RSSArt Just making Excuses for Child Exploitation … Australian Censorship Board Rules ‘Naked Kids’ Pics Exhibit Non-Pornographic
ART? … HARDLY!!! … UNBELIEVABLE Put any spin or excuse on it … its child exploitation!!! Censorship or freedom of speech? I would ask the question to all … why does anyone need to see a picture of a naked 12 year old girl? Other than exploitation? SORRY … IT AIN’T ART. This sadly exploits young girls and panders to pedophiles … that is the bottom line. What expression of ideas are being promoted by such pictures? Please give your comments and opinions. It is sad that such exploitation hides behind true artistic genius. So who is looking out for the children? Obviously not the Australian Censorship board who deemed that the nude pictures of children from artist Bill Henson were not pornographic, but instead were considered art. Some things are just common sense … too bad that the art would or people who oversee them do not use the same.
Photographs of nude teenagers that prompted police to close a gallery exhibit in Australia’s biggest city and launch an obscenity investigation have been cleared by censors as non-pornographic. The ruling on leading Australian photographer Bill Henson’s portraits came two weeks after police shut his latest exhibition in Sydney just before opening night and confiscated dozens of photographs of naked adolescent boys and girls to investigate whether they violated obscenity laws. A spokeswoman for Australia’s Classification Board said six photos had been referred to them. The board gave five of them a G rating, and one a PG. The PG photo – of a 13-year-old girl – was used on the cover of the invitation to the exhibit. It was believed to have caused the initial complaints that led to the police shutdown of the exhibit and the investigation.
However, the Australian Censorship board ruled as follows:
The image “creates a viewing impact that is mild and justified by context … and is not sexualized to any degree,” the board found.
The pictures had initially come under fire due to the fact that they were images of 12 and 13 year old girls naked. (Warning: picture might not be suitable for all ages or work) The show was shut down before it was scheduled to open. I debated on whether to actually put a pic up and finally found one that was censored. The picture below of a 12 year old girl was actually found to be not sexualized. We will keep it below the fold for obvious reasons.
You decide whether such pics (Warning) are wrong and should be considered pornographic. Some things are wrong … because you just know they are.
This pic is actually censored. The one at the gallery was totally nude.
Here is my philosophy on whether this is free speech or porn. What is the motivation of why we would need to see this photo? Why do we need to see a 12 year old girl completely naked? Why would anyone want to see this? There really is no reason.
Sydney nude art inquiry dropped
Posted June 6, 2008 by Scared Monkeys Bizarre, Child Welfare, Crime, Sex Offender, World, WTF | 11 comments |
If you liked this post, you may also like these:
Comments
11 Responses to “Art Just making Excuses for Child Exploitation … Australian Censorship Board Rules ‘Naked Kids’ Pics Exhibit Non-Pornographic”
Leave a Reply
I have to wonder if this had occurred on “this side of pond” if the NEA would have pitched using my tax dollars?
At least the Australian government isn’t supplying punch and cupcakes like the National Endowment for the Arts might have here in the US.
Brace yourselves for a healthy dose of this type of trash here in the USA if a liberal democrat takes the White House in November.
I think I’m going to be sick! For once, I’m at a loss for words. (My husband will be delighted.)
It is truly astounding what child exploitation hides behind. First we had religion and the Texas Polygamy sect and now art.
R
Obviously this art is meant to be seductive, guess someones trying to capitalize on feeding the pediphilia mentality.
I think a lot of places do not think of the human body the same way we do. There is one clothing site I can think of that has young teen age models that are topless. I dont even want to post the name of it because I feel it is wrong.
LOL
A NEW GIRL!!
HOW SICKENING THAT THEY EXPLOIT YOUNG GIRLS TO MAKE LOTS OF MONEY…
WHAT ELSE CAN I SAY…
To me it is not just the art that is questionable, how about the act of these young girls posing? Does the posing stimulate them, numb them sexually, or defuse them in anyway? I think so, something is going on within them. That the act is not free time with the family experiences and obvious, then it is closer enough to expoltation to warrant protecting the child.
Miss Katie—I know, right?? There isn’t really much else to say about explotation like this…I agree!
Ewwww! =(
The assumption everyone seems to be making is that being nude is the same as being sexual. That idea is absolute nonsense. For example, is it sexual if you undress for a doctor’s exam or to take a shower? Of course not. Can we agree on that–being nude does not mean being sexual?
I’m not saying this exhibit is not exploitation, I have not seen the photos so I can’t judge. But I am saying it is possible to present the human body (at any age) in a non-sexual way.
you were hot
Not all cultures are the same as ours. For example, if this were a photo of a boy topless, no1 would be saying anything about it. In most of Europe, the breasts are not considered sexual. Girls & women walk around the beach & even other places when the weather is hot, without a top. It is our perception of sexuality that sexualizes these photos.
Why would you take a picture of a boy with only shorts on? Not because you want him to only have shorts on. It depends on the intent. If he is posing with his shorts on even, but in a sexual provocative pose, that is pornography. But few would recognize this. But, take the same boy, put him on a beach with his family, & it is totally innocent. It’s the context of the picture. Now, make him a girl, still topless, & many would shout pornography. But she is just @ the beach with her family, the way many girls do in Europe. Topless. So it is innocent. But there are always some, mostly outside of Europe, that don’t see it that way. Pity.
Now if the girl pictured above were a boy, it would be no problem. So when looking @ a picture of a naked child, it’s not whether or not you can see anything, but what you see. If the picture were clothed, then it would be fine. Then it should be fine naked too. If the child is doing something inappropriate, nude or not, that is what defines porn. Get a clue people.
______________
SM: Um Mathew, It might be you who needs to get a clue. You might actually want to read the article and post rather than you commenting from no point of reference.
I hate to break it to you with your statement, “ut she is just @ the beach with her family, the way many girls do in Europe. Topless. So it is innocent. But there are always some, mostly outside of Europe, that don’t see it that way. Pity.”
It was Great Britain newspaper that said this breaking GB law. Last time I checked England was part of Europe, no?
R