Dream wrote:Sexual context is the issue, not consent. If these images are ruled to be sexual in nature, then that will set a very strong precedent that other, very similar images by the same artist are also illegal. Apparently the police are the arbiters of what constitutes sexual nature, and the artist has to prove otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty seems not to apply. And I don't want to end up in court over something I bought perfectly legally. I shouldn't have to defend myself in this regard. If being on a gallery wall isn't enough to ensure a soft approach by the police, being in a book certainly isn't.
the issue. It's the context in which the issue becomes relevant. If a man rapes someone, and gets arrested, the sex is not the issue, it's the consent.
This child was photographed naked. Is the image pornographic? I don't think so, but maybe, maybe not. Either way, though, she had to be nude in order for him to take the photo, and that's a very delicate, private and vulnerable situation to be in. That's a situation we want to protect children from being in if they don't want to (adults aren't considered to need as much protection.)
Of course, if a court does decide it is a pornographic image, then consent is automatically considered not given. Just like in sex with a minor. Then the sex issue = the consent issue.
And you know you're exaggerating with "innocent until proven guilty." That's why we have court proceedings. Now that the charge has been brought up, he needs to be prosecuted. That is not a declaration of guilt. That's a declaration of "we need to look into this." Innocent until proven guilty is not incompatible with this.
"If he's convicted, I'll be in trouble" is not an argument against the law. It is an expression of the lunacy of the situation. If any activist can have the police shut down an art exhibition on it's opening night on their word alone, and have the police start talking about prosecution then that activist has far too much power.
I'm sorry, but I keep translating your words to a rape case in my head. "If any woman can have the police arrest an upstanding man of the community on her word alone, and have the police start talking about prosecution then that woman has far too much power." I don't think your statement is true. The activist brought it to the attention of the police, and now they need to look into it. There is nothing wrong with this.
Did the police wait, and involve some experts? No. Did the consult the artist? No. Did they even contact the child concerned? No. Instead they just took the images off the wall, and told everyone they were of a sexual nature.
Rape case in my mind again. Look, if there were naked images of me that I was ashamed of but too intimidated or unsure or unconfident to ask, hanging in a gallery somewhere, and someone went to the police to ask that they be taken down, I wouldn't want them to say "let's bring some more people in to look at this and see if they think it's objectionable." Their priority right now is to protect the child,
not the man.
Final analogy: If this were a drugs offence, it would be like the police finding white powder in my flat, walking out the door and telling the world media that there was a kilo of cocaine there. Without even testing the stuff to see if they were right. When a bunch of chemists and drung dealers look at it and say, "that doesn't look like any cocaine I ever saw."
Bad analogy. Cocaine is definitely cocaine. Child porn is less clear. The police are probably saying "We're checking this stuff to see if it's porn or if there is a consent issue." A bunch of other people, including the prime minister, are saying "I think this is porn." And cocaine is not harmful to someone if other people look at it.
I'm not saying I think that this is porn, or that he's guilty. I'm just saying that it's better to look into these concerns than to dismiss them.
Raise up the torch and light the way.