Ludwig,

THe SBS in particular has gotten away for decades with showing perversion. Like Henson they just rename the shows 'documentary; or say its in the 'publics' interest. They could not say it is in the perverts interest although that would be closer to the truth.

Steel,

Your arguments just don’t stack up, and you don’t offer evidence for them anyway. Whilst some of the objections are coming from Christians, many more are not.

Your pathetic judgment that, if I’m not opposed religiously to these images, I must have a censorship agenda is so juvenile and anti-intellectual it’s not funny.

This is not a debate about nudity. No matter how much you soft lefties want to have that fight, it just isn’t going to be with me. I don’t want to stop women sunbathing naked. I don’t want make women do anything with their bodies they don’t want to.

But we aren’t talking about women, we are talking about children. That you cannot see that there would be NO debate if the woman was over 16 is a sign of your unwillingness to look rationally at this issue. The issue of Chloe is typical. Chloe, being 19, is "of age"; end of story.

It seems not to disturb these soft-left idiots that images with exactly the same composition by a non artist, would be considered pedophilia by law.

So I have a question for you Steel. Are you suggesting that it is OK for a pedophile to have photos of naked kids in the same poses as Hensons.

Yvonne,

I have a 13 year old daughter myself and if any pervert came asking to take nude photos of her he’d be drinking through a straw for a few months

So I guess runner didn't see the doco about Bill Henson last night. A pity, because actually having some knowledge about the subject might have allowed him to post something other than his usual ignorant, prudish drivel.

Boazy: << Maybe.. such things are better confined to the groups which think alike and more appropriate for 'in house' art communities than open for all the public? >>

No Boazy. That may be an appropriate approach to pornography, but Henson's work is art. In fact, whether or not an image is suitable for public display is probably the essential distinction between them.

“Remember though that the police were just acting on a complaint - that is their job.”

Pelican, it is their job to assess a complaint and act on it if they think it is warranted. There was no obligation on their part lay charges, or to act on it in any physical manner, or to act on it at all, even if they had deemed the law to have been broken. They have sweeping discretionary powers.

A few years ago I made number of complaints to the police about dangerous drivers, about five in as many years. I only bothered with incidents that were really quite serious. Do you think the police acted on any of them? Nope. I haven't bothered since.

“…this case does not constitute an 'intent' to make and distribute porn…”

This is another major problem with the standard of policing in this country; very often there is no distinction made between what is obvious unlawful intent and accidental or benign infringement.

And a third major problem is that the police rely on the courts to sort it out, but the courts all too often just run with what the police have decided, as magistrates think that the police were in a much better position to make a judgement! This is especially so with minor matters.

It is all pretty rotten.

I am very interested to see where these charges against Henson lead.

Pelican: "It seems to me that there is not much point in further discussing this exhibition if (some) of the pro-Henson lobby are making this into a nudity issue. Where has anyone said that adults cannot pose nude if they choose to and where has anyone said we should all start wearig burkhas?

I think this is an unfair generalisation and interpretation of why some people are not okay with Henson's picturs and the argument is misleading."

Your comments got a bit lost, Pelican, but I just wanted to agree with what you say here. As far as I'm concerned, we're all against child porn, and this argument is about whether Henson's work constitutes it.

The name-calling means that it's difficult to have that discussion on this forum.

One of the most prominent arty farties of recent times was Michael Jackson. He loved having young boys in pyjamas over night for sleeps. It is all very innocent! Of course he had the boys and the parents consent. It is okay though because he is a respectable citizen and is really just expressing himself. The ABC has also run a few specials on what a fine outstanding citizen he is and Cate and Elton John agree. They have written to the US President saying how this man has been victimized and misunderstood.