Today the Sydney Morning Herald reported that the New South Wales Government is planning to change child porn laws in the wake of the Bill Henson affair.
According to the report “artistic merit will no longer be a defence for the use of images of children deemed to be pornographic.” A person could still argue that the work has artistic merit but once the material was ruled pornographic the defence would lapse.
It seems to me that this is an over reaction to the campaign waged by Queensland campaigner Hetty Johnson. She objected to Bill Henson’s images of naked pre-teens been so successful in panicking the politicians that we now seems to have reached a point where her opinions are to into law.
The obvious question than arises is who decides whether a work of art is pornographic? Hetty Johnson? Heaven forbid! If she had her way elephants would be wearing trousers. Almost as bad is trying to impose some sort of empirical standard to what is, and what is not pornographic. Yet that’s the case ot the moment and works are rated by a panel and awarded a classification according to some arcane standard.
It is not an ideal situation, but by and large it works. But the larger issue is should be trying to impose moral standards on art? Should we be trying to return to an era when nude figures had fig leaves covering their privvies?
The SMH report quotes recommendations from the government working party include the priceless suggestion and perhaps, misprinted, that the new laws make it “easier for police to investigate child pornography and for juries and court staff to take part in trials, so that viewing evidence would be less distressing for members of juries.” What does that mean? I though that’s what they did.
Child pornography is an emotional issue but this is an emotional, not a reasoned response. It appears to be politically motivated. Child pornography is repugnant and people who view and peddle it should be jumped on from a great height. But a “one size fits all” approach puts genuine art and genuine artists in an invidious position, as it imposes severe limitations on their freedom of expression.
Bill Henson was commenting on a period in the life of adolescents when childhood is going and adulthood hasn’t quite arrived, and that’s a valid aim. Sure he used nude bodies to make his point. The images were not overtly sexy, and they certainly weren’t pornographic.
Does society as a whole have the right to judge on the basis that some people find the idea offensive? I don’t believe so. I find people who try to force their opinions on other people offensive but they have a right to do so. That’s what freedom of expression is all about.
Inglis Equine Art Prize Entry Form (470 KB)
FOR EVERY ACTION THERE’S A MASSIVE OVER REACTION
Today the Sydney Morning Herald reported that the New South Wales Government is planning to change child porn laws in the wake of the Bill Henson affair.
According to the report “artistic merit will no longer be a defence for the use of images of children deemed to be pornographic.” A person could still argue that the work has artistic merit but once the material was ruled pornographic the defence would lapse.
It seems to me that this is an over reaction to the campaign waged by Queensland campaigner Hetty Johnson. She objected to Bill Henson’s images of naked pre-teens been so successful in panicking the politicians that we now seems to have reached a point where her opinions are to into law.
The obvious question than arises is who decides whether a work of art is pornographic? Hetty Johnson? Heaven forbid! If she had her way elephants would be wearing trousers. Almost as bad is trying to impose some sort of empirical standard to what is, and what is not pornographic. Yet that’s the case ot the moment and works are rated by a panel and awarded a classification according to some arcane standard.
It is not an ideal situation, but by and large it works. But the larger issue is should be trying to impose moral standards on art? Should we be trying to return to an era when nude figures had fig leaves covering their privvies?
The SMH report quotes recommendations from the government working party include the priceless suggestion and perhaps, misprinted, that the new laws make it “easier for police to investigate child pornography and for juries and court staff to take part in trials, so that viewing evidence would be less distressing for members of juries.” What does that mean? I though that’s what they did.
Child pornography is an emotional issue but this is an emotional, not a reasoned response. It appears to be politically motivated. Child pornography is repugnant and people who view and peddle it should be jumped on from a great height. But a “one size fits all” approach puts genuine art and genuine artists in an invidious position, as it imposes severe limitations on their freedom of expression.
Bill Henson was commenting on a period in the life of adolescents when childhood is going and adulthood hasn’t quite arrived, and that’s a valid aim. Sure he used nude bodies to make his point. The images were not overtly sexy, and they certainly weren’t pornographic.
Does society as a whole have the right to judge on the basis that some people find the idea offensive? I don’t believe so. I find people who try to force their opinions on other people offensive but they have a right to do so. That’s what freedom of expression is all about.
→ Leave a comment
Posted in COMMENT
Tagged artisitic merit, Bill Henson, clild pornography laws, Hetty Johnson