Retraction and apology accepted. It wasn't that hard, was it?

As far as the Swedish homophobe goes, you continued to claim that he'd been convicted even after your error had been pointed out to you. Shortly after that, you changed your alias and disappeared from that discussion.

Tip: If you were to check your facts before basing a gloating rant on misinformation and then disappearing from the discussion, then you'd be much less likely to be labelled a liar.

What you repeatedly do is not a "muff up", it's called going off half-cocked. By sticking to your half-cocked guns, you turn it into a lie.

PC: "IT IS NOW ILLEGAL so officially and lawfully "Henson would be a is a sleaze and a criminal" if he does the exact same thing today."

As the legislators took pains to point out, Bill Henson's art will still not be illegal even if the new laws are passed. It doesn't qualify because it's not sexual. Read the newspaper.

Hi CJ... granted it is not hard to retract WHEN someone uses the correct terminology which is...

"it's called going off half-cocked." Hooooo bladi ray....now THAT is something I can respond to positively.

Hi Veronika.. the point made in what I heard was that nudity also would be included.

"The council is concerned that material which would otherwise constitute child pornography and be such as to cause offence to reasonable persons, should then be defensible on the potentially controversial and uncertain ground that the defendant was acting for a genuine artistic purpose," he said. (Justice Wood)

The key words here I think are "reasonable persons" where it is more the opinion of the beholder than the artist which decides the case.

Poly: Then you're reading inaccurate sources.

See: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/new-sexcrime-laws/2008/10/26/1224955838300.html

"The child nudity so controversial in Henson's work would not be affected by such a reform, [NSW Attorney General John Hatzistergos] said.

Mr Henson ignited a national debate earlier this year when his nude photographs of a young girl were removed by police from an exhibition at the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery in Paddington, in Sydney's east.

However, the police investigation collapsed and the artist was never charged.

"The important thing to remember is that artistic purpose defence did not give rise in that particular case," he said.

"In the DPP's (Director of Public Prosecutions) decision in relation to the Henson matter, nudity did not constitute something that would cause offence in a reasonable person."

As you'll remember, both ACMA and the Classification Board rated Henson's nudes as suitable for general release.

Using the "reasonable persons" test, we can deduce that Australians find nudity natural and beautiful, and know porn when they see it.

Hmm. Just read the above and worry it is not clear enough.

Henson had no need to use the artistic defence because his work was deemed NOT to be pornographic by the DPP. (And ACMA, the Classification Board and every other organisation that counted.) He therefore won't be affected by the new laws.

Porky: << The key words here I think are "reasonable persons" where it is more the opinion of the beholder than the artist which decides the case. >>

Veronika: << Using the "reasonable persons" test, we can deduce that Australians find nudity natural and beautiful, and know porn when they see it. >>

I don't think that any regular reader of this forum could confuse Porky with the legal concept of a "reasonable person". By any standards, I think many of his ideas and values would be considered extreme by ordinary "reasonable persons".