Bill Henson aftermath

[Emerana]

I agree that random photos of children are most likely not used for any negative or scary purpose.

But as a mom I have to ask
why do you want a photo of my kids?
what are you doing with them?
who the f*** are you any ways?

When you take photos of people's children without permission then you are tampering with their ability to protect their child. That sends parents into overdrive, and I am right there with them.

There is a huge difference between a person acting normally taking photos of a kids base ball game and that of a lone stranger lurking around a playground snapping shots of your kids without so much as a word.

 

[RockDawg]

I can't help but wonder how many people in this thread that agree with some type of restriction on photographing children also think that the controversial photos of Miley Cyrus were nothing but art. Furthermore, how many of you have posted photos here or elsewhere of your children that anyone in the world could have access to?

 

[Rhys]

I can't help but wonder how many people in this thread that agree with some type of restriction on photographing children also think that the controversial photos of Miley Cyrus were nothing but art. Furthermore, how many of you have posted photos here or elsewhere of your children that anyone in the world could have access to?

Quite honestly I don't know what the alleged controversial photos were all about. As long as photos aren't taken without permission and aren't taken under duress and don't involve sexual acts, I have no problem with photos of anything. I admire many of the old B/W photos of children as they depict childhood in a way modern photos cannot.

As far as postings on the internet are concerned, anything posted can be viewed forever, from everywhere. I wonder whether in the year 3035 some future cyber-archaeologist will dig up this posting and try to assimilate from it an idea of life 1017 years ago.

 

[RockDawg]

As long as photos aren't taken without permission...

So you believe that anyone photgraphing high school or lower sporting events should have to have permission? If so, from who? Every parent of every child?

 

[Battou]

So you believe that anyone photgraphing high school or lower sporting events should have to have permission? If so, from who? Every parent of every child?

No according to what they are trying to do is negate even their right to consent to it.

 

[nynfortoo]

They see children not as children, but as creatures that give them sexual satisfaction.

'Creatures' is your own inference there. Do heterosexual males see women as creatures to give them sexual satisfaction? No, they don't. Paedophiles are just wired differently, akin to homosexuals; though don't take this as gay-bashing — there's a world of difference between consensual intercourse/relationships and with those of a pre-pubescent child! Nor should you take it as me approving of paedophilia, if I'm giving you that impression; I'm just against removing liberties, mass hysteria, and damning people without understand them; portraying them as monsters.

a man can not be arrested for THINKING about screwing children, he can be arrested for viewing pornographic photos of children. Down loading photos of children being abused is a crime, so if they can really keep it contained in their head, then no one would even know. As soon as their fantasy (I puke a little in my mouth every time I think about this) escapes even in tiny ways, they are committing crimes.

But then we're not talking about photos of children being abused here; we're talking about photos of children playing, children doing sports, and children outside. I just don't agree with taking our liberties away, our freedom to take photos, just because there's a small threat of these photos finding their way into the hands of someone who wants sexual gratification from them.

Here's a concept: What if the viewing of photos helps supress their desire to engage in physical contact with a child?

A good point. Would you rather a paedophile have photos to jack off over, or not have any and be more likely to abuse and molest a child for real?

I agree that random photos of children are most likely not used for any negative or scary purpose.

But as a mom I have to ask
why do you want a photo of my kids?
what are you doing with them?
who the f*** are you any ways?

When you take photos of people's children without permission then you are tampering with their ability to protect their child. That sends parents into overdrive, and I am right there with them.

There is a huge difference between a person acting normally taking photos of a kids base ball game and that of a lone stranger lurking around a playground snapping shots of your kids without so much as a word.

If photos/videos of your child in an outside environment existing indicates a failure as a parent, then you'd better hold onto your socks, because you're going to fail.

Do you shield your child from CCTV? These are videos of your child being viewed and recorded by someone vicariously, sitting in a small room, possibly by themselves. Does the perceived notion of added security justify this?

