ian wrote on Dec 8
th, 2015 at 8:12pm:
mariacostel wrote on Dec 8
th, 2015 at 3:38pm:
Kiron22 wrote on Dec 8
th, 2015 at 11:48am:
The Bill Henson "controversy" is so embarrassing from a global art standpoint. Lets cover up all the renaissance great painting as well because they have naked children. Ban that picture of the Vietnamese girl fleeing Napalm bombing, she's naked thus pornography.
Rudd's moronic bible thumping moralist attitude really is one of the main reasons I dislike him.
That photo defined the war. It is everywhere and yet, it is undeniable child porn by any definition you care to find. UNfortunately the usual moralist crusaders have turned a fairly simple definition - 'child porn' - into things that are neither pornographic or even naked, do not even have a child in it and are neither a video nor a picture. The scope of the CP legislation should scare people. Getting registered as a sex offender for having a simpson's character cartoon is a bad thing.
Nonsense, child porn is about context. A picture of your own young child in your photo album is not porn, on some peds computer it is.
Alas, Ian, no, that’s not it either. The images themselves are tested in court, not any fantasies someone might have about them. Pornography is about the intent of the producer.
Artists, film makers, producers of anatomy textbooks, and yes, creators of underwear catalogues, all are still free to produce images of children if their intent is not erotic.
In a legal sense, one’s gaze does not eroticize an image, even though we all know beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There are those among us who are aroused by the sight of horses, for example, but a horse-fancier looking at a naked filly does not deem such an image pornographic, no matter how sexy that horse may be.
Sure, in an ethical sense, we might balk at paedophiles wanking over teenybopper mags, but such images are still legal. Susan Sontag had a lot to say about the ethics of pornography and the sexual gaze of the viewer, but the law has to apply to everyone equally.
We still don’t convict people for their desire, no matter how much popular opinion has changed on this issue. The
construction of an image is what’s deemed to be erotic in law, not the desire of the viewer.
Forum
Pages: 
