SA Footy

I don't have a problem with the photos of a naked 6 year old. Why can't they be aesthetically pleasing, expressive and artistic? Child nudity in itself is not wrong, it is only if sexual conatations arise from it where there is a problem. There was obviously none of those here so Kevin Rudd labelling it disgusting(IIRC) is stupid. The only reason to ban it is a pragmatic concern that the photos will be abused.

By all means we should discuss whether these kind of photos should be banned for fears they may be abused, but don't label the act itself of taking the photos disgusting.

I do have two problems with what happened:

1. The eleven year old defending the photos. I know it may have been necessary to demonstrate she was not exploited but can an 11 year old have an opinion on freedom of expression that is different to her parents?

2.The shirt the dad was wearing on TV. How can we take him seriously with that on?!

I'm getting ready to cop some flak for supporting the pictures.

1 - Artists should not have children.
2 - Uni students should not have children.

Sheik Yerbouti wrote:1 - Artists should not have children.
2 - Uni students should not have children.

Uni students probably cant afford to have children. I know I could hardly afford to keep myself running, throw in a kid and I would be up a certain type of creek with out a paddle.

I'm with Kevin Rudd on this one.
I am concerned with the effects that an art magazine (that 99% of the population had never heard of until today) will have on working families.
Much better to pay (how many millions of ??)taxpayers money to bring out the head of a church that to this day continues to cover up real cases of child abuse by it's clergy.
Sorry Kev. I'm getting mixed messages.

Are politicians of all persuasions into something like "The Biggest Wowser" competition? I wonder about the level of sincerity on some of the issues or just playing up to the "tut tut" constituency?

stan wrote:

Sheik Yerbouti wrote:1 - Artists should not have children.
2 - Uni students should not have children.

Uni students probably cant afford to have children. I know I could hardly afford to keep myself running, throw in a kid and I would be up a certain type of creek with out a paddle.

Also it's impossible to nurture a child on a diet of organic cous cous with dates.

Leaping Lindner wrote:I'm with Kevin Rudd on this one.
I am concerned with the effects that an art magazine (that 99% of the population had never heard of until today) will have on working families.
Much better to pay (how many millions of ??)taxpayers money to bring out the head of a church that to this day continues to cover up real cases of child abuse by it's clergy.
Sorry Kev. I'm getting mixed messages.

Yes, my wife was also pointing out today that, while he is carrying on about this issue, he is not showing any interest in the big shop fashion catalogues use of underage models.
[I hadn't noticed I never look at them.]

Over many years in Australia there has been many worthy different causes that have been addressed -- womans rights - aboriginal rights to name just two.

While all have been worthy on each occasion the end results is the politicians attempt to prove how they have embraced the cause by going too far --- IMO this is happening again with these child issue and because it is getting so big we will end up missing the real target that is the real pedophiles & those who cover up for them.

Does anybody realise it is ilegal for a parent to give grandparents a nude picture of thier grandchild on the rug --- how many parents have got pictures of thier kids in a foam bath or whatever --- to me sadly its all getting a bit silly on what was a very serious issue.

Abuse to children in Government care and/or religious care.

oldfella wrote:Over many years in Australia there has been many worthy different causes that have been addressed -- womans rights - aboriginal rights to name just two.

While all have been worthy on each occasion the end results is the politicians attempt to prove how they have embraced the cause by going too far --- IMO this is happening again with these child issue and because it is getting so big we will end up missing the real target that is the real pedophiles & those who cover up for them.

Does anybody realise it is ilegal for a parent to give grandparents a nude picture of thier grandchild on the rug --- how many parents have got pictures of thier kids in a foam bath or whatever --- to me sadly its all getting a bit silly on what was a very serious issue.

Abuse to children in Government care and/or religious care.

Great post

And it gets worse

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 62,00.html

I agree Oldfella, I think it is getting a bit over the top with the outrage against a 6 yo. I think the problem is that because it's a taxpayer funded mag, the govt should be seen to be stopping the access of such nudity when they're trying to crack down on accessing paedophilic material on the net.

I also agree that some of the best photos I've seen of kids, is when they're in dad's arms (more than likely less than 6mths old) and with nothing on.

While this type of image doesn't spark something inside me - wanting to do something sinister to that child, in others it does - and I think this is what the govt is attempting to do something about.

Tut Tut, there was innapropriate child exploitation in "the Advertiser" today a disgusting picture of a man (barechested) with a NAKED fairly close to newborn BABY BOY (alledgedly the man's son) lying on HIS NAKED CHEST. I'm Fukn outraged, the sooner the police are called the better

Thanks gadj1976 and I feel you sum the problem up well with your words "While this type of image doesn't spark something inside me - wanting to do something sinister to that child, in others it does - and I think this is what the govt is attempting to do something about."

and Mick you also sum it up so well (noted the smiley)

Perhaps I draw a long bow but I am concerned that in the past where Governments have prohibited something those that have a need still achieve the desired object (gun laws - prohibition - drugs and others).

I just feel the type of picture that portrays innocent kids with genitalia exposed or with adults in clearly sexual environment is what we should be targetting not chasing headlines nor wasting limited Police/court resources with clearly innocent material --- they the authorities should target the real stuff without the pollies huf&puff bulls**t interfering. A copper mate of mine tells me that the wrong material is still available on the web --- this is what deeply worries me.

