Hi Polycarp,

“…what he did was only morally reprehensible…”
That’s only a matter of the opinion, I strongly disagree because there was nothing sexual about his photographs. Not in my mind, and not in the mind of the artist, the child models or their parents.

That talented artists have been chosen to be the scapegoat means they are punished because of others’ filthy thoughts.
Pointing fingers at artists or restricting their freedom of expression won’t reduce child pornography and paedophilia but it will reinforce the idea that children’s bodies are sexual and therefore must always be kept out of sight.

At least artists *were* able to show people that we can innocently look at (semi) naked children in a natural way, in a way that doesn’t involve sexuality.
Now that possibility is gone- this law installs into our minds that it is always wrong to look at young bodies, that art is no excuse.
It's like saying that there is no line between art and pornography.
I find that quite sad.

All this law does is restrict the freedom of artistic expression and art appreciation. While this kind of art will cease to exist, child pornography will not.

Child protection was the aim for tightening these laws.
Well, think about child protection,there were no victims of artists like Henson or even Anne Geddes.
Therefore, I’d have preferred my tax money, which was spent on unnecessarily tightening these laws, instead be spend on fixing the dysfunctional family court, which creates far more danger to children and far more victims than genuine artists ever could.

I've strained my brain for something positive to say about this law. Perhaps it's positive that this law exists because it solves the problem that it can be difficult for some to draw a distinct line between art and pornography.
Now people don't have to think about that anymore, it's a no-brainer: all child nudity is declared child pornography.

Oh and another positive point is that it's a very politically correct law.
And don't we all just love political correctness?

It's not illegal yet, Porky. How typical for you to pass something off as fact when it isn't.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24551643-5007133,00.html

If the legislation is eventually passed, it will be straight-out populist opportunism from a desperate government on its last legs, a reaction to the confected moral panic brought on by the strange alliance of wowsers and child abuse hysterics who responded so willingly to the media dog whistles of a few months back.

Little wonder that Porky so gloatingly approves. It will be a sad day for NSW when political desperation results in the reintroduction of prudish censorship. What's next, I wonder?

Well said, CJ,
That's a relief!
The article you linked to clarifies the facts.
I admit that I jumped to conclusions after Polycarp's post and believed that the legislation was a sure thing.

You may have caused the next name-change, CJ.

>>It's not illegal yet, Porky. How typical for you to pass something off as fact when it isn't.<<

This is eerily reminiscent of the Swedish Pastor incident, is it not?

>>Given that in Sweden, a pastor WAS JAILED for preaching in his own Church on Romans 1 and using some colorful language in his sermon.<<

The similarities are intriguing. Both were threads that Boaz himself started, and both contain blatant inventions, designed purely from his own imagination to further his argument.

There ought to be a prize for spotting his next incarnation, because we sure as eggs aren't going to get a retraction, or an apology.

We might well get a red herring, of course.

That would be fun.

Indeed, Pericles.

Another day, another lie from Porkycrap. What else is new?

Well... on looking at the story, I have to admit... it isn't law yet.

I gained the impression from the news broadcast (didn't look at a written version) that it was pretty much a done deal.

I freely admit I was wrong "It is not yet illegal" in the strict sense.
Legislation will be put forward.. and debated...

So..there you go.. I apologise for jumping the gun on that one.

I'll seek to listen more closely next time.

Let me rephrase it. "It is morally reprehensible in the eyes of many people and they are working hard to change the legislation to reflect that outrage and cover child nudity in relation to art"

Yep...I think that's pretty much the situation now.

P.s.. a 'lie' is when you know the truth and deliberately misrepresent it, a muff up is when you think you are telling the facts but on insifficient information.
In this case..I was wrong.