Naked photos of 12/13 year old girls in art gallery seized by police.

so then, I guess you can go ahead and call Henson to set up a session for him to photograph your preteen kids naked. Make sure he puts them on the internet and in galleries all over the world. Heck, you can even buy some of his other naked preteen pics for your own collection.

sorry, duplicate post...dont know how to delete...mods can do it I guess.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by TrailGator]

reply to post by TrailGator

---

Gator, grow up, then try debating.

This is a sick world we live in. If a picture of human beings naked is ' wrong' then what does that say about us? If they had shown pictures of naked kids gunned down or blown up in a war that would be art, or news. But if there is no blood and gore then it is obscene, right? Sick.

Unless the youth were exploited and posed in sexually provocative ways, then this is ART. How can medical books get photos of the various stages of developement? Draw pictures so some cop will not feel ' strange ' and arrest the artist?

Photos are in and of themselves merely representations of the past, and without proof of sexually explicit posturing or abuse, this is ART, plain and simple. Now they are even trying to charge people for FAKE pictures that offned some people...not even real pictures but computer generated images...and they are trying to make those illegal as well! Where does it stop? When the cops are locking up people for taking pics of their kids at the tub naked...or whatever.

Nasty is in the mind of the beholder, and unless something is obviously sexually posed and that inspires lust and avarice, it is ART. There have been so many attempts at this prohibition that it is sickening; first no pics of drugs or of naked people...then no pics of whatever the ruiling phonies say they don't like...until we have NO rights left.

SHAME on the thug pigs down under for interfering with art and for making the human body, created by Goid, to be a thing of shame....maybe the cops and those all upset are hiding behind their own lustful and shameful inclinations and it makes them uneasy to see images when THEY see all nudity as sexual and evil..what a world.

Your argument sounds as if you're making the ones who stay at home watching porn becomes saint and the ones who are against porn becomes evil. Well, if it's like you said, as long as the picture is not sexually provocative, then it's alright to put those pictures in the library? Naked pictures in the medical books (though those pictures may just look like those in my Science books) are acceptable because those pictures are not shoved into public's faces. Suppose some guys felt like sticking those pictures onto your house, it'd be alright, wouldn't it?

It's funny how people try to make the world becomes "sick". Suppose we were sick, why the hell would we bother to take down those "blessed" pictures? A sick person do not turn off the TV when there's nudity on, do they now? We want to take down those pictures because we care, not because we're sick. The argument of the "sick world" is lame, if not unlogical.

ALERT ALERT INVALID ANALOGY ALERT


Alcie, step by step take us through how somebody sticking photos of naked children to my house is the same as an art gallery putting a photo of a naked child on its interior wall.

A person sticking photos on my house is

1. Tresspassing (on my private property)
2. Criminally Defacing (my valuable private property)

They could also be Criminally Trespassing (depending on jurisdiction).

A gallery putting an artwork on display inside its own building is doing neither of these things.

I just use "your house" as a little analogy. Let's just forget about all the rules about trepassing and stuffs. The point i'm trying to make is: "do you want a picture like those shoved into your face?" and "if you take those pictures home, will you hang it on the wall for everybody to see?" While many people approve pictures like those on the net or verbally, few are willing to hang those pictures around their houses, or do they?

I just use "your house" as a little analogy. Let's just forget about all the rules about trepassing and stuffs. The point i'm trying to make is: "do you want a picture like those hung at your house, shoved into your face?" and "if you take those pictures home, will you hang it on the wall for everybody to see?" While many people approve pictures like those on the net or verbally, few are willing to hang those pictures around their houses, or do they?

Thank goodness we don't have a bunch of nutbag moral majority religious christian right wing lunatic inbred cretins determining morality for the entire nation here in Australia...

Unlike the US...

What a rotten nation this would be if we did have...I'm thankful for the freedom of morality I'm allowed in Australia, which is a feature lacking in many other nations, the US at the very top of the list...

[edit on 10-7-2008 by Rilence]

[edit on 10-7-2008 by Rilence]

Six years old also like to play
There you go. I hope that will please.
Poor Mr Kevin Rudd, as if petrol issue isn't enough, waiting for him for the laptops he promised, but at this rate ...

For a resolve ......... take all these photo's of 12-16 year old nude girls/boys in question to a penitentiary with convicted pedophiles. Give the all those pictures to those pedophiles. If those pedophiles become aroused, then it obviously is not seen as just art.

Now the question to those in defense of these photos: do you really think these pedophiles are going to be in awe of the "artistic photography"?