Is it art or child abuse?

[Shytalkz]

But, seriously, how sad is it that we've let society get so paranoid that this could happen?

Very. Have you seen that school website, where the kids' faces have been obliterated with smileys?

 

[megawatt]

I have ... Lunacy

 

[joe-90]

I was filming Mrs Megawatt playing with them in the local park

Was she arrested?

 

[Space cat]

I remember the Cleveland scandal quite well; it was big news up here in Geordieland. If you want to read all about it type "Marietta Higgs" into your favourite search engine. She claimed that she could find evidence of sexual abuse in children by shoving her anal dilator up their backsides. Personally, I think she just liked shoving her anal dilator up childrens' backsides and the biggest scandal of all is that she wasn't struck off!

But I digress --

Question: When does art become pornography?
Answer: When somebody tries to suppress it.

So there you have it; pornography is in the eye of the legislator. Now I'm not a legislator or an artist but that picture just looks like art to me. This, from that link, says a lot:

Olympia, now 11, said: "I was really, really offended by what Kevin Rudd said about this picture. It is one of my favourites – if not my favourite – photo my mum has ever taken of me."

If the model herself thinks it's art, that's good enough for me.

PS: I still refer to my three-pronged Hellermann sleeving tool as 'the Marietta special'.

 

[Shytalkz]

It's all coming back to me now. How the kids reacted to the anal probe was fundamental to her "diagnosis". Would never have remembered her name though, so thanks for that SC.

Mad cow.

 

[securespark]

But for Ms Johnston and like-minded people, all nude images of children are sexual and should be banned..

What??

How can an image of a non-sexual being be seen as sexual?

She is madder than Mary Whitehouse.

 

[imamartian]

to answer the OP... (look out for my answer to "do i approve?.. coming later...")

Is it art?... yes, it could be ! Art covers a hugely wide range of visual, aural and many other stimuli.

Is it child abuse?... No! you can take a picture of a child without abusing them !! has the chld been abused? i doubt it!

Now for the question... do i approve? Of course i f*&%ing don't !!!
Why take a picture of your child, naked, and put it on the web? Naked children are great if you're their parent.... such a laugh like trumping and vomitting.... but why on earth would any stranger find any gratification in a naked child? they just shouldn't !!!

 

[Space cat]

There are those who would claim that she is being abused every time somebody looks at the picture and there are situations in which they would have been right.

What would you say if you found yourself on a giant poster with the caption "I bet he drinks Lemming Green Label"? Probable answer: "I bet he sees you in court!" Now what if you saw yourself sitting naked on a hilltop on the front cover of a magazine! Yup; it's suing time!

What it all comes down to is consent - which she was not legally old enough to give - so if anybody can be accused of 'abusing' little Olympia, it's her mother. She took the picture and allowed it to be published, presumably for a lot of money. I suppose that in this case, "I only did it for the money. ", though no defense at all, would at least be honest!

But this is all academic because Olympia is very pleased with the picture - and no doubt a lot better off too.

why on earth would any stranger find any gratification in a naked child?

I think you answered your own question --

Art covers a hugely wide range of visual, aural and many other stimuli.

There are those who will pay good money for the most unlikely looking 'art'. How about a pile of bricks? Or two crushed cars, one on top of the other? By comparison, a naked child on a hilltop is at least recognizable as art, though Renoir would have painted her fatter!

 

[joe-90]

It tells every paedo or would be paedo that it's OK to look at naked children.

 

[megawatt]

It does no such thing and, if you see it that way, I'd say that you are either a Paedophile or a would be Paedophile.

It is absolutely fine to look at naked children parents do it all the time and they are not Paedophiles, teachers do it all the time and they are not Paedophiles, carers do it all the time and they are not Paedophiles

It's the intent which makes it wrong.

 

[joe-90]

If Joe says it's white you can guarantee that megamouth will come along and say it's black.

 

[megawatt]

You know the answer ... Stop posting sh*te

And did you have to bring colour into this?

Don't worry ... I'll notify the Mods

MW

 

[Space cat]

It's the intent which makes it wrong.

Full marks and a bonus biscuit (chocolate of course) to megawatt.

 

[securespark]

Several posters here have said the subject of the photograph is naked.

I must be missing something pretty crucial here.

So what if she's naked?! What can you see?

 

[Sylvan Tieger]

Showing a naked child in Oz no problem PUT a picture of an M-1 carbine 30 cal on a mag cover and the government goes nuts.

Priorities NO wonder it was and still is a penal colony run by the inmates known as government officials of Australia