters without unnecessary bickering and without fear. No one on earth can deny me from persuading any young girl or boy to pose naked for my artistic expertize once it is legal. Any person who think that this idea is crazy than he better point it out to me why.

It is better of to hire them while they are still young since they are not that expensive and submissive.


----------



## craig (May 27, 2008)

passerby said:


> I saw in today paper even the actress Cate blanche making personal plea to the PM.
> 
> Maybe the best way for this is just make it legal to hire any youngster to drop their clothes in the name of art, by anyone who think he/she is an artist. If the artist credantials is questionable than he should not publish the photos but he is allow to keep it.
> 
> ...



With all due respect I feel that you are missing the point here. We are not talking about hypothetical photos. Your thoughts are your own and we respect that. Please refrain from making generalizations about the subjects and an art form that you know nothing about.

Love & Bass


----------



## passerby (May 27, 2008)

craig said:


> With all due respect I feel that you are missing the point here. We are not talking about hypothetical photos. Your thoughts are your own and we respect that. Please refrain from making generalizations about the subjects and an art form that you know nothing about.
> 
> Love & Bass


 
This is what I mentioned earlier in page one, that "*what an art to you is not necessarily an art to me*". So if it can be done in the name of art by one party which to me is not an art - than I can do the same. The only objection came from others against me is by saying that my art is not an art. 

There was one case here in the news the dispute between a well known artist against the art gallery manager and judge. The manager point of view was that his work in that particular painting was devoid of any artistic expression. The artist felt offended and took him to the court and sued him. This happen here in Sydney few years back. 

What the police did in raiding the gallery (or the private house) was in accordance with the existing law. If this law changed to make it legal to hire younger people under 16 to pose nude than there wouldn't and won't be any problem by it.

The laws were created to protect the weaker party from the unjust action of the stronger party. If one law is lawful to one party than it is lawful to all parties. If one law is unlawful to one party than it is unlawful to all parties. That is why justice is about the just laws.


----------



## Garbz (May 28, 2008)

Roger said:


> Sadly a similar discussion I started on an Oz forum, had most people buying into the hysteria and agreeing with the censorship and criminal proceedings.



Yes funny that. Talk to many Australians and they agree with it. Talk to many Europeans and they completely disagree with it. Now I don't want to use the word culture in a derogatory way so I will just leave this sentence here.

On a legal point of view, I am not a lawyer, but my sister is. It is her opinion that there's no way the photographer could possibly be persecuted under the act that they are trying to get him for. I seem to remember my sister saying to the TV while the lady from the Bravehearts was talking "Sweety, you haven't even read the act have you?" But you never know. American stories have proved time and time again that judges often side with the popular opinion rather than interpretation of the law, and this is a pretty big topic.

Looks like the art world seems to agree too. During the 7:30 report on ABC1 they mentioned that they are more worried that this case would tarnish his reputation and force him underground than they are of him actually losing and being criminally persecuted. Everyone seems to think this is unlikely but then the people interviewed are not quite without bias.



Socrates said:


> What would be your reaction if someone took and displayed photos of children that fit your description of pornography?



I would have to say very similar to the negative reactions that are causing a stink with some of the other people here. I don't disagree with their reaction. I disagree that their own line personally is causing massive problems for one of Australia's leading artists over a set of photos that many of the art world and a vast number of people outside it don't consider at all to be offensive.

And I will say this (probably pushing it), but anyone who could get off on one of his photos has some serious serious mental problems.


----------



## Battou (May 28, 2008)

Garbz said:


> On a legal point of view, I am not a lawyer, but my sister is. It is her opinion that there's no way the photographer could possibly be persecuted under the act that they are trying to get him for. I seem to remember my sister saying to the TV while the lady from the Bravehearts was talking "Sweety, you haven't even read the act have you?" But you never know. American stories have proved time and time again that judges often side with the popular opinion rather than interpretation of the law, and this is a pretty big topic.



Have you ever seen the movie "Snap Decition", The situation is different but overall it has many similarities.


----------



## Socrates (May 28, 2008)

Garbz said:


> I would have to say very similar to the negative reactions that are causing a stink with some of the other people here. I don't disagree with their reaction. I disagree that their own line personally is causing massive problems for one of Australia's leading artists over a set of photos that many of the art world and a vast number of people outside it don't consider at all to be offensive.