Fact is, pictures are going to be taken of your child. If you want to protect them, prevent someone from kidnapping them; educate them about not talking to strangers etc. Removing our freedom to take pictures of our child just because it could, in a long-shot, potentially be used in a malicious way, is not the way to go.

I see this paedophilia scare akin to terrorism. The threat is so much smaller than people make it out to be; you're more likely to be killed by bees than by terrorists. There have been fewer acts of terrorism in recent years than when I was growing up, where the IRA were bombing my country weekly; yet where was the hysteria and mass removal of freedom and liberties then?

 

[Emerana]

Well considering 90% of girls I knew from childhood were molested before age 13, I dont think it is very small.

I have to say that I dont think it is entirely rational. Because it is so unlikely to be harmful. But I am doing my best to explain it to people who dont spend 24/7 caring for young children.

Let us just say that when a parent is playing at a park with a child, that is a save place. When you take a photo of a child and post it on the internet w/o permission, you are taking that decision away from their parents. Does it hurt photography so much to ask for a little respect in this area?

That comment, maybe pedophiles are not offending because of child porn (or anything else) is absolutely absurd.

 

[Battou]

Well considering 90% of girls I knew from childhood were molested before age 13, I dont think it is very small.

I have to say that I dont think it is entirely rational. Because it is so unlikely to be harmful. But I am doing my best to explain it to people who dont spend 24/7 caring for young children.

Let us just say that when a parent is playing at a park with a child, that is a save place. When you take a photo of a child and post it on the internet w/o permission, you are taking that decision away from their parents. Does it hurt photography so much to ask for a little respect in this area?

That comment, maybe pedophiles are not offending because of child porn (or anything else) is absolutely absurd.

A fact that is heavily overlooked during the publication of these inccodents is the percentage of pre-pubesent children abducted, molested and/or worse that are purpitrated by parent, relitive or individual with close ties to the family. The percentage of these attacks being carried out by a complete stranger is in the single didgets.

Twenty years ago things where different but todays lawenforcement is effective to the point that these people are very unwilling to leave their comfort zone.

 

[nynfortoo]

Well considering 90% of girls I knew from childhood were molested before age 13, I dont think it is very small.

90% of the girls you knew from childhood were molested?

Let us just say that when a parent is playing at a park with a child, that is a save place. When you take a photo of a child and post it on the internet w/o permission, you are taking that decision away from their parents. Does it hurt photography so much to ask for a little respect in this area?

There isn't really such a thing as a 'safe' place when you're in public. You're being watched all the time. Okay, it might be rude to take pictures of other people or their children without permission, but if your own kid is there, shoot away and let parents who don't want their children being photographed pull their children out of the shot.

At a sporting event, you have every reason to expect to have your picture taken.

That comment, maybe pedophiles are not offending because of child porn (or anything else) is absolutely absurd.

How so?

 

[Tazia Doll]

No, it's not about comprimise, it's about having our rights ceased because a small handfull of mentally ill people take advantage of a situation. Then when they are cought the media blows it out of proportion and never does anything to counter the negitive impact. A camera wielding pedoperve gets cought taking upskirts, it gets blasted all over the news and then the guy trying to photograph the park where it happened pays the price. It's gotten to the point where that "park" is where ever and whenever there are children around.

About four percent of the last 14 millon child pornography transactions in Britainmonitored by the FBI were teachers.

That's the tip of the iceberg. Most of the chil pornography that crosses the path of the Oz authorities is free passed. Japan and Australia have a linked rep in relation to their laisez faire approach. I mean take the Henson thing, here's a schoolkid's review.


