I was going to pop in and makes the point that children are used by many groups, but jpw and ludwig beat me to the punchline.

The author makes two central assertions, which are neatly summarised in his last few paragraphs. Most of this winding piece can be attributed to this:

1) The harm of this action is difficult to define (no answer here, this is vague).

2) The children are being used for Henson's ends. (Which the author states is less ambiguous, and very clearly immoral).

The problem here, aptly pointed out by jpw and Ludwig, is that by the same token, things like the Wiggles and even educational children's material is therefore immoral if the manufacturer turns a buck.
Our society can't work like this as it stands - any influential and capable organisation in capitalist societies has to be profitable.
If the author's assertion was correct, then childrens needs could not be catered for in a capitalist society as they are incapable of buying things - even the concept that a parent can buy things for them is neutered by this simplistic command.

I'd put it to the author that this second, supposedly clearly defined category is just as vague as the first, and that the real determinant here should be whether harm comes to the children, and at what point we determine expression must be limited.

Why don't we go the step further? Get all the abandoned foetuses discarded at the butcher shops by those incapable of any true human emotions further than their own selfish pity. Make moulds of them, cast up some realistic gelatine dummies a la "Myth Busters" and put them on display with some appropriate captions to enlighten us. It would pass as artistic, would it not?

Let's get real about obscenity though, it is called the National Road Toll, daily its victims die, get mutilated or are changed forever. Society then bears the cost of this through increased premiums, infrastructure, administration costs and such. It is now a burgeoning industry. The crucial issues are myriad.

But where are the howls and baying packs of journo's chasing that one down to tear out its thoat?

Sensationalist "perception management", myths, lies and Fairy tales to spoon feed the masses.

I'd be interested, Dr. Bowden, on your views on the art as an invasion of privacy, and on the idea that it might be stored until the young person is of an age to consent.

I'd have thought that it was not the young adolescent's ability to reason which is in question, but their knowledge of sexuality and of the way others may take the photographs which make them not yet able to freely consent.

As for Piaget's distinction between concrete and formal reasoning, I was under the impression that that was long dead--dispoven by, amongst others, W.V. Quine.

So what should children be allowed to do? On the face of it, if children's own desires don't count, and they should not be doing anything that *may* harm them, then sport is out for sure. Depending on one's definition of harm, religious instruction (or as I view it, indoctrination) is out as well. Watching television? Reading comics?

The argument as presented seemed to start well, but in the end showed it self to be nothing more than a thinly veiled pretext for not allowing children to do things that the author doesn't think they should be doing.

There wasn't even a mention of the possibility that the children might actually benefit from their experience of being nude models.

I don't even have to read the article to dismiss it: The summary is a bald artifice.

ALL advertisers and artistic prodcutions involving children could be characterised as "using children for their own ends".

And the characterisation is rubbish anyway. Children and their parents have given consent and are extremely happy with the work. They defend Henson and blame the antagonists and activists for creating the damage and demonisng them.

Nice to see a near consensus thus far on how dumb an article this is.

It's been done to death - enough "but what about the children" hand-wringing already.

Ultimately, I don't think Aussies like wowsers very much. Back under your rock, Bowden - come back in 50 years.