My only point is that we all agree that a line must be drawn but, if you poll a thousand persons, the line will be drawn in a thousand locations.  It's not a cut-and-dried situation and, in fact, there is no law that is.  By the way, I don't accept that a "leading artist" should be exempt from the law.


----------



## Garbz (May 29, 2008)

Battou no I haven't but holidays in 3 weeks so I'll keep it in mind.

Socrates I know the line will be drawn in a thousand locations. The question is where you average them. Poll 1000 artists and the average will be very different from polling 1000 child abuse victims. Also I don't think I ever said a leading artist should be exempt from the law. And I fully agree with you that he shouldn't. I just said that the only actual lawyer I know doesn't think there's a hope in heck that the law applies in this case to that photo.

There's a topic on slashdot today about the UK considering banning child pornographic drawings (such as those seen in many Japanese hentai magazines). The best food for thought on the discussion that came out of it was that in the US creating child pornography carries a 20 year minimum sentence. That's a very very high number considering the fact that child pornography was in no way defined at all in the law that was written. 

The lack of a clear line is exactly what every single one of these posts in the last few months has been fundamentally about.


----------



## Jedo_03 (May 29, 2008)

Here is the Australian Government's Position (the LAW...)

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi279t.html

(it's only one page - NOT legalese...)

And it is a clear 'definition' of what constitutes child pornography

No matter what one person - or 10,000 people THINK - this is what you can be arrested for...

The SA position seems to hinge on the word "merit"... so now we have to define "merit"...

Jedo


----------



## THORHAMMER (Jul 9, 2008)

I don't think the pictures are intrinsically wrong or anything. There not super distasteful, but they are a little weirdly posed. 

Having a little girl and seeing amber alerts the last 3 times I was on the freeway in the last 2 weeks It just gives me a bad feeling in my stomach. 
Im sure there is a artistic reason for the pictures, some of them are interesting, but personally they don't do anything for me, I would go out of my way completely to avoid them , but Im not gonna call someone else a perv cause they see artistic beauty in them. 

I'd rather take pictures of kids in normal social situations; you dont need to flash skin to show awkwardness or innocence. Part of me thinks there is some shock factor to it, should we put any food on the table to tempt these ped's that are out there ? 

Did the photographic world NEED this kind of publicity right now, were fighting for our rights to just take cameras in public property. 

On the other hand, if you don't exercise your rights you lose them right ?


----------



## Garbz (Jul 10, 2008)

Jedo: I completely missed your post. But did you even read the page? What part of the definition which includes "offend a reasonable adult" is clear? Offend what adult? The pope? The prime minister who has shown he has no idea what art is? How about the judges who were done for being paedophiles themselves a few years ago? These two pages right here show that a reasonable adult from European background thinks differently from a reasonable Australian adult. A reasonable adult from 1997 may not think the same as a reasonable adult from 2008. Should a photo from back then suddenly become offensive, is this law retrospective? What if the photo was taken in Europe and the artist flies to Australia? This is clear as mud, throw in actual lawyers to play with this definition and the mud becomes thicker still.


Well it's not a case of right now. He's been making these photos for many years apparently, and it's always been controversial. You can't exactly stop a career because it's not the right time for it.


----------



## JC1220 (Jul 10, 2008)

Let me point out ahead of time, my opinion on this has nothing to do with what is or is not, porn, abuse, pedophilia, art, not art or any of the misconceptions of what nude photography is or is not about.

When involving children, who are below what is considered the legal independent age for your country, state, etc., that fact is they are children who do not have the mental capacity, knowledge, or mature position to make that decision for themselves if it is the right or wrong thing for them to participate in, especially if there is no legal or parental relationship between the photographer and the child. If that relationship exists, I have an understanding of the motivations as a photographer and parent. There has been some wonderful nude work done by photographers of their children.

Otherwise, frankly, 9 times out of 10 the photographer is too self-absorbed in their own ego and ideas not to see they are the ones making the decisions for the child for their own selfish goals. Being motivated by ego and idea is never a good thing for a photographer.

