Bill Henson Nude Teen Controversy

An exhibition by the Australian photographer Bill Henson was recently raided by police in Sydney, Australia.

[Captain Porksword]

Oh great. Nude teen girls. As though we would want to see that...

[Rex]

ALERT PEOPLE!!!!!!!

Silverk54 is a wanker that puts links up to sites that try to infect your computer with bugs. This scumbag needs the full brunt of you abuse!!!!!!!

ALERT PEOPLE!!!!!!!

VIRUS INFECTED LINKS...VIRUS INFECTED LINKS.
TRIES TO INSTALL TROJANS..........

[Rex]

Particular poster (silverk54) has been doing this in other forums for years now. Has been awhile since i've seen him do his crap though.

If you value your computers hard drive then i suggest staying away from his/hers links.

[ngali]

Sneaky, bloody Russian.

[Kazzi]

Rex wrote:

Particular poster (silverk54) has been doing this in other forums for years now. Has been awhile since i've seen him do his crap though.
If you value your computers hard drive then i suggest staying away from his/hers links.

Thanks for the advice Rex.

[Gottaliv]

"It's not the things that happen in this life that matter.

It's man's OPINION of the things that happen, that matters"

Make you opinion matter and sign the Petition to 'Name and Shame Paedophiles'.

http://namethemshamethem.com/

[SUPERIOR AUSSIE]

So this is what happens when you let someone like bill henson go free.

THE NSW government will refer a magazine featuring a naked child on the cover to the Australian Classification board.

Art Monthly Australia magazine sparked fresh controversy over naked images of children by publishing an image of a six-year-old girl on its cover to protest against the recent furore over similar pictures by artist Bill Henson.

NSW police seized a number of Mr Henson's photographs featuring near-naked or naked children in recent months, but were returned to a Sydney art gallery without charges being laid.

The July edition of Art Monthly Australia published the cover image in protest at the "hysteria" over Mr Henson's work.

It also includes several provocative photos of children posing naked in adult jewellery as well as naked teenage girls.

NSW community services minister Kevin Greene said the images had been inappropriately hijacked for political mileage.

"I will refer this to the ACB tomorrow, and the community also should let (the Board) know what they think," Mr Greene told reporters in Sydney.

Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell labelled the publication a "provocative publicity stunt" and called for a review of Arts Council's funding for the magazine.

He said the average parent faced strict regulation of photographing their children at school events, and would be frustrated by the actions of the magazine.

"I understand they are in receipt of funding from the Arts Council and I assume there are procedures where that can be reviewed by Mr Rudd and his ministers," Mr O'Farrell said.

"I notice (Premier) Morris Iemma hasn't ruled them out receiving state government funds in the future.

"The public are furious about the double standards, I think taxpayers are angry when they see funds used in this way and to review it, I think, would be sensible."

[Rex]

These artsy dickheads are just trying to push the envolope like paedophiles do. The editor and those who collaborated with him/her should be charged. Were they asleep when the bill Henson fiasco was on? They are deliberately daring the law to charge them. This isn't Art this is a pro paedophilic protest. Hang the bastards, hang em all.

[right answer]

Rex wrote:

These artsy dickheads are just trying to push the envolope like paedophiles do. The editor and those who collaborated with him/her should be charged. Were they asleep when the bill Henson fiasco was on? They are deliberately daring the law to charge them. This isn't Art this is a pro paedophilic protest. Hang the bastards, hang em all.

very good comment.ten out of ten

[SUPERIOR AUSSIE]

right answer wrote:

<quoted text>very good comment.ten out of ten

I agree 10/10

[right answer]

SUPERIOR AUSSIE wrote:

<quoted text>I agree 10/10

thank you

[ngali]

5 out of 10 for me.

[SUPERIOR AUSSIE]

ngali wrote:

5 out of 10 for me.

Please explain.

[wallabyedward]

ngali wrote:

5 out of 10 for me.

ngali, this isn't an out of the blue event, it really is a deliberate attempt to flout the law under the cover of so called art.

