from Crikey ….. Art Monthly has an audited circulation of 5000 copies. The girl was photographed by her mother. The mother has no regrets, neither does her daughter. So far, so much storm in a teacup you'd think. But there is something disturbing in the vigour with which the Prime Minister attacks the issue of this so-called child exploitation. As The Australian reports this morning:  

The Rudd Government will ask the Australia Council to develop a set of protocols to cover the representation of children in art, after a taxpayer-funded magazine put a picture of a nude six-year-old girl on its cover to protest at the Bill Henson dispute.  

The review, which would consult members of the arts sector and the general community, was confirmed by a government spokesman yesterday, as politicians led by Kevin Rudd heaped condemnation on this month's Art Monthly Australia magazine.  

It seems that when it comes to, let's see, saving the planet, we can prevaricate and quibble, but when it comes to cracking down on the apparent exploitation of a child by her mother in a magazine no-one reads, we can turn on a dime.  

A few points of our own: No child was harmed in the production of that image and nudity does not equate to sexualisation. That said, the repression of art and expression by representatives of the "general community" risks crushing precious liberties to the twisted views of zealots. If only our prime minister wasn't one of them.

from Crikey .....

Banning naked kids would make the law an ass 

Greg Barns writes: 

The law is sometimes a useful means of regulating activity, but in the area of art it has no place.  

That is why calls from morality campaigners and knee-jerk legislators to ban the use of naked children in art are fundamentally flawed. 

Over the weekend, the ever shrill Hetty Johnston, a morals campaigner, suggested that legislation be introduced nationally "that removes artistic merit from the child pornography laws". This legislation should control "what artists can do in relation to the use of children in art." 

No doubt Ms Johnston’s call will appeal to populist politicians like Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson who are working themselves into a considerable lather over the decision by Art Monthly to place on its front cover a lovely photograph of a young naked child who is clearly not striking a sexual pose. 

But to legislate to criminalise the conduct of Art Monthly, or any artist, publication, gallery or even website would make the law what it is clearly not mean to be -- an ass. 

Let us illustrate the absurdity of Johnston’s hare-brained idea this way. 

A blockbuster exhibition from a European collection is about to tour Australia’s major capital cities. This exhibition includes Caravaggio’s Amor Vincit Omnia and Cranach’s Venus -- both famous 16th century works portraying naked teenagers. Under the Hetty Johnston law, these extraordinary works of art could not be shown in Australia. They would be classed as child pornography and gallery directors would be prosecuted for hanging them on their walls.  

Johnston’s proposed law would require state and territory police forces to employ a morality squad. Their role would be to run around art galleries, search websites, and even private homes with warrants to remove paintings, photographs, sculptures and films which depicted n-ked children. The law would make paedophiles and child porn fetishists out of innocent people and institutions. Judges and magistrates would be placed in the invidious position of having to enforce a law that was patently unjust. 

And our courts would have to grapple with absurd definition issues like what does n-ked mean? Does it mean completely unclothed, or partly unclothed? If a child is fully dressed will we have experts telling us that because the child is pouting then this amounts to child pornography?

What if the face of the child cannot be seen? Does this make a difference to a prosecution? The list of twists, turns and legal machinations is endless and ultimately so ridiculously complex as to render the law unworkable. 

And it would not only be artists who would be affected. Film-makers would be in the gun as well. Laws that ban completely the showing of children naked would make criminal a perfectly innocent scene of children ripping off their clothes on a hot summer's day and jumping into the local river -- a practice that generations of Australian children have gained countless hours of pleasure from. 

Johnston’s proposal is also grossly demeaning to children.

She, along with the hot and bothered Rudd and Nelson, think that if a child is portrayed in art then it must be for a sexual purpose. How said that they have such a warped view.

The father of the young girl who posed naked on the cover of an art magazine has welcomed the Classification Board's decision to approve the image as appropriate for publication. 

The board reviewed the entire July edition ofArt Monthly magazine, which featured a naked image of six-year-old Olympia Nelson on the cover, taken by her mother Pollixeni Papapetrou in 2003. 

The board gave it an Unrestricted: M rating, which means it is suitable for publication, though discretion is advised for people under the age of 15. 

It just goes to show that politicians haven't a clues about what Australians think.  

They think they know.  

That is why it is such a shock for them at election time.