I was about to begin a brief new blog on the "Voluntary Simplicty Movement " before retiring to bed, when another blogger's entry caught my eye. What I read so outraged me, that I was propelled to write a scathing reply. Here it is, and I intend to send it to every politician in the NSW state government, (as useless, corrupt and incompetent as they may be), and the federal government. I think they need to know that people who care very much about the rights of vulnerable children do not agree with the art-elitists crying "censorship!", and shrieking so loudly in support of Bill Henson.

For my friends and relatives in the USA, Henson is a famous Australian artist. His work has been controversial in the past because of its emphasis on the naked or near-naked bodies of adolescent boys. In the past week, Henson was due to open a new exhibition at a Sydney gallery. The gallery printed up invitations with an image of one of the pieces in the exhibition, and posted them on its website. The images were of a naked 12 year old girl. A child rights activist got wind of the exhibition and went to the police. The police promptly shut the exhibition down, and seized Henson's so-called "art". There was much controversy around whether the images were "art" or plain, simple child pornography.  The gallery took the images down from its website, but probably not before thousands of pedophiles all over the world managed to download them for their sick enjoyment. The media plastered this poor child's image all over the news, for days, and the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd commented that he found the images "revolting". To which most sensible people said "here, here!"

Some of my US friends may not know that I was a child psychologist in NSW, working with sexual abuse victims, for several years. I am totally outraged by these creeps going to Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam, etc. to prey on vulnerable, poor children, and this situation isn't much different - I see a middle-aged man, forcing a 12 year old girl-child to pose naked for photographs. Then he hides behind the word "art" to protect himself from prosecution.

So as not to repeat myself, please read the reply that I sent to the blogger who thinks the seizure of this child pornography is an assault on the freedom of artistic expression.  He should probably know that even the US Supreme Court does put a few limits on Free Speech, such as not crying fire in a crowded theater. They also made an exception for child pornography. In a recent First Amendment/Free Speech decision, the Supreme Court allowed "virtual" child pornography (i.e. images made by a computer, not using a real child), but leaving real-life child pornography as an exception to the right to  Free Speech. That blogger, when decrying the "censorship" might also consider that censorship is appropriate to protect children, just as its appropriate when it intends to incite to racial or religious hatred and violence.

My Response:

I agree with many of your views, but I could not disagree more strongly on this issue. Your openning paragraph says you feel violated by the closure of Henson's exhibition. I felt violated when I saw those images! I wouldn't expect an 81 year old man, no matter how liberal-minded you may be, to understand that adolescent girls are very vulnerable, and the children who are Henson's subjects are far too young to be giving "informed consent" to the exposure of their bodies to all and sundry, all over the world. Their right to the privacy of their own body has been horribly violated. What kind of misguided parent would permit such disregard for their child's right to privacy?

No doubt, the images posted on the gallery's website have made many pedophiles very happy to have these freebies handed to them. In my opinion, Henson is a pedophile who is hiding under the cloak of "art". This is NOT about censorship, its about protecting the most vulnerable members of our society from sexual exploitation. I am waiting in hope that Henson is charged.

Tony Abbott, just interviewed on ABC's Lateline, pointed out the hypocrisy of prosecuting Joe Average for having images like these on his computer, yet hanging in an art gallery, the art-elite call it "art", and think its immune from prosecution. These out-of-touch, sexist elitists cry fowl when a spade is called a spade - that is that Henson is a pedophile. As the saying goes.... if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck......

I know child exploitation when I see it and its NOT art. The media have a huge offense to answer for in this whole fiasco. They plastered this child's face all over the news, thinking that it was OK because they blacked out her breasts. The child was standing naked, and despite the little black bar across her breasts, the news media thinks its OK to plaster her face all over the national news!!! They should be prosecuted along with Henson. Who is the more exploitative - Henson or the media? If the media isn't prosecuted, then the child needs to have a guardian ad litem appointed (her parents obviously can't make decisions in their daughter's best interests), and sue the media for the gross invasion of this child's privacy. Then the guardian ad litem should take out a civil suit against Henson for the emotional and sexual abuse she's been subjected to in this exploitative art show.

This case does not harken back to the censorship cases of old. Its about a child's right to the privacy of her own body, and its about exploitation. Me thinks the cries of censorship by the art-elitists is a case of "the emporer has no clothes". Someone needs to give them a reality check, and I applaud Kevin Rudd for expressing what the vast bulk of decent, child-loving people think of Henson's work - its "revolting". 

I agree with you that we struggle to improve this world in which we live. Personally I prefer to put my efforts into protecting the vulnerable, than those who prey on them for their own fame and fortune. What would Henson sell these "art" works for? How much would the little girl who had her privacy completely and utterly violated, get out of it? I'll bet she would have gotten absolutely nothing. And had he paid her???? Well then her parents have been paid for pimping out their child. Shame on them.

Your elitist attitude implies that anyone who doesn't agree that Henson's work is "art" (instead of pedophilic soft porn), must be an intellectual cripple or a Luddite. I think if you read my blog at www.blognow.com.au/Janice_Brooks, you'll see that I am solidly on the side of the under-dog, the environment, against corporations and their obscenely overpaid CEO's, and thoughtfully analyze a wide array of public issues.

This is not a censorship issue. Its a child protection issue. I worked as a child psychologist with child sexual assault victims, for many years, and in my professional opinion, this child was exploited and abused. The question everyone should ask themself: would you let YOUR child pose naked for a middle-aged man? I don't know anyone who would put their child through such a violation of their innate human right to the privacy of their own body. This is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue, not a censorship issue.

I am a "card-carrying ACLU" member (American Civil Liberties Union). They have fought many controversial First Amendment/censorship battles over the past several decades, and I support everyone's right to Free speech, and freedom of expression - but never the exploitation of a vulnerable child under the despicable claim that their child pornography is "art".

If the politicians and police have any guts whatsoever, they WILL charge Henson. Since several politicians, law society, etc. have expressed doubts about the success of a prosecution, I say, "there's more ways than one to skin a cat". Henson has clearly violated numerous laws, so charge him with all of them. Put this pedophile where he belongs. There will be plenty of opportunity for him to do his "art" work in jail.