kevin m
Veteran
There's a thread about this on the DWF (Digital Wedding Forum) too, and I wrote this over there:
A person may fairly say any number of things about these photographs: they make me uncomfortable; they're in bad taste; I'm concerned the children were exploited, etc.. It is not correct to say that they are pornography, however, particularly if one thinks there are legal issues at play. These pictures in no way meet the legal threshold of "pornography."
That's why we have laws, thankfully, to avoid the often unreasonable pull of emotion in cases like this.
A person may fairly say any number of things about these photographs: they make me uncomfortable; they're in bad taste; I'm concerned the children were exploited, etc.. It is not correct to say that they are pornography, however, particularly if one thinks there are legal issues at play. These pictures in no way meet the legal threshold of "pornography."
That's why we have laws, thankfully, to avoid the often unreasonable pull of emotion in cases like this.
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
But this has nothing to do with random candid photography of children ... we've been down that track before. It's a completely different issue and involves the rights of the photographer to interpret his vision and the rights of the gallery to display his work where people will view it by choice if they so choose!
Last edited:
gertf
Established
Hey Tim,
Don't forget books.
MEDIA RELEASE
The Peaceful Pill Handbook Refused Classification upon review
The full 7-member board of the Classification Review Board has determined, in a unanimous decision,
that the publication, The Peaceful Pill Handbook written by Dr Philip Nitschke and Dr Fiona Stewart,
is classified Refused Classification (RC).
Refused Classification (RC) means that the publication is immediately banned throughout Australia. It
cannot be sold, displayed or imported into the country. A publication is refused classification if it
exceeds the guidelines for the Category 1 – Restricted or Category 2 – Restricted classifications. Copies
of the publication must be removed from shelves immediately.
The Classification Review Board determined that The Peaceful Pill Handbook warrants Refused
Classification (RC) because it instructs in the crime of the manufacture of barbiturates. Further, a
majority of the Review Board determined that it also instructs in the crimes of the possession and
importation of barbiturates and in offences under Coroners legislation in all States and Territories.
“The handbook gives detailed, although flawed and incomplete, instruction in the manufacture of a
barbiturate, which the book states is the closest substance to a ‘peaceful pill,’” said Classification
Review Board Convenor, Maureen Shelley.
The Classification Review Board convened today in response to an application from the Australian
Attorney-General and an application from the Right to Life Association (NSW) to review the Category
1 – Restricted classification of The Peaceful Pill Handbook made by the Classification Board on 18
December 2006.
In reviewing the classification, the Classification Review Board worked within the framework of the
National Classification Scheme, applying the provisions of the Classification (Publications, Films and
Computer Games) Act 1995, the National Classification Code and the Guidelines for the Classification of Publications.
The full 7-member board of the Classification Review Board has determined, in a unanimous decision,
that the publication, The Peaceful Pill Handbook written by Dr Philip Nitschke and Dr Fiona Stewart,
is classified Refused Classification (RC).
Refused Classification (RC) means that the publication is immediately banned throughout Australia. It
cannot be sold, displayed or imported into the country. A publication is refused classification if it
exceeds the guidelines for the Category 1 – Restricted or Category 2 – Restricted classifications. Copies
of the publication must be removed from shelves immediately.
The Classification Review Board determined that The Peaceful Pill Handbook warrants Refused
Classification (RC) because it instructs in the crime of the manufacture of barbiturates. Further, a
majority of the Review Board determined that it also instructs in the crimes of the possession and
importation of barbiturates and in offences under Coroners legislation in all States and Territories.
“The handbook gives detailed, although flawed and incomplete, instruction in the manufacture of a
barbiturate, which the book states is the closest substance to a ‘peaceful pill,’” said Classification
Review Board Convenor, Maureen Shelley.
The Classification Review Board convened today in response to an application from the Australian
Attorney-General and an application from the Right to Life Association (NSW) to review the Category
1 – Restricted classification of The Peaceful Pill Handbook made by the Classification Board on 18
December 2006.
In reviewing the classification, the Classification Review Board worked within the framework of the
National Classification Scheme, applying the provisions of the Classification (Publications, Films and
Computer Games) Act 1995, the National Classification Code and the Guidelines for the Classification of Publications.
Sparrow
Veteran
I would suggest a father, or mother for that matter, is the last person who should decide what is proper.
I’m pretty sure we all have an intolerant opinion when to comes to our own kids do you think it’s a good idea to form rules on that basis?
lemos
Established
I think they are the first person, and the second is the photographer. The child should not be able to decide until it is old enough to know better.
I think the laws should be there to protect the children from their parents' bad decisions, and not to limit them, or the photographers.
But I reckon this is always going to be a very subjective and sensitive matter.
I think the laws should be there to protect the children from their parents' bad decisions, and not to limit them, or the photographers.
But I reckon this is always going to be a very subjective and sensitive matter.
csaunders
f8 and be there.
Tim,
This is a photography forum, so I don't want to get into a debate about it here, but I stand by my initial argument that the board is there for classification and not censorship. Sure, they censor/ban some material but such a small amount as to be negligable. That is not their brief.
You're under false impressions if you think that any material (movie or book) can be released in the U.S. (as you keep suggesting) without being classified.
If you think that this is censorship, then open your eyes to rest of the world... All the X-rated porn you want is only a Google away...
Sparrow
Veteran
Here in the UK there is no law of privacy out doors and no need to gain consent regardless of the age of the subject because that’s what the majority think proper.
If the nations parents were to be asked I’m fairly sure their idea of what should be allowed would be less liberal (the European liberal not the US one) and a bad law would be the result.
