Lev

I guess now we'll have to cover all those little boy statues peeing into fountains, depraved indeed....

Do Henson's pictures of pubescent 13 year old girls have any aesthetic merit? Ofcourse they do. If I said no I would be dishonest. Is the model in any way compromised or put in the way of danger of any sexual predator who might happen to recognise her? It's not only her but those who may have a passing resemblance to her who would be in considerable danger.

The statue of David has always drawn admiration Does it have any aesthetic qualities? YES...may be more for women.he is well-hung,actually. Does it put David in harm's way? No. Not unless replicas are bought for masturbatory purposes.

Or should we now smash all those garden statues of little boys pissing into a fountain and while we are about it getting all politically correct put a pair of underpants on to David. And on all his replicas...or smash the bloody things.

Put the welfare and protection of children before all else,PLEASE.

socratease

I am not sure if the governments on all continents are on drugs or not, but how about a life sentience's for all child sex offenders?

Problem solved.

In order for an ethic to be demonstrably ethical it must be tested as valid in nearly all situations. Unless the teaching of philosophy has changed in the last 30 years.

But situational ethics has taken over. If a school teacher is accused of looking up a seated 12 year olds dress he (wouldn't be a she) can and has been dismissed. The young man in question that I knew was a gifted teacher, he quit in disgust and became a lawyer.

But a group of Chardonnay swilling secular progressives can appreciate the naked body of a female adolescent and it is supposed to be unassailably and socially acceptable. If the same wine lover would view the photo on the DET website they would be prosecuted. Now that is a simple undeniable fact as the viewer is not an art teacher.

To say, “pornography killed Jane Longhurst”, therefore, is grossly simplistic.

Very true.

Just as it is grossly simplistic to say, "lax gun laws killed xyz" and yet this country has invested over 650 million and counting on stiff firearm regulations. Misappropriated millions pursuing a myth while the money could have and should have been spent on mental health.

Both the UKs pornography legislation and our firearm regulations are examples of the propensity of western governments to cave into populist feel good notions to combat problems that are centred in mental health.

The topic is about adult porn not Bill Henson's recent images.

As for the comparison between Henson and Rembrandt and Italian renaissance art, puhlease! There is no comparison.Henson likes to cause sensation. Anyone can take pictures like that.

Why can't anyone stick to the topic. Bill Henson is yesterday's news.

AnaM:

The reason that those who support this and similar laws keep bringing up child porn is that they want to create an association between the two since most "ordinary decent people" will then think "if this has anything to do with protecting kids I'm all for it!"

The UK Home Office did the same in their original Consultation document on this law with similar irrelevant references.

Of course what these supporters *really* want is to outlaw *any* imagery they don't like, but they know that they're not going to get their way if they just say "ban all porn", so they have to con people into believing that, somehow, passing a law like this will "protect children".

This is utter nonsense (just as ridiculous as was Martin Salter MP's assertion that "Snuff Films" actually exist and that women are actually being raped and killed in the stuff he wanted outlawed) but if you keep telling the "big lie" for long enough, people start thinking it's true.

And so, step by step, the right of adults to decide for themselves what they may or may not view, is slowly whittled away and suddenly they find that they can be criminalised possessing images of *legal* and *consensual* acts!