I for one will not be flexible with this, I want anyone involved, charged.

Nobody on earth can justify this, it has to be removed, destroyed and no bloody debate entered into.

We are all old enough to know right from wrong and we're all fully aware of the consequences of our actions. Children are not. They depend on Adults to make responsible decisions for them and in their best interests, not some other attention seeking adults interest.

That's where the abuse of trust comes in.

Any adult who has agreed to allow their children to be used in this manner, has proven themselves unfit to be responsible for the care of a child.

Their children are clearly at risk, and should be removed from their care, with the parents being jailed forever, just like any other child abuser should be.

They must be made to live a life as poor as the one they leave their victims. The death penalty is too light a punishment.

I won't mind my tax dollars being spent on keeping them alive in their misery, the longer they suffer the better.

[ngali]

SUPERIOR AUSSIE wrote:

<quoted text>
Please explain.

Ooh, I can just imagine Pauline pulling her face ;)

Rex wrote:

<quoted text>
These artsy dickheads are just trying to push the envolope like paedophiles do.

Correct assertion - invalid comparison - abusive terms 1/3

Rex wrote:

<quoted text>
The editor and those who collaborated with him/her should be charged.

A fair comment as free expression. 1/1

Rex wrote:

<quoted text>
Were they asleep when the bill Henson fiasco was on?

Obviously they weren't since this is concieved of as a protest - still permissible as rhetorical device. 1/1

Rex wrote:

<quoted text>
They are deliberately daring the law to charge them.

Stating the obvious - but a fair point. 1/1

Rex wrote:

<quoted text>
This isn't Art this is a pro paedophilic protest.

"Isn't art" a debatable point 1/1 "pro paedophilic" spectacularly sensationalist, slanderous with no basis in truth 0/1

Rex wrote:

<quoted text>
Hang the bastards, hang em all.

A complete overreaction without consideration of all the facts, a willingness to disregard due process and call for capital punishment. 0/2

[Bob]

Rex wrote:

These artsy dickheads are just trying to push the envolope like paedophiles do. The editor and those who collaborated with him/her should be charged. Were they asleep when the bill Henson fiasco was on? They are deliberately daring the law to charge them. This isn't Art this is a pro paedophilic protest. Hang the bastards, hang em all.

I can see now how pedophiles are gong to tie the hands of the laws under the banner of art.

Your Honor..Theses 10.000 pictures of naked children are not pornographic..their bill Henson collections.

[PGCSmitty]

Wow,that video was hott

[wallabyedward]

ngali, you're obviously not a parent or you'd be as outraged as any other "RESPONSIBLE" parent is about this.

It's a disgrace and today on the news, that little girl is still being manipulated and exploited.

Her comments are all way beyond her years, the adult influence in them is obvious. She's been told what to say.

Life passes by too quickly as it is, let children enjoy their innocence and privacy for as long as possible.

Nothing can justify this kind of thing, and all adults who are involved, should be locked away for life.

THEY ARE PAEDOPHILES, end of story.

[---who---]

Your arguments are not , actually , pure Logic- as you quite impishly ( as even the merest perusal of the Content in your statements Demonstrates) neither point of view , but rather Opinion, without a Baseline of attributable definition to your Particular indicatives.

ngali wrote:

<quoted text>
Ooh, I can just imagine Pauline pulling her face ;)
<quoted text>
Correct assertion - invalid comparison - abusive terms 1/3
<quoted text>
A fair comment as free expression. 1/1
<quoted text>
Obviously they weren't since this is concieved of as a protest - still permissible as rhetorical device. 1/1
<quoted text>
Stating the obvious - but a fair point. 1/1
<quoted text>
"Isn't art" a debatable point 1/1 "pro paedophilic" spectacularly sensationalist, slanderous with no basis in truth 0/1
<quoted text>
A complete overreaction without consideration of all the facts, a willingness to disregard due process and call for capital punishment. 0/2

[ngali]

There's a distinction to be drawn between art and pornography.

People, once again, are flying into states of adamant denial and hysterical rhetoric, without full knowledge of the facts.