-


----------



## Hawaii Five-O (Jul 10, 2008)

I'm not as liberal as you all in your view of art, I personally don't like the pictures and think they are messed up. Naked people in  front of a camera of any age is not art to me. When I saw those pictures I was like " What the heck, Weird"


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 10, 2008)

Garbz said:


> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23743217-2,00.html
> 
> Skip over the usual crap, some dodgy child protection group says "OMG there's a kid with no cloths on, PORN PORN PORN ALARM ouch ulcer."
> 
> ...



Well this topic for me is DEEEEPLY political and leads to places that seem bizarre and impossible. When mentioned off the cuff without the proper supporting links to all of the actual crimes and evidence people mostly just pass it off as paranoid and delusional. Any kind of honest investigation shows very clearly however, that it's very real and very wide spread - especially in "western" cultures.

I'll just blurt out a few of the basics here and people can call me crazy or investigate it or agree if they already have investigated or whatever.

Your prime minister and the state premier are just making the case in support of the elites (criminally psychopathic  control freaks) who have taken power by war and murder and wish to further secure and continue their domineering by undermining healthy societies and the nuclear family unit by promoting wicked evil men like those who run the child protection "agencies" and alike government funded social services most successfully structured and implemented by the Nazis and who are in actuality, the real pedophiles, kidnappers, and black marketeers of what they believe is and refer to as human chattel in very clear legal terms. 

It all comes out rather controversial looking on the news though if you don't know your history and many unknowing individuals are led to believe that it might just be for the protection of our loved children rather than to fuel and fund the rape-pits and keep the marketeers dealing in human flesh, neatly supplied.

As to the question what is art. It is simply "expression". Most commonly it is the expression of any feeling/emotion, thought/imagination, or creative|destructive skill/ability produced in a third medium. The first medium is that thing, environment, or circumstance which caused, lead to, or enabled the perception or skill. The second medium is the perception itself ("it's all in your head" fits here well) as held by one or more sentient beings - usually but not limited to Homo Sapein - Sapein. The third medium is that used to express or communicate the second. It can be gesture, a performance, or the arrangement/creation of an objects and materials such as a painting, photograph, sculpture, and etc. It can even be an action such as caring for others (best IMO!) or creating chaos. It's how the verb/adverb form came into use I suppose. He/She artfully _________. 

Good art or bad art is determined by how well others relate to or understand the expression communication/skill/action/etc. being created or preformed, is expressed. It's discerned on several levels but most commonly group and individually/personally. It's said to be "good art" if the world accepts it as such even though the one saying so may not relate to it at all and thinks that it's trash. The individual can say on a personal level to himself "that's awesome art" without knowing or caring how others might relate to it or perceive it. 

And the final qualifying factor for art is that it indeed needs to be perceived. It a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to witness it... etc.

Are images of bare-chested youngsters art? Of course they are! Are they good art? That's open to individual and group interpretation of the specific works but if history can be the judge of whether images of bare chested youngsters can be considered fine-art / good-art then the answer is a resounding yes.

OK, who's still reading this far down... anyone?


----------



## Mystwalker (Jul 10, 2008)

Art is dependent on viewer's interpretation

Sounds like the photographer is very well known? This does not excuse him if this were considered "child pornography".

I'm assuming there were some kind of "model release"? And these being teenagers (or younger?), their parents will have to sign release - this is assuming Australia have similar laws to US?

Personally, I would find this type of "art" disturbing, BUT the artist has the right to express himself/herself ESPECIALLY when a release was signed.

What I find more disturbing then this type of "art", is the type of irresponsible parent who will let their child pose. If I were the "law", I would go after the idiotic parents instead of the "artist" who is just expressing his views (pornographic or not).


----------



## Easy_Target (Jul 11, 2008)

Senor Hound said:


> If you think Aussie land is bad, those photos would have put someone in jail for YEARS in America.  Our rules are a lot more clear-cut, but still stricter.


Our rules are clear cut, so you believe. They're being grossly misused.


The law is pretty clear cut, right?
http://www.californiacriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2008/06/child_pornography_apparently_n.html

"a man in Sacramento, CA, has been charged with _felony possession of child pornography_ for videotaping *clothed* cheerleaders at a high school competition in February. The tape focused on the buttocks and other parts of the cheerleaders. He was also charged with misdemeanor invasion of privacy. He recently pleaded no contest to the charges in court, and the felony charge will be dropped against him if he completes probation on the misdemeanor."

