Unsurprisingly, it looks like those hoping for Bill Henson to be convicted on child pornography charges are going to be disappointed:

<< Images declared "absolutely revolting" by the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, at the height of the Bill Henson controversy have been cleared for general release.

Late last week the Classification Board swiftly assessed five Henson images taken from media websites and rated them all "G" or "very mild". Some or all of the images are partly censored with black bars covering nipples and genitals. The assessment followed a complaint about images on media websites after NSW police closed his Sydney exhibition on May 23. The main complaint is said to involve a slide show of seized photographs on The Daily Telegraph's website. >>

http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/henson-images-cleared-for-general-release/2008/06/01/1212258645397.html

If the images have received a "G" rating, they can hardly be considered pornographic, can they? Those who are still hysterical about them should probably try and secure an appointment with a psychologist or psychiatrist ASAP, since their hysteria is clearly pathological.

CJ,

If you want to improve the standard of debate beyond the merely slagging off, then you need to stop doing it yourself.

To dismiss so out of hand the sentiments of an overwhelming majority of the population is one thing. To suggest that we all need mental help is quite another. As I have previously shown there is another spin that can be put on your support for these pictures, however realistically I don't think it at all likely.

The whole issue for me centres around whether the girl is being exploited, or not. We cannot look at this kind of issue on a case by case basis, so we need to either say its ok to photograph anyone naked, or we draw a line in law. We already have laws which say that it is illegal to photograph a 13 year old not only in a sexual act, but in a sexual context. Considering that the subject of the photos is the discovery of sexuality during puberty, it seems at the very least that the art has some sexual context.

I'm not looking for Henson to be jailed. I just think that he has precipitated a new look at what we find acceptable. And many people believe that these particular photos are not.

The original complaint comes from Hetty Johnston who has a lot of experience in the realm of child welfare. I don't accept she is in a moral panic.

This is not a black and white issue and we do ourselves, and honest, open debate, a disservice to proceed as if it is.

What's dangerous is that the hysteria reaches deep into our political class, right into our PM and cabinet, and police force.

An interesting description of events appears on this article and strangely, I read it after concluding the above, which is precisely what this article shows. The idea is, that a propagandist in an NGO and perhaps the opinion writer can manipulate the power structures so easily.

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/6409

Paul>"To dismiss so out of hand the sentiments of an overwhelming majority of the population is one thing."
Paul>"And many people believe that"

Argumentum ad populum. I don't accept your claims anyway, but I had to call you on it.

Paul>"The whole issue for me centres around whether the girl is being exploited, or not."

You are ignoring the consent of the model and her parents. Leave them alone they are happy with the art.

The exploitation comes from the Iemma government and the NGO.

Paul.L: << To dismiss so out of hand the sentiments of an overwhelming majority of the population is one thing. To suggest that we all need mental help is quite another. >>

Overwhelming majority of the population? I don't think so - the last opinion poll I looked at was pretty evenly split. Do you have any evidence that an "overwhelming majority" thinks that the images are pornographic?

My suggestion regarding mental health was directed at those who are still hysterical about this issue, in the face of subsequent discussion and evidence that the images are not pornographic. Paul.L's comments on this issue have been getting steadily more reasonable, so I wouldn't include him among those who are still hysterical and therefore probably in need of professional counselling or therapy.

<< The original complaint comes from Hetty Johnston who has a lot of experience in the realm of child welfare. I don't accept she is in a moral panic. >>

You're kidding, aren't you? Hetty Johnston has made a career out of fostering the current moral panic about child sexual abuse. She may have started out well, but she's clearly gone over the top lately. Not only is she "in a moral panic", but she personifies it.

P.S. I must congratulate Paul.L for having succeeded in making several comments without using the term "soft left".

That’s an interesting article Steel. What a crying shame that that sort of organisational phenomenon couldn’t have been mounted against something that matters, instead of being totally misguidedly directed at Henson.

.
Again I express strong dismay at the lack of concern over Henson’s photographs being reproduced in newspapers, with the ‘naughty bits’ exposed, in a manner that is obviously in violation of just about everyone’s interpretation of common decency.

His photos are widely thought of as inappropriate, even within the confines of an art gallery. But the same people that express this concern seem to have no problem with them appearing in newspapers!!

This is one of the most perplexing phenomena that I have ever encountered!

Steel and Vanilla are the only respondents to have expressed any agreement with me over this.

What do you make of it CJ and Paul?