I agree with CJ Morgan, excepting, I find it hard to draw the subjective line between what is ‘pornographic’ and what is not.

I remember the problems Richard Neville & Co (little Aussie battlers) got into in UK with “OZ” I remember seeing a copy of it at the time and whilst Neville & Co were prosecuted and conv icted, it was bounced on appeal, partly due to misdirection of the jury by the judge.

OZ could be called “pornographic”, it was (imho) not very “artistic”.

Would I rather see Neville & co “free” to express their heart felt ramblings?

You betcha

Because I am “free” to read, perv on or ignore their output.

I further agree with Veronika, anti-vilification laws are, by definition, a puerile attempt at curtailing free speech.

“Free” speech goes too far only when there it forms the basis of a libel or slander case.

LOL CJ MORGAN,

You've cost me ten bucks. My wife said you would bring up Henson. We bet on it. I lost.

Bearing in mind that you have not answered my question, I'll answer yours with yet another question. After all I'm Jewish and that's what we do – answer questions with questions.

Is the manner in which 11 year old Olympia Nelson was displayed likely to cause her harm either now or in the future?

I do not know the answer to that question. I hope you will have some evidence to back up whatever answer you give.

I'll throw in another question.

You've defined Henson's photos as "non-pornographic." That begs the question. What is pornography? Are Henson's images "non-pornographic?"

It seems to me that many of the people who objected to Henson's photos do so precisely on the grounds that they are indeed pornographic.

And here's another question CJ MORGAN. (I'm on a roll)

Should kiddie porn manufactured using computer graphics be permitted?

The argument against kiddie porn is that it damages the children involved. But no children need be involved if computer graphics are used.

What about depictions of humans and animals having sex. How about a statue of a woman fornicating with a dog?

For what it's worth here are my views:

--Computer generated kiddie porn and depictions of bestiality should be protected by a free speech code.

--I have a feeling there is a significant potential for harm to the children Henson uses as his models. This becomes more a case of protecting children than censorship.

VERONIKA

I agree with your post.

I thought it was pretty clear from my first post that I not only agreed that Steven's examples should be protected by a free speech code, but that other controversial examples should be too. I'd include Paul's hypotheticals, and I agree with Veronika about the Victorian religious vilification laws. I also think that holocaust deniers and Islamophobes should be allowed to air their hateful views if they wish.

In response to Steven's flurry of further questions - I very much doubt that any negative consequences at all would flow to Olympia from her involvement in that teacup storm, either from her initial modelling role or from the publication of her image in Art Monthly.

Child pornography is already defined in law and is illegal. That is one of the few areas, other than libel and defamation (as Col pointed out) where I would agree with limitations on freedom of speech. Neither Bill Henson's images nor the Art Monthly cover featuring Olympia is pornographic under Australian law.

With respect to computer-generated images that purport to depict anything, I don't think that there's sufficient grounds to ban them unless some other law is contravened in their production. In the case of "kiddie porn" that consists entirely of graphic images and which hasn't involved real minors, while the images may indeed be offensive to most people I can't see why they shouldn't be available to those miserable adults who might wish to view them.

Indeed, they might even be therapeutic.

STEVEN
If the question is should these items (thus far) to 10million be SPECIFIC exclusions the practical answer is NO.

Should we preclude acts that would reasonably offend the answer is YES.
I see no reason why anyone should be able to publicly impose their lack of sensitivity on others.
e.g. the "artist" who cut up a cow on the front of the Melbourne art gallery is that art? Free expression or simply unnecessary and insensitive?
To me Burning a torah, bible or flag they’re just inanimate objects but the context is the issue.
Mohammed or Jesus as defined …
All these can be provocative, intimidatory, incitement or promote public disharmony, and shouldn’t be permitted in public or where it is a clear intention to do the same. I am thinking of club rooms full of racist, religious intolerance or white supremacy signs.
Incitement, public offence, breach of the peace, public nuisance breaches perhaps but freedom of speech? Hmmm Context

CJ MORGAN
I have no real problem with nudity (although most people would with mine:-) but it's not the intelligent responsible individuals who concern me it's that they're in the minority.

VERONIKA
It all depends on what you mean by irritate? If they harass you or reasonably impeding you,then they should be moved on. If they’re inciting or causing community disharmony then they should be arrested.
You might make a few bucks if sell picture of them being arrested….to fellow olo commenters. They would make a satisfying screen saver
;-)

This is a very interesting thread. I agree with most of the comments here and I would support most/ all of the given examples as being protectable by the principle of free speech.

The example I find the most confronting is the computer-generated depiction of 'kiddie porn' ...I suppose because I find such an interest completely repugnant and inexplicable. However, I was taken with something that CJ Morgan said; that it may be 'therapeutic'. Judging from the numbers of people who are busted in paedophilia sting operations, it must be a very common and deeply intractable perversion. Therefore, shouldn't society be looking at forms of therapy, or at least some avenue for sublimation.

PEACEFUL/VIOLENT RELIGIONS.

The simple test would be.. to follow Steven's bidding and do the following:

1/ Piss Christ painting
2/ Piss Koran sculpture
3/ Piss Buddah Sculture
4/ Piss "Mary" Painting
5/ Piss Sikh Guru painting
6/ Piss "Hindu Pantheon" painting.
7/ Piss GAY couple painting.

All the exibits will be placed on public view at the State Library with a swat team on standby.

then.. we all sit back and watch the news :)

At least we will know who is a danger and who isnt after that.

We'll probably also have an insight into the 'mindset' of each group as they are interviewed by the Media and they give their reasons for whatever they do or don't do.

Hmmm could be a most interesting chunk of PHD research.

In my opinion, it boils down to what laws we make and how far we are prepared to enforce them.