Misuse
http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter...racy-photos/2100-1030_3-6157857.html?hhTest=1

"Teenagers taking risque photos of themselves are prosecuted for violating child pornography laws."

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0521081myspace1.html

"The Wisconsin teenager is facing felony child pornography charges for allegedly posting naked photos of his 16-year-old ex-girlfriend on his MySpace page....The cell phone camera photos had been taken by the girl, who  provided them to Phillips....Along with the child porn count, Phillips was charged with defamation and sexual exploitation of a child."


----------



## Kajuah (Jul 15, 2008)

I'm an extremely conservative and law abiding individual. I didn't drink till I was legal, I didn't have sex till (both) of me and my partner were legal. I don't speed, I drive like a 60 year old woman in a toyota yaris. 

But one thing I don't understand is how the **** fine art museums can get away with PAINTINGS of nude children or portrayal of nudity in kids (angels, cupid, that kinda thing) and that parents can have portraits of their kids in their family albums who aren't wearing any clothes... but as soon as an actual photographer takes a photo ? SNAP CLANG. OFF WITH HIS HEAD HE'S A PERV!

Seriously, we have sex to live.. what are people so afraid of? It's not sexuality that people are afraid of - it's lust and desire. Love and sexuality are totally different from lust and desire. Lust and desire can be painful, animal, primal, powerful and damaging if abused. People have their definitions confused. Love and sex are good. Lust and desire are bad. 

This brings me to my point; when you take a photograph of something out of love; such as your kids in a bathtub playing for your family album. There is nothing wrong with that, legally it would be forgiven because the law assumes you wouldn't feel any lustful, *hurtful* desire for your own kids, right?

However when someone else does it, it's a bad thing because the law assumes that naturally, a total stranger cannot feel the same attatchment and feelings for someone else's kids that their parents would. Complications arise when the kids and being sexually abused by their parents...of course...that's another story.

My point is that people fear lust and desire - they do not fear sexuality. They're just lazy and accomodate love with lust and desire with sexuality as being equal in meaning.

I think everyone needs to loosen the **** up and forget about prayer in public schools, too. I wonder how free our society would have to be, mindfully, for sex to be allowed in public schools. I'm not sure really where I'm going with this, just spewing thoughts.


----------



## reg (Jul 15, 2008)

Kajuah said:


> but as soon as an actual photographer takes a photo ? SNAP CLANG. OFF WITH HIS HEAD HE'S A PERV!



But in another thread you had this post:



Kajuah said:


> It's funny you should mention this incident; [...]
> 
> The case in question with me is I called this guy a pedophile who had favorited a picture of my little sister who was about 14 at the time. He had NOTHING but pictures of - get this - underaged girls in provocative positions and literal pages and pages of nudes/porn.
> [...]
> It disturbs me and sickens me how we share the world with such filthy people.




So which one is more okay? Taking a naked photo of a kid or putting one that IS NOT NUDE on a favorites list?


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 15, 2008)

First off, I didn't read the whole thread - but I know what it's about.

I don't see what the big deal is...

So what, who cares...?  Someone took some provocative pictures of a girl younger than 18.  The photos I saw were not anywhere near what I would consider "porn".

Even if someone actually gets off on this kind of stuff, who cares...?  Jerking off in your basement and kidnapping a child are two _COMPLETELY _different offenses, and entirely different types of people.  The former (while they may be a perv), is mostly law abiding - the later should spend the rest of their lives in prison.

BUT - Even though there are bad people out there, why should we censor ourselves?  "Bad People" (whatever branch of the 'crime tree' they may occupy) will always get the fix they need.  Banning it is not the answer.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 15, 2008)

Jerking off in your basement is an offense? I had no idea! Glad I never do such a thing!

-- 
Anyone recommend any good lawyers or know where I might find very thick curtains?


----------



## Kajuah (Jul 15, 2008)

reg said:


> But in another thread you had this post:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well thanks for quoting something absolutely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Also, thanks for misreading what I said in that irrelevant topic. Obviously if you knew a first thing about the law you were trying to defend you'd know that it is illegal to store a collection of an underaged person in a favorites list of - to quote myself: 





> "He had NOTHING but pictures of - get this - underaged girls in provocative positions and literal pages and pages of nudes/porn."


