![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Oh no! The horror! An artist accused of being tantamount to a kiddie fiddler defends himself and his art! How dare he!
Doesn't he know that if Hetty Johnstone accuses you of being a paedophile that you therefore must be one?!
In the meantime, the police who Hetty and similar frothing monomaniacs wanted to distract with their little witch burning, have shown us, again, what actual paedophiles look like.
Neither of them, strangely, looks or acts anything like Bill Henson. Or, indeed, Robert Nelson.
In rather saner parts of the universe, on the other hand there have been some rather more rational look at the whole schemozzle.
Here and here, for example.
Not so much rational, well, anything whatsoever, here. And an attempt at at least looking reasonable here, but which is blindingly obviously a deliberate hack job from the word 'go'. (I tend to think that talking to Andrew Bolt is like talking to the police; it can only ever get you in trouble. Safest to maintain a dignified silence. Or maybe a quiet dignified "fuck off, you pompous pseudo-intellectual wannabe-demagogic dogwhistling propagandist." Whichever.)
What are the 'arguments' being brought to bear here?
1) there is no such thing as the innocent nude photograph of a child. (Well, not when Hetty Johnson or Dr Carr-Greg look at them, anyway. That this says more about them than the photo seems not to have penetrated.)
2) naked pictures of children will always get onto the internet and end up in the collections of paedophiles. (Because everyone knows that paedophiles do inestimable damage looking at extant photos that might be a little suggestive (see above), and this is far more dangerous that when they go out and collect hundreds, thousands of photos of children actually being raped. It's a slippery slope or some such similar shite.)
3) These photosmight will come back and haunt these children, when they're running for US President. (No, seriously, that was one of the 'arguments' presented.)
4) It's a slippery slope, so we must draw a line in the sand to stop the erosion of-- look, just think of the children, there are paedohiles everywhere, how dare you call me crazy, you're paedophiles you're all paedophiles if you dont agree withme youre a paedophile PAEDOPHILES THEYRE EVERYWHERE THERE'S ONE UNDER THE BED!!!eleven!...
All leading naturally and inexorably to the insane situation that no photo of a naked child will be permitted anywhere, in case there is a paedophile somewhere nearby who might theoretically get an illicit thrill from the mere thought of the sight of a photo of an infant's bottom.
Oh FFS. Will someone let me know when the lunatics have stopped shouting?
Doesn't he know that if Hetty Johnstone accuses you of being a paedophile that you therefore must be one?!
In the meantime, the police who Hetty and similar frothing monomaniacs wanted to distract with their little witch burning, have shown us, again, what actual paedophiles look like.
Neither of them, strangely, looks or acts anything like Bill Henson. Or, indeed, Robert Nelson.
In rather saner parts of the universe, on the other hand there have been some rather more rational look at the whole schemozzle.
Here and here, for example.
Not so much rational, well, anything whatsoever, here. And an attempt at at least looking reasonable here, but which is blindingly obviously a deliberate hack job from the word 'go'. (I tend to think that talking to Andrew Bolt is like talking to the police; it can only ever get you in trouble. Safest to maintain a dignified silence. Or maybe a quiet dignified "fuck off, you pompous pseudo-intellectual wannabe-demagogic dogwhistling propagandist." Whichever.)
What are the 'arguments' being brought to bear here?
1) there is no such thing as the innocent nude photograph of a child. (Well, not when Hetty Johnson or Dr Carr-Greg look at them, anyway. That this says more about them than the photo seems not to have penetrated.)
2) naked pictures of children will always get onto the internet and end up in the collections of paedophiles. (Because everyone knows that paedophiles do inestimable damage looking at extant photos that might be a little suggestive (see above), and this is far more dangerous that when they go out and collect hundreds, thousands of photos of children actually being raped. It's a slippery slope or some such similar shite.)
3) These photos
4) It's a slippery slope, so we must draw a line in the sand to stop the erosion of-- look, just think of the children, there are paedohiles everywhere, how dare you call me crazy, you're paedophiles you're all paedophiles if you dont agree withme youre a paedophile PAEDOPHILES THEYRE EVERYWHERE THERE'S ONE UNDER THE BED!!!eleven!...
All leading naturally and inexorably to the insane situation that no photo of a naked child will be permitted anywhere, in case there is a paedophile somewhere nearby who might theoretically get an illicit thrill from the mere thought of the sight of a photo of an infant's bottom.
Oh FFS. Will someone let me know when the lunatics have stopped shouting?
