Talk:Bill Henson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Flag
Portal
 Bill Henson is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] No such Act

Article says:

with the intention of charging him under the NSW Child Protection Act [1]

Hmm, a review of AustLII shows that no such act exists [2]. The following acts do exist:

  • CHILD PROTECTION (INTERNATIONAL MEASURES) ACT 2006
  • CHILD PROTECTION (OFFENDERS PROHIBITION ORDERS) ACT 2004
  • CHILD PROTECTION (OFFENDERS REGISTRATION) ACT 2000
  • CHILD PROTECTION (OFFENDERS REGISTRATION) AMENDMENT ACT 2007

However, none of their provisions are relevant to this case as far as I can se.

Now, later on, the linked to SMH article says "Police say charges will be laid under both the NSW and Commonwealth Crimes acts for publishing an indecent article." Publishing an indecent article is section 578C of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), as amended [3]. Interestingly enough, it appears that he will be charged with an obscenity offence under 578C rather than child pornography offences under section 91H -- my impression is that the prosecution success record for obscenity (as opposed to child pornography) offences is pretty poor, which would suggest he'll probably be found not guilty.

In any case, it seems like the charges would be under the Crimes Act, not this non-existent "Child Protection Act". I think the SMH is just engaging in sloppy journalism here (then again, journalists tend to get the facts wrong more often that not anyway.) --SJK (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Much of his art deals with the subject of adolescence."?

This is highly incorrect and is clearly skewed based on the throwing into question the legality of his recent exhibition. Much of the later work of Bill Henson contains a theme of adolescence, however the vast body of his work does NOT deal simply with adolescence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.19.39.162 (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism and Art voices

I added these since this is a stub and put template reference. The reader needs to know the 2 sides, legal profession, critics and art voices: The legal profession, led by the New South Wales Law Society president Hugh Macon stated the case against Henson could be very difficult to prove: "The Crimes Act requires two things - an intention and an act,the Act is usually fairly easily established but if the intention is to produce a work of art and solely to produce a work of art, then I can not see how a crime has been committed."abc.net.au, Lawyers doubt Henson can be prosecuted Opposition leader Barry O'Farrell called the photos inappropriate, while Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd condemned the images: "I find them absolutely revolting, and whatever the artistic view of the merits of that sort of stuff — frankly I don't think there are any — just allow kids to be kids." Sectors of the arts community protested on grounds of censorship. John McDonald, the art critic for the Sydney Morning Herald, stated "he feels there is nothing sexual about the photos." Art market analyst Michael Reid, said: "the question is: 'Was there consent?' which I can't answer, and 'Has the image been sexualized?' In my opinion, it wasn't."cbc.ca, Indecency charges expected over Australian photo exhibit Judy Annear, senior photography curator of New South Wales Art Gallery, said: "They're beautiful. They're very, very still. They're very formal, they're very classical. They're a bit like looking at an Ancient Greek Attic vase."independent.co.uk, Police seize 'child porn' art from Sydney gallery --Florentino floro (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

Shall we semi-protect this article?

This article has been a bit contoversial since in Austrilia it is all over news. So some people add a bit childish rantings? --Sinusha (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link to the photos (off-shore) please

If anyone would like to find or add a link to the photos in dispute!? A location off-shore from Australia of course (though the legality of even viewing them from Austrlaia I have no idea about but then no one will ever know will they. ;-) And besdies I may view them during my holidays overseas anyway.) I would just like to see what all this (probably ridulous fuss is about! As I understand it there is only mild nudity (A) no sexual activity of any kind and (B) no particular sexual suggestivity (like lingerie etc.) although I believe there may have been an implied or dubiously suggestive pose in at least one photo, that is, one open to the suggestion of having sexual connotations, i.e. a sexual pose, i mean... 122.148.173.37 (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone might remember the hollywood movie about a legal case along very similar lines where an art museum director is prosecuted unsucessfully for a display of similar nude young photos from an artist along very very similar lines as this though I cannot remember its name. It was based on a true story there. That would make a great link also... He won out on freedon of speech and that the jury agreed that the photos were art and not pornography.122.148.173.37 (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well there seem to be links there now it seems to photos of young and nude women looking "strangely" at the photographer as I would put it although arguably provocatively I think, as indeed, I think this was the artist's intent since notoriety brings fortune they say! These may not be the recent and aledgedly offensive photos so called but I can see why others might take offense. However, personally I think freedom of expression should take precendence at least baring explicit sexualization or what I would call explicit rather than implicit lewdness. The human body - and yes even young ones - in all its nakedness im afraid has to be taken as a beautiful work of nature's art first and foremost. The judge(s) (on appeal too) is (and are) going to have one hell of a difficult case(s) to decide and the lawyers - on both sides - are going to have very long and complex arguments to weave methinks. This is going to go on for years or for as long as anyone fronts up the bills anyway. The public mood and therefore the case has got to be against the defendants favour right now given a recent spate of peadophilic pornography arrests in Australia (not to mention internationally) although I wish them good luck as they will certainly need it. Mattjs (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Whoopee! Charges dropped. I updated the article and others can edit it further as and when more news comes out! 122.148.173.37 (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section on controversies and reactions

Its a newish and currently hot topic, so in a state of flux, but 2 thoughts come to mind. Its too long (too many quotes) and given the most recent addition, suggests a new article with the title 'Censorship in Australia' or somesuch, where material on this theme would make more sense as part of a larger discussion of art censorship controversies in Australia, such as the one relating to Ern Malley referred to here by Guy Rundle. Eyedubya (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)