I did a google search for “Bill Henson censored”. I found a blog with censored versions of the images, and I don’t think they’re art.ChePibe on June 6, 2008 at 10:49 AM

Dude, I just saw an uncensored photo using the same search parameters, and flat-out, it’s PORN. There is NO “artistic value” to any of this, and the man should be prosecuted in criminal court for his actions. The parents should be sharing a cell with him. Furthermore, Cate should never be allowed to make a movie in America, ever again; all the blacklisting they did back in the 50s, they need to bring it back.

You can’t tell me that pedophiles around the world aren’t cheering about this.

Like someone said above, this is yet another attempt to blur that line and make child pornography more acceptable and mainstream. It’s utterly depraved and sick.

I long for the day when America’s standing in the art world is unacceptable to Cate. It will be a sign that liberals are losing control of schools and TV networks and government. Maybe we could give Australia PBS to increase the ruin of the human soul Cate is demanding. In the mean time keep a close eye on your kids.

I don’t need to touch a flame to know it’s hot.

fourstringfuror on June 6, 2008 at 11:23 AM

What a dope! So getting the context of some photos before running of at the mouth is the same as sticking your hand in a flame?

Like I said, your opinion means less than nothing.

Grow Fins: I’m not a bigot,or a moron,and pedophile
connection has nothing to do with gays
and children!

If you think gays=pedophiles,then that person
has a very sick brain!

And I was joking,and it got you going!

You are aware that Frank’s boyfriend was
running a male prostitute business out of
Barneys basement,and Frank claims he didn’t
know!

Not hearsay,fact,the authorities were involved!

Like Spandex, just because you can it doesn’t mean you should.

Not bitter, but humoured, I must say. But hey, it gets the comments..

That makes no sense to me. Is art not something that is digested by each individual in their own way? If so, why is it unreasonable for someones response to be to classify something as pornographic? Some pornographers that sell explicit material claim they are artists as well. Am I wrong to think of them as pornographers? Passing judgement is a very high form of free speech. Perhaps you want to stop people from passing judgement on art as pornography thought the Canadian HRC?

NotCoach on June 6, 2008 at 1:05 PM

In regards to laws/regulation/etc.., I don’t care what anyone, including you, is thinking about art when you see it, or what an artist is thinking when he creates it. And that would apply to any form of free speech. Government should never regulate the mind of any individual, nor has the means to properly analyze “intent”, hence my anti-CHRC, anti-”intent”, and thought police comments.

Feel free to judge all you want, you missed the point completely.

Painters in the old them days were no different than metal bands in the 80s and rappers today.

- The Cat

P.S. Pole dancing is just exercise.

You’re focusisng on age of consent for nude photography. I would love to debate that, but I was astonished at the promotion of child nude “art/porn” determined by “intent” of adult artists by some commenters.

nottakingsides on June 6, 2008 at 12:53 PM

That makes no sense to me. Is art not something that is digested by each individual in their own way? If so, why is it unreasonable for someones response to be to classify something as pornographic? Some pornographers that sell explicit material claim they are artists as well. Am I wrong to think of them as pornographers? Passing judgement is a very high form of free speech. Perhaps you want to stop people from passing judgement on art as pornography thought the Canadian HRC?

Here’s my judgement: I’ve seen some of the pics (happened to see one uncensored one as well) and this is pornography. The intent is to titillate, nothing more.

Intent is irrelevant. No nude photos of minors ever. The only debatable point is above what age should nude photos of children be illegal. Your ridiculous comparison to the Canadian HRC is only relevant if we tried to stop adults from taking nude photos of each other. We’re not talking about adults here. The law never has and never will apply equally to adults and children.

NotCoach on June 6, 2008 at 11:59 AM

“intent is irrelevant” – Tell that to the pro-intent police commenters. That was my point.

“We’re not talking about adults here.” – I’m not sure what your point is. I was discussing CHRC and HA commenters promoting thought crime policing in determining whether an ADULT photographer’s (and even viewers) intent was for art or for porn.

You’re focusisng on age of consent for nude photography. I would love to debate that, but I was astonished at the promotion of child nude “art/porn” determined by “intent” of adult artists by some commenters.

ahh my head hurts.

A nude child was good enough for Cream.

drjohn on June 6, 2008 at 7:30 AM

That was Blind Faith, dude.

This underscore the twisted logic of liberals. In Massachusetts the public school administrators want to prescribe birth control pills to 13 year old girls WITHOUT parents’ knowledge or consent, and the populace wonders why those same teens engage in sex and are viewed as sex objects?

Alden Pyle on June 6, 2008 at 8:20 AM

We may think the logic is twisted, but I am not part of the populace that wonders why. I know why, they want to have sex with our children, period. They just want it to be OK.

Remember, Woody Allen is still revered in Hollywood, New York and other liberal bastions. I’ll never forget his response to the Soon-Yi scandal – “The heart wants what it wants.” That’s great. You could use that excuse for anything!

Don’t forget our friends at the ACLU who defend NAMBLA…

This is where these groovy people want to take us, folks. Meanwhile, the barbarians are getting ever closer…