Key words; underaged girls in provocative positions...nudes/porn...

So.. I would go to say he was in the wrong.. in that context. That said I don't see anything of how that links to my opinion that schools (and people of our society educated in general; clearly a caste you do not belong to since you can't read:lmao should be more liberal and less tightwad conservative towards such a normal topic like sex. 

Oh and one more thing; I wasn't stating that a photographer is a perv, I was being sarcastic in the comment I made in the first thing you quoted (misread, i mean).

but back on topic:

Are we that fearful of people having sex that we have to run around clanking each other in chains because we fear someone is doing something sexual?
 "OH NO HE DREW/TOOK A PICTURE...of people...WHO VOLUNTEERED THEIR KIDS TO WORK WITH HIM (I assume, anyway, he didn't just pull them off the street and start taking photos of them, right?"

On the topic of sex in general...Seriously, where the hell do people think they come from? God? Storks? Public fear of everything sexual, be it homosexuality or free-thinking when it comes to normal body functions is wayyy back in the dark ages. My true opinion of anything is that if nobody gets hurt then there's nothing really wrong; because that's why these laws are in place - to protect people. Technically speaking anal/oral/any-position-but-catholic-missionary sex is illegal in Texas..but does anyone care?...


----------



## reg (Jul 15, 2008)

Kajuah said:


> Key words; underaged girls in provocative positions...nudes/porn...




So, was there any illegal material or not?


----------



## Jedo_03 (Jul 16, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Jedo: I completely missed your post. But did you even read the page? What part of the definition which includes "offend a reasonable adult" is clear? Offend what adult? The pope? The prime minister who has shown he has no idea what art is? How about the judges who were done for being paedophiles themselves a few years ago? These two pages right here show that a reasonable adult from European background thinks differently from a reasonable Australian adult. A reasonable adult from 1997 may not think the same as a reasonable adult from 2008. Should a photo from back then suddenly become offensive, is this law retrospective? What if the photo was taken in Europe and the artist flies to Australia? This is clear as mud, throw in actual lawyers to play with this definition and the mud becomes thicker still. quote]
> 
> Mr Garbz...
> Yes - I read the whole page - and other's like it before submitting this for the perusal of the forum...
> ...


----------



## Garbz (Jul 16, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Jerking off in your basement is an offense? I had no idea! Glad I never do such a thing!
> 
> --
> Anyone recommend any good lawyers or know where I might find very thick curtains?



What you need curtains for in the basement...


:lmao: sorry.


----------



## Battou (Jul 16, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Anyone recommend any good lawyers or know where I might find very thick curtains?



I'm told some good curtans can be bought in Alaska :mrgreen:


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 16, 2008)

Garbz said:


> What you need curtains for in the basement...
> 
> 
> :lmao: sorry.



I like to wrap myself u.... Uhh, better not go there that might be an offense too.


----------



## Yemme (Jul 16, 2008)

Is it culture, law or both???

  I dont agree with the images at all even in the artistic form.  Its our culture and the law.  Im surprised a parent would allow their child to pose for those images.  In other regions of our world the culture and their laws permit.  National Geographic I believe dont take into consideration the age of a bare breasted young girl.  That is their culture  Their law, I have no clue!


----------



## Roger (Jul 17, 2008)

I saw this post still alive and thought I'd add some information about a recent issue in Oz. The original issue re Bill Henson has died down with nothing eventuating in terms of legal consequences, this was predictable as the whole purpose of the hue and cry was to fuel personal and political agendas. The latest furore is about an 11 y/o girl who was photographed when she was 8 y/o and is on the cover of Art Monthly. The usual suspects have come out with the same venom and hysteria, flogging their agendas again. This time a judge has determined the images legal and not pornographic at all....end round two and a win for the art world! I expect this battle to continue over the coming years, as to who will win is anybody's guess.....I suspect the conservatives will win for a generation or two as they have a need to supress and there is much fear about the planet. The art and literature world has always suffered these turns, but emerge again in time, when there is less fear in the hearts and minds of people.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 17, 2008)

They (the evil ones) will probably win in the end. At least in the USA it's very common to use provocateurs or staged infractions of the worst kind in order to secure public opinion. 