I must be in a minority, whilst I dont have an issue with baby bear rug shots, I do have an issue with photos of kids being naked, especially when they're getting up over the 10 yo mark.
I dont see any need for it, the point isn't that 99% of people wont look at those pics the wrong way, the issue is that 1% might and do something regrettable as a result.
Surely there's enough things in this world to take photos of besides naked kids, I know I don't want to see anyone naked under the age of 18.
Each to their own though.

No not in minority mate -- as you correctly said most (including me) have no real interest in children over 10 years (perhaps more accurately past baby stage).

Problem is in the question -- do the pictures create the desire to criminally offend in the 1% or will the criminal offense occur anyway -- do the pictures really play a part in the equation --- there is limited evidence to suggest they do.

My issue as stated below is the wasting limited Police/court resources on overkill methods for clearly political reasons while not chasing the real offenders who conceal & protect offenders. Read the first four paragraphs from today's Advertiser article ---- should the Police be following this up or some minor art works that have been around for many years -- I know what I wished they were doing.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23 ... =public_js

oldfella wrote:No not in minority mate -- as you correctly said most (including me) have no real interest in children over 10 years (perhaps more accurately past baby stage).

Problem is in the question -- do the pictures create the desire to criminally offend in the 1% or will the criminal offense occur anyway -- do the pictures really play a part in the equation --- there is limited evidence to suggest they do.

My issue as stated below is the wasting limited Police/court resources on overkill methods for clearly political reasons while not chasing the real offenders who conceal & protect offenders. Read the first four paragraphs from today's Advertiser article ---- should the Police be following this up or some minor art works that have been around for many years -- I know what I wished they were doing.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23 ... =public_js

I agree with you oldfeella and with Wedgie as well, I think the current hullabaloo over this issue is a cynical non-partisan exercise in vote catching and being seen to be in the vanguard of "public opinion" largely created by the media in search of a beat-up. The binge drinking thing is another.

My issue is that I am concerned that the media will keep on going further to relax the standards on stuff like this. The issue isnt what is being presented now but what the public are being "groomed" for.

Take swearing on tv for example and note that I really couldent care less about hearing the F or C word on late night TV. Yet if you look at how in the 1970's it wasnt said at all and now is proliferated frequently on TV - Gordon Ramsey, South Park, Billy Connolly etc etc. Its easy to see how something that wasnt considered ok has been made to be the case now.

I have issues with the media trying to go down the pathway of each outlet trying to walk on the edge of what is acceptable until the boundary is pushed past what really is acceptable and that then becoming normal. Do we really want to let the media do that all over again with pictures of pre-pubescent kids?

In Holland they have a legitimate political party that seeks to promote Peodophillia. I agree with freedom of speech, but not for that and a host of other things that are equally revolting. I think its important to use your rights of free speech to fight against things that concern you and if people think that you are a wowser or whatever let them think it!

Sojourner wrote:My issue is that I am concerned that the media will keep on going further to relax the standards on stuff like this. The issue isnt what is being presented now but what the public are being "groomed" for.

Take swearing on tv for example and note that I really couldent care less about hearing the F or C word on late night TV. Yet if you look at how in the 1970's it wasnt said at all and now is proliferated frequently on TV - Gordon Ramsey, South Park, Billy Connolly etc etc. Its easy to see how something that wasnt considered ok has been made to be the case now.

I have issues with the media trying to go down the pathway of each outlet trying to walk on the edge of what is acceptable until the boundary is pushed past what really is acceptable and that then becoming normal. Do we really want to let the media do that all over again with pictures of pre-pubescent kids?

In Holland they have a legitimate political party that seeks to promote Peodophillia. I agree with freedom of speech, but not for that and a host of other things that are equally revolting. I think its important to use your rights of free speech to fight against things that concern you and if people think that you are a wowser or whatever let them think it!

I actually think the reverse is happening with regard to the child nudity issue (in the major media at least), the photographs in the gallery and the magazine cover would not have elicited any comment 20-25 years ago. However, there now seems to be a pedophile under every rock, people no longer trust the clergy (of any denomination) and others in positions of trust, teachers, youth workers are closely scrutinized, so the media is acutely sensitized to this issue and can see an issue they can get their teeth into and make money, through selling papers and advertising. I would hate Australia to go down the path of the US where a glimpse of a bare breast or naked bum on TV will somehow irreversibly corrupt society, yet it is acceptable to have a huge porn and sex industry The acceptance of the F and C words I think has more to do with the baby boomer generation, holding positions of power over the last 20 years, when I was at Uni in the 1970s students used these words to bait and harass members of the former generations. My generation used these word in everyday speech, whereas my parents generation used them sparingly, they have lost their impact today. In the early 70s an American filmstar said sh*t at The Logies, the reaction of the press was like Indonesia had invaded the NT. Language on TV etc simply reflects how most people speak and use language. I totally agree with your views on "free speech", there must always be some things that society should not tolerate and punish severely, murder, treason, pedophilia.

If anyone was in any doubt about this so called artist then read his comments as posted on his wife's website.
Unambigiously, there for all to see.
Yes, not being able to take photos of children playing sport etc is a form of moral idiocy, but we live in a very unbalanced age.
But this is on a very very different level, and it reminds everyone that a few in the art world use art as a cover for there own sick thought processes.
Creep is the most polite word i can think of for Nelson.

The most disturbing aspect to all this is that Nelson is a father...............