C. J Morgan,
I’ve always thought of you as being very intellectual, in a very base way.

It would probably be the situation that mostly people who like to see pictures of naked or semi-naked children will go to one of Henson’s exhibitions. Others wouldn't bother.

As a test, perhaps Henson could take photos of you and hang them in a gallery, and then note how many people come along to view them.

UNCRC,
I'd be surprise if what you are saying is right. Australia has the some of the strictest rules in the Western world concerning child nudity, and our censorship authority (OFLC) has given the OK to Bill Henson. Check their website:

http://www.classification.gov.au

I saw in a recent H & E Magazine (published in the UK) an advertisment for Nudist DVDs. All of these DVDs must be legal in the UK if they are advertised there, they are also legal in the USA & Canada but some of the titles advertised are in fact illegal in Australia.

As to Marcus Philips, I note that he pleaded guilty, which unfortunately sets a precendent. Maybe if he pleaded not guilty he may have been found not guilty.

David Hamilton is a British photographer who take similar photos to Bill Henson, and I believe his books are sold in the UK without any legal issues.

As far as peadophiles are concerned, if they find this material turns them on, good luck to them. While they're looking at that, they won't be molesting kids. While I don't consider child nudity to be pornography (and nor do I condone any type of pornography), it has been proven in Europe that pornography reduces sex crime.

If it wasn't for the perverted hearts and ego of a few artist we would not be having this discussion. Again it is the case of a few adults defending their right to be deviant even when young children are exploited. It is shameful that some try to intellectualize this whole topic. Nobody has ever been able to explain the artistic value of photographing or painting young boys and girls genitals. It is nothing short of a sick curiosity feeding sick hearts. Of course the only arguement coming from the defenders is that the opponents of this child abuse must have sick hearts themselves

I'm encouraged to see some wisom expressed in here. If we were living yesteryear about a half century or more ago, the entire population of Australia would be considered prostitutes or disgustingly immoral because of dress standards in this same way...All of us.

Unfortunately, we are experiencing cultural regression. This is because we have some of the heaviest censorship in Australia. What follows may be a harsh truth for many and hard to swallow, but the historical and recent evidence and logic are concrete on who is responsible.On the right we have predominantly religion (and this is the primary reason). On the left we have predominantly the feminists (who I understand had a brief positive effect, but which has now long since dissipated and replaced with a repressive agenda). It's not so clear cut as this, but the general imprint of their presence is unquestionable. Our politicians have served these agendas almost in secret since laws were liberalised. I almost forgot to mention it but the media has played a central role in this....indeed the German Pope said that the success of the World catholic youth day was dependent on the media (it would have otherwise failed). The same polticians who betrayed the Australian gay population by rewriting the constitution in 2004 to explicitly outlaw marriage and discriminate against them, are the types of servile, populist scum that are responsible.

Graham

I note that the tutor in the Daily Telegraph article pleaded guilty. The court then rather had its hands tied.

Despite what the article implies, the legislation itself only talks about "indecent" photographs, and does not attempt to codify what "indecent" means. As we've seen in Australia, there seems a trend, encouraged by the media, for people to feel that things are indecent now when some years ago they wouldn't have raised an eye brow.

If the tutor had instead stood up to the authorities, I suspect there's every chance the charges would have been dropped, or that he would have been acquitted.

Bowdens argument seems to be founded on “doing no harm” (per Kant) as espoused by Mills

To address Mills first

Who is exercising “power”, certainly it is those who seek to curtail Henson from taking photographs as he sees fit.

That “power” would see his work censored and banned form public view. That in turn denies the public the right of personal consideration of the photos, to acclaim them or to ignore them.

To the idea of Henson, in taking photos is harming the subject of the photos.

Difficult to ascertain.

If the subject is too young to express a view or opinion or appreciate or assess the possible “harm” for themself, the appropriate authority, generally empowered with the right to act on behalf or the subject are the subject’s parents or legal guardians.

Now if those parents decide there is no “harm” ensuing from the taking of photos, that should be an end to debate, unless those who dissent to the parents/guardians view believe “they know better” and first prove their “better credentials” to intervene in what would otherwise be a “domestic decision”.

When someone can actually separate "the harmful porn" from "the harmless art", there will be a basis for determining the merit of the contemporary photoes and images,

Until you can clearly denounce something as "Porn" it should remain as "Art" because "Art" is all things to all people.

Denouncing one representation, because it does not conform with some peoples view, is to denounce the process of individual expression.

Individual expression is one of those things which makes the journey of life worth walking.

Denying individual expression to anyone is to diminish the life quality to which we all aspire and which ‘philosophers’ seek to observe and fathom.

Among the purposes of art it is to challenge values and conventions.

If someone cannot rise to that challenge, they have the right to turn away.

But they do not have the right to censor the 'Art' because of its challenge, any more than Hitler had the right to denounce (say) Klimpt as degenerate.