I think the fact that Henson’s work was displayed on the internet has in part caused the entire controversy. He has, after all, been doing the same kind of thing for years with little fuss.

I’m not sure what is meant by ‘It is an Oz thing’. I think Australians are actually morally conservative in general. Would you suggest that the British government starts censoring the internet at ISP level as they do in China or Iran? The Australian government has already suggested this idea. I think the implications are disturbing.

‘Some here have people here have also commented that common sense and a sense of propriety’should have prevented Henson from making the images in question and I agree.’

It is an Oz thing, he pretends to be a good boy when he is overseas, he also drops the claim to be a neo-Caravaggio, he has to do that because he is already a joke, the only clue we see of him is his ‘Silence of the Laqmbs’ paperback. It is fairly obvious where he gets his trashy corpse gothic thing from.

While Henson’s work might well be deemed legally improper in the UK and other countries, it has been legally vindicated here. The Roslyn Oxley9 website is hosted in the U.S. as far as I know. How does one county’s legistlation apply to media hosted in another country? The global accessibility of the internet makes the whole issue much more complex and I don’t pretend to know the answer.

As I have already said, I object to Henson’s work not only on artistic grounds but on moral grounds. I think the whole debate raises the fact that legislation dealing with such content needs to be clarified.

It doesn’t have to be pornogrphic or obscene for a conviction in the United Kingdom, indecent images of children are legislatively defined as ‘child pornography’ here. He can’t do it here. Henson’s stuff is far over the line,

We’ve had convictions for David Hamilton’s photos in Great Britain. Henson was one of the reasons we had to toss the idea of an artistic exception. It was obvious he would never stop and he would only get worse

51 Sections 48 to 50: interpretation (1) For the purposes of sections 48 to 50, a person is involved in pornography if an indecent image of that person is recorded; and similar expressions, and “pornography”, are to be interpreted accordingly

The test (Protection of Children Act) is

In Regina v. Graham-Kerr, Stocker L.J. said that the appropriate test in the case of the Protection of Children Act was that as stated in R. v. Stamford [1972] 2 QB 391, which uses the formula ‘recognised standards of propriety.’

This, and the use of the word ‘impropriety’ by Lord Parker, point to the essential elements of indecency being offence caused, and inappropriateness, rather than that any amount of shock or disgust be caused in those forced to see it.

That said, I don’t think the works are pornographic. The subjects may be nude but they are not depicted in any sexual content. The classification board has rated them PG. I can’t believe the police didn’t consult with the board before raiding the gallery.

Without the scandal, the exhibition would have been viewed by a few hundred people at most. Now the images have been viewed by thousands and are all over the net. As is usually the case, the attempt to ban this work has resulted in increased publicity and has in my opinion done more harm than good.

Bad art is best ignored, otherwise all you’ll be doing is promoting it.

Where were their parents? Do you have a date rape or drugged rape mindset, well if you do, define consent to Bill if you’re smacked out of your head.

That’s the problem, I only ask, can a person give consent, I don’t ask who drugged who, in my head it is as wrong to have sex with a self-iadministered state of comatoseness as it is if it was engineered etc.

One needs to focus on ‘consent’ as a real thing. As it happens it was illegal (in Oz) to publish the photo during the police investigation. It really was. When we queried that, we were told (by the police) it was a fairly reckless country.

However they agreed it was illegal.

Gregory

“I assume a parent was there during the photography shoot anyway.”

Assumptions are the small change of circumstance. Do you think the police actually checked up on his parental signings for all his U18 kids?

I know they didn’t. Oz is a hick country, the police bottled it. Your classification board free passes child pornography all the time. That leaves children in danger all over the world. Did you know that?

Gregory

If you don’t like the images, you don’t have to look at them.