Outcry over "artistic" nude photos of 13 year old girls

[beso]

Australian photographer Bill Henson took nude photos of 12 and 13 year old girls. They were displayed as part of an exhibition but a huge public outcry has ensued and the photos have been withdrawn. The photos were included an online gallery website that has also been taken down.

Proponents say the photos are art not pornography and the outcry is unjustified because Henson is a reputable photographic artist. They claim it amounts to censorship.

Police say charges of child sexual exploitation will be laid but have not said who will will face charges. I expect the photographer, gallery, website author and parents could potentially be charged.

What do you think?

[B00]

Quite right too!

If someone had pictures of naked 12 anf 13 year old children on their computer they'd be arrested- why does an someone who's claming it's for art think they are above the law?

[Ethel]

Boo - no they wouldn't. Many National Geographic magazines, nudist magazines and so on have photos of naked children and young people - they are not in the least pornographic.

Nudity is not pornographic.

Without seeing the pictures it is impossible to comment

[B00]

You might have a point Ethel, suppose I never thought of that. However...just supposing Mr Boo (sorry love!) had pictures of 12 year old childen who were naked on his computer and the police were notified- are you saying it wouldn't be investigated?

[Postdog]

Nudity is not pornographic, but to a paedophile. a naked child is still a naked child.

[gina32]

Ethel would you allow an "artist" to take photos of your 12 -13 year old daughter, cos im sure i wouldnt, pheodophiles dont need any encouragement and some would look on this as such

[gina32]

sorry i should have said take nude photos

[B00]

Ethel's made me think now on this one...

I personally think there's nothing more beautiful than a naked chubby baby- would that make me icky if I had a picture of one saved on my PC?

[gina32]

a naked chubby baby is a bit different to a 13 year old girl/ young lady isnt it

[Lisa1983]

A naked chubby baby certainly is different to a 13 year old girl, some 13 year olds have fully developed figures and are stunning looking for being so young. I don't agree with it. I don't think he meant it in a sordid way though but he should of thought it through carefully before submitting the photographs.

[figure]

I agree with Boo and I think that's a perverted thing to do. I can understand the artistry in drawing naked people but not this. In my opinion it's lude and lascivious. How any of you parents would allow your very young teenagers to pose nude?

[Ethel]

A large proportion of paedophiles would not be 'attracted' to a developed 13 year old - their interests lie in pre-pubescent undeveloped children and even babies.

One of the most poignant and striking images of the past 30 years showed a naked young girl - and it was splashed all over the front pages of the newspapers and has been published many times since. I defy anyone to call it pornographic. You can view it here:
http://tinyurl.com/5qzn6a

As I said - without seeing the pics I cannot comment on this particular case.

[Postdog]

I take your point on that last comment Ethel, but what are saying - that someone who finds a naked 13 year old attractive is NOT a paedo?

They are still under age, and what's more, are a target of predators (for instance, all this talk of grooming etc) so to anyone who may be that way inclined, a picture of a naked 13 year old - even artistic - is still inflammotory.

[China Doll]

I absolutely agree with Ethel, perhaps if someone can provide a link to the photos that would be useful.

Some of the most beautiful pieces of art in the past have been nudes both male and female and a variety of ages. Indeed one of my favourite photos is an aerial shot of a nudist beach. It's posed but they're all in a big group together and unless you get up close you can't tell what it is. (Well not in the cut out version from a magazine I have at any rate).

The human form naked is nothing to be worried about (well unless it's mine) and I'd like to see the photos first before I pass judgement.

[beso]

I can't find any links but the one photo shown on the news depicted a highlighted naked girl standing against a dark background. I guess she was barely prepubescent or in early puberty but it was hard to say with the censoring marks.

The breasts were censored with a black strip. She had her hands together coving part of her pubic region but further censorsip strips were added.

The image was displayed briefly but I felt it had very little artistic merit. Just a stark front on standing pose lacking in any context whatsoever.

[China Doll]

I really would need to see the picture beso, from what you've just described to me I see no reason for an outcry at all but that's just me.

I'll endeavour to have a look round the net later on to see what I can come up with by way of links but I'm knee deep in application forms at the moment. I do enjoy discussions like this but I much prefer when we all get to see the image and take our judgements from there.

[34years]

superimpose an fa cup in front of manchester city team that should get him in all the papers

[jno]

who was that female newsreader who was in trouble for taking photos of her baby in the bath? Anyway, this is overreaction. Nudity isn't necessarily sexual at all, let alone pornographic. I'd have no bother allowing my children to be photographed - as long as they consented (and of course they might not). And theres a difference between a computer - private - and an art gallery - public - as well, I suspect, as in the sort of people who frequent them. It seems weird that in a world full of bestiality websites the police are chasing gallery owners.

I'm saying all this without seeing the photos, of course. But if the girls and their parents are happy with them, I don't see why anyone else should get in a lather.

[Abdulmajid]

MMMmmmmmm. As an expert of English Sexual Offences law, this is a very difficult situation.

ANYTHING can be sexual to the viewer, as in other acts.

For example there has been a recent case where a voyeur filmed men in a public swimming pool shower but because only the chest was shown, they were deemed non-sexual as the act only mentions female chests.

But concerning children the situation is so bad it is an offence to have even "pseudo photos of children". These include even cartoons but more obviously childrens faces put on adults bodies in both sexual nudity and non-sexual nudity.

From the limited information I would say that if this happens in England, an offence of being in possession of child pornography would stand. All it will take is just one person to be aroused by the photo to make them pornographic.

Interesting and personally I think this photographer chap should have acid thrown in to his face whilst having his testicles nailed to a rusty sheet of metal whilst being fed raw chicken.