Art 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