Odd when you consider the vast majority of child abuse and exploitation is committed by a close family member, all these attacks on artists seem to me to be missing the point in a spectacular fashion.
I thought we had seen-off the Lord Longfords and Mary Whitehouses of this wourld years ago but we seem to be getting another crop of repressed narrow-minded bigots of late
Ade-oh
Well-known
Having a constitutional monarchy doesn't preclude Australia from having a bill of rights in any way. Here in the UK, we've managed a number of rights based acts over the years, from Magna Carta, via the Bill of Rights of 1689, up to the Human Rights Act of 1999. As we've seen, people like Sturges, Mann and Mapplethorpe have had their legal difficulties in the US; others have had similar problems in other jurisdictions. Freedom of expression is a precious right but it will always be tempered by social custom or the law in one way or another.
The problem is that one person's innocent nude photograph of a child is another's weird masturbatory fetish. In my opinion, Jock Sturges produces beautiful art which I would be happy to hang on my walls, if I could afford it, but David Hamilton, for example, comes close to producing kiddie porn. Where do you draw the line? I'm not very familiar with Henson's work but from what I've seen of it, it is intended to be somewhat sexually provocative in a way that Sturges's is not. It isn't porn clearly, but it is pushing at the boundaries of what mainstream 'society' considers acceptable.
Spider67
Well-known
"On the other hand, if you were the father, and had a fellow photographer that asked you to shoot some photos of your children, would you be bothered?"
Due to the hysteria you could ask a parent if it would be OK to photograph and still get a brush off, suspicious looks AND the police called. Nice pic of your kid Stewart. The next step would be (if it hasn´t already happened) that Mini-labs would call the police if they saw something like that. Photographers like Weston made among other nudes also nudes of children. For years no one believed children who claimed to have been abused and molested. Now to make good for that everything witha child on it can be made a proof.....shouldn´t we evaluate how much that helped?
Due to the hysteria you could ask a parent if it would be OK to photograph and still get a brush off, suspicious looks AND the police called. Nice pic of your kid Stewart. The next step would be (if it hasn´t already happened) that Mini-labs would call the police if they saw something like that. Photographers like Weston made among other nudes also nudes of children. For years no one believed children who claimed to have been abused and molested. Now to make good for that everything witha child on it can be made a proof.....shouldn´t we evaluate how much that helped?
Last edited:
lemos
Established
Nh3
Well-known
So, where are his pictures?
funkaoshi
Well-known
This is being discussed on MetaFilter as well. There are links to some of his work there.
Sparrow
Veteran
I thought obscenity was easy, that likely to corrupt or deprave or “that which one would not want your wife or servants to see” if I recall the quote
Ade-oh
Well-known
It's easy enough to write down a definition, less easy to apply it - as the Lady Chatterley trial proved.
I'm basically a libertarian: I have no problems with anything that consenting adults want to do to each other, whether it's photographed or not etc etc. The trouble is that children and other vulnerable people do need protection, sometimes from strangers, sometimes from their families and sometimes from themselves. Artists who are pushing at the boundaries of what society deems acceptable are inevitably going to have to face problems like this. I don't envy them.
Sparrow
Veteran
I should have added a <irony> emoticon, sorry
I agree children need help to assimilate this world I just don’t see the point of prosecuting an artist who is clearly not intending to corrupt anybody, and then letting our kids onto the internet and hoping they don’t find the Safe Search settings and the mountain of true pornography that’s there out of reach of the law
I truly believe the only way I can keep my kids safe is not to censor, to give them free access to everything and to honestly explain what they find there; anything else is a deceit by omission, not a role I want cast myself in as they grow up
You could argue his photos are in bad taste but would you claim it was anywhere near “corrupt or deprave”? I just did a search and I couldn’t find the pics in question and didn’t see anything distasteful in his other stuff
felix5616
Established
While i agree that there is an over reaction to some types of artistic displays, does the fact that a 'famous' artist produces and displays images make them any more legitimate. Isn't it possible that some images are intentionally exploitive and sometimes prudent that some images generate outgage. Should it be that anyone can exhibit anything for their own self interest and not expect to be confronted. Artist do occassionally cross the line, intentionally i might add, to get a response, then act shocked that anyone should question their judgement.
Sparrow
Veteran
Which line? The one drawn by this copper in Australia, or one drawn by the religious police in Saudi Arabia?
John Rountree
Nothing is what I want
A couple hundred years ago, you Brits had the good sense to facilitate the removal of the Puritans from your shores. Sailing from Plymouth England to Plymouth Rock (a coincidence?) in America in the name of "religous tolerance." Thanks to those bigoted zealots we can now ask the question: Why is it that in Europe, under your clothes you are nude, and in the US, under your clothes you are dirty?
40oz
...
exactly my thoughts. I mean, is anyone seriously surprised that nude photos of teenaged girls are causing anyone distress? And can anyone seriously claim that nude photos of teenaged girls are anything more than an opportunity to see, well, nude teenaged girls? I'm not saying they should or shouldn't be taken, but Mr. Henson is honestly no different than any other person taking pictures of naked women - they orchestrate circumstances to get a girl naked in front of a camera. The idea that this photographer is somehow different than that one because of the lighting or focus is ludicrous to me. Either Henson is a total moron for not realizing some people might have a problem with what he is doing, or he fully intends people to have a problem with it. I'm thinking the latter.
Do I really have to add the caveat that I don't see anything wrong with nude photos of teenaged girls as long as photos of naked kids and naked adults are pretty much OK?