Re: Naked Teens Photos

It matters not if the photos that Bill Henson took are not classed as pornographic. Taking photos of teenagers 12-13 naked is NOT appropriate. It is NOT art. If people want to view naked images, then go look at adults naked, not kids. What in the hell was the parents of these teenagers thinking in allowing their children to be photographed this way? Why not have pictures taken of the kids with their clothes on? Bill Henson may be highly regarded as his photography skills but surely he is not naive to see that his naked photos are just a magnet for all the twisted perverts and paedofiles who crave this type of publication. He isn't stupid , or is he? Again, the parents need to be dealt with for allowing this to occur.

Bill Henson's controversial photographs of naked adolescents are void of any pornographic suggestion, a former director of the National Gallery of Australia says.

Twenty of Henson's images, believed to feature a naked children aged 12 and 13, were confiscated by police during a raid on a Sydney art gallery late last week.

Police are considering whether to lay criminal charges against those involved with the exhibition, condemned by politicians from Prime Minister Kevin Rudd down.

Former NGA director Betty Churcher said there was "absolutely no suggestion of pornography" in the images.

"They (photographs) are breathtakingly beautiful, they are about the vulnerability of life," she told ABC Radio on Monday.

"How they could incite anything other than admiration I can't imagine."

Banning the photographs was censorship gone too far, Dr Churcher said.

"In this day and age, we are going far to far in the wrong direction of censorship.

"Will we end up being so censored that there's nothing left for us to contemplate?"

Henson's photographs had captured adolescence in a very poignant way, Dr Churcher said.

"I don't believe the rest of us should be in any way censored so that we can't see these things because he is, without a doubt, one of Australia's most important artists and he is one of a few with a genuine international reputation."

http://au.news.yahoo.com/080526/2/1708u.html?f=mv

The 3 R's...... reading, rude stuff, ridiculous...NSW education Dept

A year 1 teacher has been suspended from duties until the outcome of an investigation into her extra curricular activities. Lynne Tziolas, 24 and her husband posed for a national women's magazine; Cleo, and answered questions about their sex life and relationship . All this was presented in a sealed section of the magazine, so to view it, and it does come with warnings about the content, the sealed section would have to of been opened. Above is the picture that has caused all the concern.
Some parents have obviously viewed the said article, the photos and the so called sexual comment and are calling for her dismissal.
Yes teachers do have a standard to uphold but come on, if the article is so offensive and one not heeds the warnings beforehand, then really what have the parents got to complain about. You tell me how many Year 1 students can go in and buy a Cleo magazine. The chances are that they are more than likely to view the magazine if it is left lying around by a parent who is careless in stowing it away out of little eyes way. That would go for any type of publication that has contents not appropriate for viewing by minors, you need not leave them laying where children can easily access them.
People come in all shapes and sizes, we are not all perfect; whatever that is, and in an ideal world we should all be proud of who we are. Mrs Tziolas is not ashamed of herself or the relationship she shares with her husband and why should she be.
For me, to parade oneself naked in public is a no go area BUT the uproar IS about the teacher doing so and in a sealed section of a magazine that children have NO right to be seeing in the first place.
Lynne Tziolas's downfall was that she is a teacher.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/080509/2/16sfp.html?f=mv