Naked girl "art" shut down in Australia

[pilonv1]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23745677-2,00.html

POLICE say they expect to lay charges after seizing more than 20 photographs from a controversial exhibition in Sydney that features images of naked 12- and 13-year-old girls.

Rose Bay Local Area Commander Allan Sicard said NSW Police expected to prosecute over the images by artist Bill Henson, which were to go on display at the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery in Paddington last night.

The exhibition was shut down just before it was due to open.

I saw the censored pics on the news, I don't think they were sexualising the child but probably didn't need to be displayed.

[xnikki118x]

Oh wow, I was going to say I don't think there's anything wrong with nude art done tastefully. But there is something wrong when said art features minors.

[Rman]

Yeah, I kinda of agree with Nikki.  But then I not a fan of gov't intervention for these types of things. 

[pilonv1]

heres the pics

http://media.theaustralian.com.au/multimedia/2008/05/23-henson/index.html

[Bildi]

Those pics are a bit disturbing actually.  But at what point do you draw the line?  A pic of a 5 year old girl at the beach with no top on is OK isn't it?  But when she starts getting tits does it stop being OK?

Stupid controversial artists.

[Vizzys]

they don't seem very pornographic in nature

but I suppose if you let anybody pass off naked children as art it would become a pretty big problem

[Polari]

I don't really see a problem.

[Raban]

I don't really see a problem.

Really?

Doesn't set off any alarms, does it?

[Polari]

I don't really see a problem.

Really?

Doesn't set off any alarms, does it?

It's not like art has completely shunned naked girls as a subject throughout history, is it? I don't see why that should change now.

[Hollywood]

I think its gross to think of a kid like that in a sexual way, but it seems like that's the reason behind of why child porn is wrong, immoral, and illegal, etc. The fact that its disgusting isn't the reason it's illegal though, if it was, they should do some bans on skat, prego, she male, bestiality porn and stuff too. The reason it's illegal is because its exploitative to children who are deemed not old enough to make a decision about doing that stuff until they're 18 years old, or even forced too which is horrible. Maybe if there's kids out there who are mature enough to make those decisions on their own, and aren't forced, then whats the difference? Maybe some sick pedos would get off to it, but shit, they need to get rid of a lot of sick stuff too if thats the train of thought. They should ask this guy where he got these pictures and talk to the girl in them at least to find out she has reasoning enough to understand what was being done with those pictures.

[Bildi]

....

Dude, just relax and have a fap.

[BobbyRobby]

The fact that its disgusting isn't the reason it's illegal though, if it was, they should do some bans on skat, prego, she male, bestiality porn and stuff too. The reason it's illegal is because its exploitative to children who are deemed not old enough to make a decision about doing that stuff until they're 18 years old, or even forced too which is horrible.

even drawings of child porn are illegal, if obscene,

`Sec. 1466B. Obscene visual representations of sexual abuse of minors

`(a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (e), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--
`(1) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
`(2) is obscene;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties set forth in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
`(b) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (e), knowingly possesses a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--
`(1) depicts a minor child engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and
`(2) is obscene,
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties set forth in section 2252A(b)(2), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
`(c) It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor child depicted actually exist.
`(d) For purposes of this section, the terms `visual depiction' has the meaning given that term in section 1466A, and the terms `sexually explicit conduct' and `minor' have the meanings given those terms in section 2256(2)(B).
`(e) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) and (b) is that--
`(1) any communication involved in or made in furtherance of the offense is communicated or transported by the mail, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or any means or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce is otherwise used in committing or in furtherance of the commission of the offense;
`(2) any communication involved in or made in furtherance of the offense contemplates the transmission or transportation of a visual depiction by the mail, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer;
`(3) any person travels or is transported in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of the commission or in furtherance of the commission of the offense;
`(4) any visual depiction involved in the offense has been mailed, or has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or was produced using materials that have been mailed, or that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer; or
`(5) the offense is committed in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in any territory or possession of the United States.
`(f) In a case under subsection (b), it is an affirmative defense that the defendant--
`(1) possessed less than three such images; and
`(2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any image or copy thereof--
`(A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such image; or
`(B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such image.'; and
(2) in table of sections at the beginning of the chapter, by inserting after the item relating to section 1466 the following new items:
`1466A. Obscene visual depictions of young children.
`1466B. Obscene visual representations of pre-pubescent sexual abuse.'.
(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the applicable category of offense to be used in determining the sentencing range referred to in section 3553(a)(4) of title 18, United States Code, with respect to any person convicted under section 1466A or 1466B of such title, shall be the category of offenses described in section 2G2.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines.
(2) The Sentencing Commission may promulgate guidelines specifically governing offenses under sections 1466A and 1466B of title 18, United States Code, provided that such guidelines shall not result in sentencing ranges that are lower than those that would have applied under paragraph (1).