So look for it to continue and get worse with a few staged highly publicized ones where the child actually gets injured or something. Then the legislation and revomal of rights comes. That's the USA anyway. I guess Oz is no diff. <shrug>

@Yemme,

I can't believe you're from NY. You must not be from the city as I've seen lots and LOTS of photos of kids in NYC running naked in an open fire spigot during the summer.  It's as about as culturalistic as the USA gets (being only a few hundred years old).


----------



## Yemme (Jul 17, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> @Yemme,
> 
> I can't believe you're from NY. You must not be from the city as I've seen lots and LOTS of photos of kids in NYC running naked in an open fire spigot during the summer.  It's as about as culturalistic as the USA gets (being only a few hundred years old).



Oh you better believe it honey....I'm a New Yorker for life.  Now my question is which fire hydrant did you ever see a nude child running in the water?  Forget a photo... In person!  Cause if you saw someone taking images in NY you'll get your head bashed in.  Naked is Naked... I'm not talking skimpy clothes.  I mean naked!  You might have seen toddlers running under the sprinkles with undies but never NUDE!  You won't see a willing person who's a teenager naked running through a hydrant.  We do wear less in the summer but we&#8217;re not nude.  If you did see an image that person was paid or they didn&#8217;t know... Also they would be fleeing the scene before someone with enough sense calls the cops.  That&#8217;s why there are nude models willing to get arrested for their art.  But no child is nude in the streets unless the parent allowed it.


----------



## anderspj (Jul 26, 2008)

> Posted by Passerby: That is why justice is about the just laws.


This is not an insignificant error in your thinking. Just laws are meant to be about justice, and we as (just) human beings are meant to be the creators of just laws.  As our understanding of justice shifts, so should our laws (and, historically, they do.)  It is not the other way around.  When you look at justice as stemming from legislation, you become slavish and unthinking, and generally become a tool who does what he's told to do because he's told to do it, trusting in the powers that be and their grandiose 'traditions'.  A community of slavish and fearful citizens is utterly impotent with regards to their ability to govern themselves without hurting themselves.  This is one reason why political corruption can be seen as practically insurmountable.  Those who look to legislation to decide what is just will nearly always become the slaves of whatever political agenda is behind the law.

And as far as you saying that love does not exist in the west, that's just not true, and only a dumb person would say it is.  I'd put an emoticon here, or say lol, but I genuinely don't want to gloss my unpleasant impression of you or your thinking.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 28, 2008)

Ouch!

Could it be that Passerby touched a nerve?

I dunno what he said about "love" cuz it's on page one and I'm lazy. But I take it he insinuated that there's less love in western cultures than in others?  The equivalent word for "love" in this context is "care". And there sure is allot less care in the west. If you care about your neighbors and community members you would at least know their names and what they're into right? You'd want to know what their needs were so you could help out - because you cared.  I bet "westerners" don't know the names of the people in the houses 3 to the right, 3 to the left, the 3 across the street, and the three in back of them nor do they honestly care at all about their needs, health, and etc. There are exceptions but mostly the idea of community care and participation in western cultures today begins and ends with taking out the trash and mowing the front lawn.

I'm an oldster and I've lived in a few different countries. The first thing I usually notice by contrast in those other cultures is that everybody knows everybody and knows everybody's business. Not because they're medaling busy-bodies that the community breaking propaganda of western GOVERNMENTS would have you believe but because they (love) care about others.

This hasn't been the case in the USA at least, since the 30's 40's and 50's when communist elements within the federal government and certain "foundations" actively sought disunity and the disbandment of communities in general and community organizations in specific all across the country. It seems to me westerners all have this Disney ideal about care but it remains pretty much exclusive to their imaginations.  So now so many of you are easily convinced that there are terrorists among you (LOL!!!!) and that some guy with a camera practicing art is in reality a mad pedophile with an evil Mr. Hyde twin self.  What is it you westerners say "Get a life!"? That seem practically to apply here IMHO.

