My feelings tell me that the question has more to do with the subject of the images than anything else. It is my view as someone who works with victims of trauma that the 12 year old girl at the center of the works is not of a developmental level to have full comprehension about what it is she is engaging in. There is no way she can have complete understanding about the impact and potential use of the images, especially when they are transmitted across the freedoms of digital communication networks
( ... )
A very interesting viewpoint, and one I haven't seen elsewhere so far.
Overall, I'm against censorship, but there must be a line drawn somewhere. It's beyond me just where that line should be, and it varies from person to person and incident to incident anyhow, I suspect.
my views are not a simple conservative knee-jerk "won't someone think of the children" argument
Indeed. They are a nuanced, considered "won't someone think of the children" argument. I'm not sure that makes them correct, however.
I have heard very few voices saying taking the photographs may be wrong because of the psychological impact on the subject.
You can't have read the mainstream press on the issue, then. That seems to be the primary focus of the "pro-censorship" camp.
You cannot tell me that she is of a level of understanding to fully realize the impact of the images.
Indeed, but I expect that society will ensure-by painstakingly defining for her what is good and what is evil, such that it becomes clear to her that evil has indeed been done-that one day, she's fully traumatised by it.
No one has discussed her freedom to not be sexualized, to not have her image in the hands of inappropriate users.Do you think there aren't paedophiles tossing off to the images in the Target kiddiewear catalogues every day? Where are the
( ... )
You cannot tell me that she is of a level of understanding to fully realize the impact of the images.
Surely your studies in developmental psychology indicate that any post-pubescent person has the capacity to engage in adult cognitive reasoning? That is certainly what I have read from Piaget, Kohlberg and Gilligan (et al)
As for people who have been photographed in the past:
any post-pubescent person has the capacity to engage in adult cognitive reasoning
Is that really the issue, though? Would this be any different is the subjects were, say, eight or nine? In any case, how many people are likely to imagine hypothetical scenarios matching what's happened prior to giving consent? ("Hmm. What if one day these photographs were to be at the centre of a nation-wide controversy where the Prime Minister implied that I'd been exploited for paedophilic pornography? How would I feel if that were to happen?")
Would this be any different is the subjects were, say, eight or nine?
Legally, no, there isn't a difference. IANAL, but assumpting that Henson isn't done for kiddie porn (which seems to be where it's heading) parental consent is all that is required.
In terms of cognitive ability, yes there is a significant difference. The difference between a person's cognitive capacity to engage in concrete operations and formal operations and the moral implications that follow is significant.
how many people are likely to imagine hypothetical scenarios matching what's happened prior to giving consent?
Not many, regardless of their adult maturity or lack thereof. Hence my use of the word 'capacity', rather than actuality.
Not many, regardless of their adult maturity or lack thereof. Hence my use of the word 'capacity', rather than actuality.
Indeed. So, surely it matters little whether the subject is capable, if they are vanishingly unlikely to actually comprehend the situation. Still, I guess The Law needs to draw its arbitrary line somewhere, lest its entire basis in individual blame be called into question.
*nods* This is true; the requisite rule of a single age is grossly unrealistic but is very efficient. I am often of the opinion that "age of majority" rights (including voting rights etc) should be a matter of licensing/assessment (like a drivers license).
Reply
Overall, I'm against censorship, but there must be a line drawn somewhere. It's beyond me just where that line should be, and it varies from person to person and incident to incident anyhow, I suspect.
Reply
Indeed. They are a nuanced, considered "won't someone think of the children" argument. I'm not sure that makes them correct, however.
I have heard very few voices saying taking the photographs may be wrong because of the psychological impact on the subject.
You can't have read the mainstream press on the issue, then. That seems to be the primary focus of the "pro-censorship" camp.
You cannot tell me that she is of a level of understanding to fully realize the impact of the images.
Indeed, but I expect that society will ensure-by painstakingly defining for her what is good and what is evil, such that it becomes clear to her that evil has indeed been done-that one day, she's fully traumatised by it.
No one has discussed her freedom to not be sexualized, to not have her image in the hands of inappropriate users.Do you think there aren't paedophiles tossing off to the images in the Target kiddiewear catalogues every day? Where are the ( ... )
Reply
Surely your studies in developmental psychology indicate that any post-pubescent person has the capacity to engage in adult cognitive reasoning? That is certainly what I have read from Piaget, Kohlberg and Gilligan (et al)
As for people who have been photographed in the past:
"'I never felt uncomfortable. Bill made you feel incredibly safe and calm'"
http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2008/05/25/1211653848660.html
Reply
Elenberg was photographed fully clothed, however.
Reply
Reply
Is that really the issue, though? Would this be any different is the subjects were, say, eight or nine? In any case, how many people are likely to imagine hypothetical scenarios matching what's happened prior to giving consent? ("Hmm. What if one day these photographs were to be at the centre of a nation-wide controversy where the Prime Minister implied that I'd been exploited for paedophilic pornography? How would I feel if that were to happen?")
Reply
Legally, no, there isn't a difference. IANAL, but assumpting that Henson isn't done for kiddie porn (which seems to be where it's heading) parental consent is all that is required.
In terms of cognitive ability, yes there is a significant difference. The difference between a person's cognitive capacity to engage in concrete operations and formal operations and the moral implications that follow is significant.
how many people are likely to imagine hypothetical scenarios matching what's happened prior to giving consent?
Not many, regardless of their adult maturity or lack thereof. Hence my use of the word 'capacity', rather than actuality.
Reply
Indeed. So, surely it matters little whether the subject is capable, if they are vanishingly unlikely to actually comprehend the situation. Still, I guess The Law needs to draw its arbitrary line somewhere, lest its entire basis in individual blame be called into question.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment