Sanity has prevailed and a photograph of two toddlers pulled from an exhibition at The Subiaco Library due to fears of comparisons to Bill Henson's controversial nude picture of a teen will be reinstated.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/arts/library-exhibition-gets-knickers-in-twist/2009/01/28/1232818513023.html

But I wonder how this man who was arrested for his amateur photography in Darling Harbour feels.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/paddling-toddler-photos-porn/2008/12/01/1227979877673.html

Would he be in this position if he was

a) An Artist
b) Female
c) Not Homeless

And what order of importance do these three factors have in relation to candid amateur photography of children in the eyes of the law?

If I were to allow my children to be in public in a partial/full state of undress, I would expect people would be able to see them, and perhaps photograph them. For the life of me I cannot see how my children could be hurt by this. Even if I imagine what the photos may be used for by a sick mind, I don't see how that could affect my children.

How can parents be happy for the world to see their children in natures glory, but then think it's somehow perverse if someone wants to capture it on film? Will I be locked up if someone ever finds any pictures I may have of my kids in the bath making soap-sud beards?

It takes a sick mind to look at young boys and girls as sexual objects. It takes a sicker mind to photograph young boys and girls in provocative positions and call it art. Of course no art lovers have sick minds! If you are a 'respected' artist you are a protected species. This is not unlike some judges and catholic priests in the past.

You do however make a valid point. Many woman are happy to walk around the beach topless or with next to nothing on and then complain that someone is looking at them. They are the first to scream when beach inspectors tell them to cover up and the first to scream if someone photographs them. Welcome to the world of double standards.

Wow, you’ve found a couple of doozies Houellebecq.

Both examples are beyond outrageous.

Even the slightest thought of the photo of two children being in any way inappropriate to hang in an exhibition or display anywhere in public is just sick.

Charging the homeless man with possessing child pornography entirely in relation to photos of children taken in a public place is just as sick.

Who in a million years would have thought that anyone could have deemed the first photo to be in any way controversial?

Who in a million years would have thought that the police would ever charge anyone with the possession of pornography, or be able to do so, for the possession of completely non-pornographic images of children?

Whackos, the lot of em!

Yes it is quite ridiculous and an ill-thought out knee jerk reaction. In no way can these photos be compared to the Henson exhibition.

These children are not sexually posed and most parents would have innocent photos like these in their photo albums.

I agree Houellebecq. It's called a 'moral panic'.

Good thread topic Houellebecq, excellent web references.

I have used a photo image of my daughters, when they were aged around 5 and 2, as a screen saver on one of my PCs for years. I do so because it is a fine picture which captures the essence of kids enjoying a summer vacation by the sea.

I am with the "I will assume most people are ethical, honest and normal, until proved otherwise" Brigade

rather than the

"If you are male and over the age of 15, You are a Pedophile, unless you can prove otherwise and we also have doubts about most of the women too" bunch of twisted tossers.

Children have figured significantly in Art since cave painting was “nouveau” and since most of us love our kids we tend to take pictures of them and seek to look at them from time to time.

There has developed a hypersensitivity to child images, possibly due to the perverse interests of a tiny, tiny minority.

Looking at pictures of children does not automatically imply anyone has an unnatural interest in them.

I wholly agree with Ludwig’s apt summation “Both examples are beyond outrageous. Even the slightest thought of the photo of two children being in any way inappropriate to hang in an exhibition or display anywhere in public is just sick.”

Public standards are not and should never be based on the extreme responses of a tiny minority but on the values of the vast majority and our laws are there to reflect those public standards.

To be honest the ones who need locking up are the hypersensitive (and often self appointed) members of the “Committee for Public Safety” (and they have a history of all being as mad as cut snakes ever since Robespierre got the chop).