Inappropriate photos in art gallery seized by police., page 9

People keep saying it's art and tell us that we do not have the right to judge that it's porn. BS. If I can't tell, why can you tell? I'm certain that many of us who support the pictures do not know more or less than me about art, then don't you tell me what's art, what's not. You say there's no line between art and porn, then it can be porn, it can be art. But I say it's porn, and it should not be allowed.
Say, if we allow this "art" to be published. As many have said before, tomorrow, we'll have another series of photo like this, even more gruesome and sexual. And someday, porn will go everywhere, under the name of art.
What's art? I'm not a critic, nor I am a grown adult to know many things. But I at least can see that this is absolutely wrong. I don't say it's definitely porn, but it's very close. One more step, it'd be porn. So, do you think out there there are someone will take that step?
I look at those parents who say that they'd allow their children to do those pictures. I don't like them. Because of parents like you more and more paedofillia have a living, more and more pictures of young girls naked on porn site. Look at Britney, and many other young celebrities. What's happened to them, when their parents lured them into the path of fame and money too soon. You allow them to take those kinds of pictures, one picture will allow two, two will allow four, four will allow ten, ten will allow one hundred. They've shown their bodies, they've lost their innocence. Why should they care about sex and drug? Teenagers like me and them don't think like you. We don't have limit if once set free.
Bill Henson, the "artist", I don't know what's in your mind, and I may not have ingenious mind like you. You and the other artists keep saying, it's not porn, but you forgot the fact that they're 12-13 years old. 12 YEARS OLD IS NOT LIKE A 18 YEARS OLD. And I think, under 18 should not ever show their bodies to other persons publicly, i doubt that they consented it, as a girl, I wouldn't, but my mother might. If they truly liked it, still they might regret it. And even if they didn't, that's not the decision they can make or their parents can make. Say, if a girl like to have sex with a boy more than her 10 years old, and their parents consent it, therefore the boy is legitimate to have sex with her? The magnitude may be higher, but same idea. This girl does it, some other girls will think it's cool (some of my friends do). And they might not be as lucky as this girl to see Bill Henson, who still has the conscience to censor her.
I think it's a very good point that if a normal person has a picture like that of a 13 girl who only hides her private, that person will get into trouble, but why not an artist. I failed to see what's so good about these girls of who Mr Henson took pictures. And his reason does sound perverse, "the loss of innocence". With all due respect, i think it might be him who takes away that innocence. All the things have beauty inside it, even sex. Someday, a guy will say blah blah beauty about sex between amateur adolescents, and it will become art. How'll you think of that. It's true that there's beauty, but shouldn't it be better we savour those beauties by ourselves, but not from some grisly pictures. Well, sooner or later we'll see it, won't we? But privately is better than publicly, don't you think?
I'll thank all of you who may fix some of my reasons. Enlighten me, but i failed to see why should we accept those pictures, knowing that it will not give us anything other than a brief moment of fantasy, but it took away innocence, produced controversy, defamed the artist, encouraged other girls. I mean, there's a lot at stake, why bother taking those pictures only to affect people like this?