Steel I have privately concluded mil observer to be a cardigan struggling troll and completely ignorable.

Polycarp “titanic struggle” – hardly, I would liken it more to arm wrestling with a prawn.

To tolerance and otherwise

An intolerance of practices and beliefs which conflict with a known truth is wisdom.

However, the ignorance based “Subjective Intolerance” of mil observer and his ilk, is invariably the bad sort and the sort which small minded and officious governments believe they are (fraudulently) entitled to dispense, with on our behalf, for our own wellbeing.

As for ‘kiddie porn’, which some here seem fixated upon (possibly a manifestation of their own prurient guilt), depictions of children, naked or otherwise, has been common though out time, including the work of Australia’s own May Gibbs. That the media happens, in Hensons case, to be photographic is irrelevant.

Far more ‘depraved’ scenes are generated as the artistic products of fertile minds than ever with a camera.

Hieronymus Bosch and William Hogarth, both favourites of mine, spring to mind.

and, er, "Klimpt" - don't forget "Klimpt"!

I wonder if the guy charged today with having downloaded nude kids had some of Henson's art among his collection. Maybe he could claim all this porno is art. He might get a sympathetic judge like many of our posters who can't see the stupidity of their arguments.

Art, like free speech, is not above the law, and carnal knowledge is forbidden by the law. Displaying a naked female child is not art - it has already stained the art faculty, while exposing naked those who appear confused instead.

Iamjoseph “Art, like free speech, is not above the law, and carnal knowledge is forbidden by the law. Displaying a naked female child is not art - it has already stained the art faculty, while exposing naked those who appear confused instead”

Humbug (see below)

I thought you had more substance than that,

‘carnal knowledge’, between consenting adults, is not illegal and is the principle action which produces children in the first place (copulation 101).

The second point is displaying images of a naked child, female or otherwise is not “Carnal Knowledge”, I would have thought even someone as seemingly naïve as you would understand that.

Now is the time to admit you have no argument to contribute to a philosophical debate

But you could join mil-observer, in his cesspool of ignorance, as he endlessly amuses himself with my spelling errors (simple things do satisfy that singularly simple mind).

Of free speech

I am off to the State Library Sunday, to listen to some of this “Free Speech” stuff which you claim pretends to be “above the law”.

I wonder if there will be any unlawful heckling?

I can guarantee there will be, especially if you are there on your soap box, pontificating your bilious crap.

As for images of naked females “staining the art faculty”

Well fella, that “:faculty” has been staining itself a luteous hue for some thousands of years, from the Greeks and Romans all the way through to the baroque, renaissance, surrealist and cubists schools and that’s before we even get photography..

And for sure that “faculty” is a happier place than the sad, sanctimonious hogs wallow, which you seem to have emanated from.

I bet everyone of those joyous, bawdy bastards (the art faculty) are peeing with laughter as they read the pretentious twaddle which you suppose substitutes for “philosophy”.

This fits
“Children are a wonderful gift. They have an extraordinary capacity to see into the heart of things and to expose sham and humbug for what they are.”
Desmond Tutu

they clearly see Iamjoseph coming

‘carnal knowledge’, between consenting adults, is not illegal and is the principle action which produces children in the first place (copulation 101).'

Carnal knowledge involves actual sex with a minor - but the principle of this crime is not disassociated with naked female children, then justified with 'but art is anything the offending person decides'.

The missing clause in that sentence: these regimes fell away, after comitting every depravity, and not a single of their laws were accepted or are enshrined in today's laws. The Romans also boasted it was a right to dispense with an ugly baby - how artistic! Have we now dispensed with inalienable human rights - for artistic reasons?