I think whoever is in charge of the NSW police action should be locked up and never allowed to inflict harm and ridicule on society again. I'd expect such action from the Middle East or a small-town sheriff in the deep South of the USA, not Australia.
The whole argument about whether it's "art" should be irrelevant. Pictures containing nudity do not equal pornography and are not, in themselves, illegal. "Crass insensitivity" occurs every day all over the world and simply is what it is, but is not illegal.
The internet is now a gallery, but so what? The fact that an image can be misused is not an excuse to ban its creation. Where do you draw the line? Any image can be misused. A face-only image can have a nude body edited onto it.
All harm that has occurred to the subject of the photos is directly caused by the negative comments from some portions of the media, the NSW police and the Prime Minister. They all owe her, and the Australian public, a big apology. The subject deserves significant compensation too. I'd like to see the PM charged with slander.
Pictures containing nudity do not equal pornography and are not, in themselves, illegal.
While true, this merely leads people who don't understand the difference to extend their definitions of "pornography" through the ill-defined term "sexualisation". And remember, we're talking about more than just the waist-up topless thirteen-year-old; some of the less well-publicised images originally in the exhibition are arguably more sexual in nature (cf. that archive.org link, above).
The internet is now a gallery, but so what?
Anyone can view it with a casual click-through, so Art is no longer simply the domain of "Art lovers".
The fact that an image can be misused is not an excuse to ban its creation.
Ah, but this is about public display, not about creation. If nobody ever saw these photos, it would be very hard for anyone to credit the notion that they are dangerous.
All harm that has occurred to the subject of the photos is directly caused by the negative comments from some portions of the media, the NSW police and the Prime Minister.
And large swathes of the general public, who've reacted on the basis of the opinions that they have been vouchsafed by years and years of paedophile hype (or, more accurately, risk-assessment-neutral reportage). And you can't charge them.
Okay, I'll rephrase: The fact that an image can be misused is not an excuse to ban its public display.
I don't believe that the opinions, usually anonymous anyhow, of the small (but highly vocal) minority of the public cause significant harm, so it doesn't matter that they can't be charged. Basically, nobody cares. My opinion or yours is unlikely to have any effect on any of the participants in the exhibition either. The public comments to the media by the PM and the NSW police are a different matter altogether.
I wouldn't be surprised if the PM's comments were deemed to make a fair trial impossible and get the whole thing thrown out anyhow. Whichever side he's on, I'd suggest that the PM making a big deal of his view of a matter which is the subject of a criminal action is a bad idea.
The whole argument about whether it's "art" should be irrelevant. Pictures containing nudity do not equal pornography and are not, in themselves, illegal. "Crass insensitivity" occurs every day all over the world and simply is what it is, but is not illegal.
The internet is now a gallery, but so what? The fact that an image can be misused is not an excuse to ban its creation. Where do you draw the line? Any image can be misused. A face-only image can have a nude body edited onto it.
All harm that has occurred to the subject of the photos is directly caused by the negative comments from some portions of the media, the NSW police and the Prime Minister. They all owe her, and the Australian public, a big apology. The subject deserves significant compensation too. I'd like to see the PM charged with slander.
Reply
While true, this merely leads people who don't understand the difference to extend their definitions of "pornography" through the ill-defined term "sexualisation". And remember, we're talking about more than just the waist-up topless thirteen-year-old; some of the less well-publicised images originally in the exhibition are arguably more sexual in nature (cf. that archive.org link, above).
The internet is now a gallery, but so what?
Anyone can view it with a casual click-through, so Art is no longer simply the domain of "Art lovers".
The fact that an image can be misused is not an excuse to ban its creation.
Ah, but this is about public display, not about creation. If nobody ever saw these photos, it would be very hard for anyone to credit the notion that they are dangerous.
All harm that has occurred to the subject of the photos is directly caused by the negative comments from some portions of the media, the NSW police and the Prime Minister.
And large swathes of the general public, who've reacted on the basis of the opinions that they have been vouchsafed by years and years of paedophile hype (or, more accurately, risk-assessment-neutral reportage). And you can't charge them.
Reply
I don't believe that the opinions, usually anonymous anyhow, of the small (but highly vocal) minority of the public cause significant harm, so it doesn't matter that they can't be charged. Basically, nobody cares. My opinion or yours is unlikely to have any effect on any of the participants in the exhibition either. The public comments to the media by the PM and the NSW police are a different matter altogether.
I wouldn't be surprised if the PM's comments were deemed to make a fair trial impossible and get the whole thing thrown out anyhow. Whichever side he's on, I'd suggest that the PM making a big deal of his view of a matter which is the subject of a criminal action is a bad idea.
Reply
Leave a comment