I went to Bill Henson's latest exhibition with my school today and the pictures he displayed of 11-15 year old girls having "sexual intercourse" with 18year old boys was disgusting. Most of the girls didn't even have breasts yet or pubic hair which made me feel ill in the stomach that people actually like this. One particular photo of a teenage guy probably about 19, had a strong grip around a little girl who had no breasts at all or even 'nipple fat' or pubic hair and he had his penis inserted in her from behind. I do NOT on any account think that is acceptable. I do not call them "works of art". I am not against all of his artwork, as I think he has taken amazing landscape shots that really grabbed my attention. He definently has talent for photography. But I only saw 3 photos in the whole exhibition of adults and of course they were not alone, but with children. I will once again state he does beautiful landscape shots, but I do NOT like his portrayel of the human "childs" body, very disappointed.


so (1) in the USA and UK, well kids are not allowed to visit 'galleries' like that and (2) that kind of art is in violation of federal statute in the USA and the SOA 2003 in the UK. Australia is far more like Japan, they are very laissez faire in relation to kiddie sex fetish material.

Dead horses hanging from gallery ceilings is the least of what goes on in Oz. A lot of stuff produced in Oz, simply can't be traded inthe UK and USA, so it is not really art, if you can't sell it in London, how can it be?

 

[Garbz]

The thing about being an internationally acclaimed artist is that... well that word "internationally".
Lets see now he's had huge exhibits in London in 1988, 1990, 1993, 2001, 2005 (this was in NewCastle), oh and the controversial "Twilight" exhibit which just caused this entirely academic slander exercise in Australia was in London in 2006.
Now the US... ahhh right 2006 in New York, 2004 in Kentucky and New York, 1990s been all over various American cities.

He's had displays in Austria, Spain, France, Italy, I could go on but I'd probably get tired of typing. Look for his artist profile if you want to find more locations.
Also don't make the mistake of thinking that only his recent art is controversial. His style has been much the same since the 80s

Now to the other lax facts of that post. Child pornography is not free passed at all by any authorities in Australia. It comes with mandatory jail terms. What is free passed is surprisingly enough things that are not child pornography, for instance Bill Henson's Art which only shows nude adolescents and shock horror nothing more. (won't speak for Japan here though).

And no offence but taking a school kid's opinion on art involving a nude body is like asking Kernel Sanders if his chicken is healthy. Henson to my knowledge has never actually protrayed intercourse, nor even implied it in any of his exhibitions. I'd be interested in that school kid's opinion on Picasso's piece with the 20 penises, some of which are ejaculating, others inserted into vaginas.

Also when did London become the centre for artistic impression? Surely that would be the open nation of France and not the prude thinking British.

 

[passerby]

There isn't really such a thing as a 'safe' place when you're in public. You're being watched all the time. Okay, it might be rude to take pictures of other people or their children without permission, but if your own kid is there, shoot away and let parents who don't want their children being photographed pull their children out of the shot.

At a sporting event, you have every reason to expect to have your picture taken

Actually this is the topic of this very OP. It is about taking photos of the member of the family in this public event where other children will be in the frame.

PARENTS are furious after being banned from taking photographs of their children at weekend sporting events.

 

[Battou]

About four percent of the last 14 millon child pornography transactions in Britainmonitored by the FBI were teachers.

That's the tip of the iceberg. Most of the chil pornography that crosses the path of the Oz authorities is free passed. Japan and Australia have a linked rep in relation to their laisez faire approach. I mean take the Henson thing, here's a schoolkid's review.


I went to Bill Henson's latest exhibition with my school today and the pictures he displayed of 11-15 year old girls having "sexual intercourse" with 18year old boys was disgusting. Most of the girls didn't even have breasts yet or pubic hair which made me feel ill in the stomach that people actually like this. One particular photo of a teenage guy probably about 19, had a strong grip around a little girl who had no breasts at all or even 'nipple fat' or pubic hair and he had his penis inserted in her from behind. I do NOT on any account think that is acceptable. I do not call them "works of art". I am not against all of his artwork, as I think he has taken amazing landscape shots that really grabbed my attention. He definently has talent for photography. But I only saw 3 photos in the whole exhibition of adults and of course they were not alone, but with children. I will once again state he does beautiful landscape shots, but I do NOT like his portrayel of the human "childs" body, very disappointed.


so (1) in the USA and UK, well kids are not allowed to visit 'galleries' like that and (2) that kind of art is in violation of federal statute in the USA and the SOA 2003 in the UK. Australia is far more like Japan, they are very laissez faire in relation to kiddie sex fetish material.