As far as communities making their own laws based on a transient and ever changing sense of morality and/or justice what a total idealistic, unreality based, hypothetical, crock of steaming goobers! If you live in the west you are OWNED by your government! You're even on the books IN WRITING as being corporate chattel property!  You're only told these days that you have liberty and freedom. Elections are held these days only for public pacification and to keep you all busy thinking you have a choice and can be part of a team with an agenda different from "the other side". This is downright laughable! And many people 50% to 80% (??) buy the delusion - most of them for no other reason than that it's easier to do so than to have to clean out the closets. You live in a documented and declared police state under a dictatorship and have for 30 or 40 years. Bush even went so far as putting a bill through declaring him "The Dictator" and giving him dictatorial powers over all three branches of government. But the masses are so brainwashed that when men like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucenich put life, limb, and liberty at risk to tell you these things most Americans call them kooks, hide their heads in the sand, and sling some more idealistic, unreality based, hypothetical, steaming goobers rather than face facts and rather than facing that their government is actually run by evil nazi families left over from WWII (or who that actually started it in the 1st place). You think you have a say? HA! You think the media is anything but a propaganda machine to cull and control the public? You're delusional - let me ask you how many hours has Dennis's 47 articles of impeachment (just against Nazi Bush alone) been aired on national TV this week? The biggest story in the nation and it's a virtual media black-out. LOL Oh, yeah, you keep believing that you have a say in the laws than bind you! If you actually did it might just be discovered that the Federal Income Tax is not only illegal *and* unconstitutional but that the Supreme Court has ruled so on 4 separate occasions. But you'll keep paying it as that's the funding for the military industrial complex, they have the guns, and you live in a dictatorship!

Love... we make our own laws... bah!  Naiveté Supreme!


----------



## anderspj (Jul 29, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Ouch!
> 
> Could it be that Passerby touched a nerve?
> 
> ...



God, what a bigoted piece of drivel.  

First, you confine your commentary on the 'west' to the United States alone when there are many other nations to which the term applies.  

Secondly, leaving it at the United States, you apply your remarks so broadly as to indict a population of 300 million comprised of more varied and diverse communities than exist in any other single nation.  Well, maybe Russia and China also.  Or India.  Maybe others, too.

Thirdly, while it is a given that within the United States only media whores from the two dominant parties will ever win an election, did you pay attention at all to how much money Ron Paul was able to make?  And as far as the articles of impeachment go, the fact that they will die in committee is unfortunate.  The damage that has been done is immense and irreparable, and we are in agreement.  People don't seem to care.  But... need I remind you that both Paul and Kucinich are elected legislators, voted for and supported by their constituents?  The fact that neither was nominated for president nor succeeded in impeaching anybody does not make them low-profile schmoes with no audience or support.   Both of them have reasonably significant audiences, and the Paul campaign has the cash to prove it. 

Fourthly, did I ever, anywhere in my post, explicitly or implicitly, make any gesture of support for the ridiculous nanny state mentality you repeatedly referenced in yours?  

Fifthly, you seem to be missing my point.  My point was that relying upon legislation and legislators to tell you what is right and wrong, and what is just, will make you a slave.  Again, buying the crap will make you a slave.  It seems you've interpreted my remarks as somehow supportive of the delusion that government can and will help you, or that people ought to look to their governments as a beacon of anything besides the constant failings of man (and woman).  Let me clarify this for you in my own defense.  I do not believe government has the best interests of either me or my loved ones (yes, those people for and about whom I care) at heart.  I do not believe it is government that makes people free.  I do not choose to be fashionable and blame all of the world's woes on a single man or a single family.  President Bush has been a bad president, and is, I believe, a bad man.  However, the world has seen worse and, sadly, there are very likely worse to come.  Finally, I do not live in the west.  I reside in the east as a visible minority and am all too aware of the fact that westerners do not have a monopoly on selfishness, lovelessness, uncaring exclusivity, xenophobia, or moral bankruptcy.  Neither is the place I live without community, regard for others, selflessness, or genuine friendship.  These are human vices and virtues and are found everywhere.

Before this thread gets locked, I'll get back on point.  1 There is indeed love (and care) in the west.  Pardon me for saying so.  2. Concepts of morality and justice shift over time.  Pardon me for saying so.  3. How did these photos ever create such a frenzy in the first place?


----------



## Arch (Jul 29, 2008)

Well this is the reason we do not allow POLITICS to be discussed on the forum. Im sure people here are WELL AWARE of our RULES, and the rules state to avoid POLITICAL discussion!!


----------

