I respect your opinion, even if I don't agree with it, so I hope you take the following response in that spirit.
'It is not illegal to take photographs of naked minors, or every parent in this country would be up on criminal charges.'
The crime isn't in taking the photos, and of course, many proud parents have photos of their newborns in photo albums. My own do, and I certainly don't expect them to be locked up for it. The difference between all these parents and Bill Henson is that he's exhibiting his 'art', making it available to the whole world and profiting from it. That's the part where the law steps in, depending on how the courts would interpret the legislation in relation to the facts in this case.
Nor is there a shred of evidence that Bill Henson's models have been in any way abused (they all maintain the opposite).
Asking people whether they consider themselves victims isn't always the standard by which a crime is judged. Depending on factors like the type of act that took place and the age of the parties involved, a crime could've been committed even if none of the parties directly involved complained.
The photographs are not, in fact, taken for purposes of sexual titillation. This is actually unarguable.
Stating something is 'unarguable' doesn't actually make it so, but I appreciate the attempt. And really, would anyone asked the question of whether they took photos or bought photos for 'sexual titillation' actually admit to it on record? I don't think so.
Bill Henson has not, in fact, done anything illegal.
Well, that's for the courts to decide. They may hold that his actions didn't contravene the relevant legislation, that it wasn't sufficiently 'indecent' or they didn't find the children overly 'sexualized' and that he is innocent of wrongdoing. At that point, I will agree with you, he hasn't done anything illegal, although I'll still find it morally wrong. But til then, I'll stick to my opinion that on the face of the facts, his actions were illegal and plain wrong.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-02 03:41 am (UTC)'It is not illegal to take photographs of naked minors, or every parent in this country would be up on criminal charges.'
The crime isn't in taking the photos, and of course, many proud parents have photos of their newborns in photo albums. My own do, and I certainly don't expect them to be locked up for it. The difference between all these parents and Bill Henson is that he's exhibiting his 'art', making it available to the whole world and profiting from it. That's the part where the law steps in, depending on how the courts would interpret the legislation in relation to the facts in this case.
Nor is there a shred of evidence that Bill Henson's models have been in any way abused (they all maintain the opposite).
Asking people whether they consider themselves victims isn't always the standard by which a crime is judged. Depending on factors like the type of act that took place and the age of the parties involved, a crime could've been committed even if none of the parties directly involved complained.
The photographs are not, in fact, taken for purposes of sexual titillation. This is actually unarguable.
Stating something is 'unarguable' doesn't actually make it so, but I appreciate the attempt. And really, would anyone asked the question of whether they took photos or bought photos for 'sexual titillation' actually admit to it on record? I don't think so.
Bill Henson has not, in fact, done anything illegal.
Well, that's for the courts to decide. They may hold that his actions didn't contravene the relevant legislation, that it wasn't sufficiently 'indecent' or they didn't find the children overly 'sexualized' and that he is innocent of wrongdoing. At that point, I will agree with you, he hasn't done anything illegal, although I'll still find it morally wrong. But til then, I'll stick to my opinion that on the face of the facts, his actions were illegal and plain wrong.