Dead horses hanging from gallery ceilings is the least of what goes on in Oz. A lot of stuff produced in Oz, simply can't be traded inthe UK and USA, so it is not really art, if you can't sell it in London, how can it be?

The reply you quoted has nothing to do with the Henson inncodent, It is about the rare occations where a pedoperve stalks his prey in school yards and city parks, utalizing a camera to gather intel and/or "Choice Shots" on the pupil they desire. These are the type of people that the masses fear the most and subsuquently get blown out of proportion by the media when discovered during or after an abduction .

Because of the media hype revolving around these people, everyday park patrons and school officials are jumping to conclutions when ever they see a device clearly identifyable as a camera.

Why....I don't know about you but I have never seen national coverage of any occation of a photos of birds taken in a city park......Not even boarderline exteinct ones.

 

[Senor Hound]

These are the type of people that the masses fear the most and subsuquently get blown out of proportion by the media when discovered during or after an abduction.

These people make up a small percentage. Whether its blown out of proportion is opinion. I know this will sound crazy, but I try to minimize opinion when trying to make a point. Let the numbers speak for you.

People seem to be obsessed with safety. Maslow's Hierarchy of Human needs has it on the second level of its pyramid, meaning the only thing we desire more so is food and water. It puts the desire of freedom to be at the very top under Self-Actualization. Looking at this, it makes sense why people are so willing to throw away their rights in order to gain some order and security.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs.svg/800px-Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs.svg.png

I also think, as I stated before, that if you feel as strongly as you seem to, Battou, I suggest you support a lobbying group. In America, where there are so many individual voices (way too many for politicians to respect all of, even if they wanted to) interest groups are the way to get elected officials to hear and understand your opinions. A donation to the ACLU, for example, may be of interest to you.

I'm sorry I didn't add anything to the argument. I'm a negotiator/peace-maker by heart, so the art of the argument is something I'm horribly versed in.

 

[Battou]

These people make up a small percentage. Whether its blown out of proportion is opinion.

You are mistaken here. You are correct in the reguards that it is a small percentage of the whole, however the media frenzy that ensues is not oppinion. Fact of the matter is these things get an aweful lot of coverage when it is discovered and people from one end of the aria to the other see it.

This media frenzy was originally intended to be a deturrent to those who would presue these kind of actions by making it abundantly clear that purpritrators would be cought and bare the full consiquences of those actions. However it has backfired and now the public is making assumptions that you will not fully grasp untill you have been falsly accused of this yourself.

I may wright it off as standard issue ignorance in public, but I take great offence to the fact that I, a county appointed Child Care Provider has a visit with a uniformed police officer in a packed public park. Why, because my camera has a bigger lens than everyone elses and people think I am a closet perve because they hear about them on the news. Such accusations could damage my recirtification, thus impeading on my personal security of employment just because I have a camera.

This is happening with way too much frequency, and some of us are not so lucky to have cops that are as intelegent and/or aware of the situation as I had. It's not a matter of politics, in America laws are currently in our favor, it's the general populous that does not know that. This is why people in the sports groups mentioned in the article in the OP think that they can just tell parents they can't have cameras at their kids football games and what not. They are ignorant morons who buy into the hype that every person with a camera is an unnecessary threat. For god sakes there is absolutely no corrilation between the Henson inncodent and youth sporting events....just where the hell do they get off saying there is... Oh yeah it was all over the news, I forgot.

Granted yes I understand that occured outside the US, but that last fact remains the same reguardless.