And though I don't know how the Red Rose Stories (a website that published obscene stories featuring child porn) case ended up, or if it's ongoing, it may be illegal to write obscene fiction.

[Tauntaun]

heres the pics

http://media.theaustralian.com.au/multimedia/2008/05/23-henson/index.html

[Mupepe]

doesn't matter if it's morally wrong or not, that's some shitty art. 

[Hollywood]

The fact that its disgusting isn't the reason it's illegal though, if it was, they should do some bans on skat, prego, she male, bestiality porn and stuff too. The reason it's illegal is because its exploitative to children who are deemed not old enough to make a decision about doing that stuff until they're 18 years old, or even forced too which is horrible.

even drawings of child porn are illegal, if obscene,

`Sec. 1466B. Obscene visual representations of sexual abuse of minors

`(a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (e), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--
`(1) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
`(2) is obscene;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties set forth in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
`(b) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (e), knowingly possesses a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--
`(1) depicts a minor child engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and
`(2) is obscene,
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties set forth in section 2252A(b)(2), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
`(c) It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor child depicted actually exist.
`(d) For purposes of this section, the terms `visual depiction' has the meaning given that term in section 1466A, and the terms `sexually explicit conduct' and `minor' have the meanings given those terms in section 2256(2)(B).
`(e) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) and (b) is that--
`(1) any communication involved in or made in furtherance of the offense is communicated or transported by the mail, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or any means or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce is otherwise used in committing or in furtherance of the commission of the offense;
`(2) any communication involved in or made in furtherance of the offense contemplates the transmission or transportation of a visual depiction by the mail, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer;
`(3) any person travels or is transported in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of the commission or in furtherance of the commission of the offense;
`(4) any visual depiction involved in the offense has been mailed, or has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or was produced using materials that have been mailed, or that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer; or
`(5) the offense is committed in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in any territory or possession of the United States.
`(f) In a case under subsection (b), it is an affirmative defense that the defendant--
`(1) possessed less than three such images; and
`(2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any image or copy thereof--
`(A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such image; or
`(B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such image.'; and
(2) in table of sections at the beginning of the chapter, by inserting after the item relating to section 1466 the following new items:
`1466A. Obscene visual depictions of young children.
`1466B. Obscene visual representations of pre-pubescent sexual abuse.'.
(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the applicable category of offense to be used in determining the sentencing range referred to in section 3553(a)(4) of title 18, United States Code, with respect to any person convicted under section 1466A or 1466B of such title, shall be the category of offenses described in section 2G2.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines.
(2) The Sentencing Commission may promulgate guidelines specifically governing offenses under sections 1466A and 1466B of title 18, United States Code, provided that such guidelines shall not result in sentencing ranges that are lower than those that would have applied under paragraph (1).

And though I don't know how the Red Rose Stories (a website that published obscene stories featuring child porn) case ended up, or if it's ongoing, it may be illegal to write obscene fiction.

That's true, but notice how these don't even define obscene. I think they took a porn maker to court a while back, they let them off when they couldn't define if it was obscene. I don't think the government even knows themselves. They need to get rid of a ton of stuff if they're using the obscene reason, I could do without the nasty shit out there.

[Raban]

doesn't matter if it's morally wrong or not, that's some shitty art. 

You haven't realized the pattern yet? Everything controversial is conversely a complete shitheap, that's why it's controversial.

1. *man showcases normal art*
2. CRITICS: Meh, looks like shit.
3. *man showcases same thing with child tits*
4. CRITICS: OMG ETHICS
5. /5000 news stories involving child pornography and ethics
6. ?????
7. Profit

[fistfulofmetal]

Only 2 pics

fail.