digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

6 Year Old Nude Girl Art Row Flares in Australia

independent.co.uk — A photograph of a nude six-year-old girl on the cover of a high-brow Australian art magazine today sparked an uproar after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd called it disgusting, infuriating liberal art critics.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • milou, on 07/07/2008, -18/+205After viewing the art work. In my opinion the art is not porno. I do not think it is that great of art work either. But then! It is, to the eye of the beholder. Perhaps, politicians need eye glasses and/or brain surgery. I am surprised at Australians reactions. I expect it from USA but not from down under.
    • tonaros, on 07/08/2008, -4/+70Are you surprised? Australia bans overly violent games all the time. They're pretty hypersensitive down there.
      • alex7575, on 07/09/2008, -3/+95"They're pretty hypersensitive down there."

        -snickers*
      • vibrate, on 07/09/2008, -5/+19Yep, Australia is extremely conservative - easily the most uptight place I have lived.
      • RunOut, on 07/09/2008, -14/+4Hear Hear, I am an Art Lover I have Heaps of "Artistic" pictures on my computer.
      • Morfine, on 07/09/2008, -11/+8are you joking? Australia isnt hypertensive, the legal drinking age for all states here is 18, in the US, it is either 18 or 21, and all movies here have proper ratings, anything with violence and coarse language here has a rating of MA 15+ but in the states they usually have those kinds of movies rated R.
      • xShifty, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6He never said anything about their blood pressure, Morfine
      • Risingashes, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Seriously Vibrate? What state are you in atm?

        Cause I've never heard anyone say that before.
      • Smills, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Yeah, I live in Australia and the government has definitely been acting much more like that of America lately. I think the only people that would get offended by something like this would be the kind of people that have a sexual reaction to the viewing of it, and assume that everyone else does, too. This disturbs me greatly.
      • fattony89, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3no we ain't, it's just the stupid ***** government. Most Australian's don't give a *****.
      • 1randomguyO8, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3No we're not. In the US you can barely even say the F word on TV and god forbid if you show a bit of skin. Think Superbowl, Janet Jackson..

        Plus our legal age for sex = 16 yrs old(females). legal age to consume alcohol = 18 yrs old.
        Plus getting convicted of a crime and then actually having to go to jail is an accomplishment its self. Our legal system is lenient it is not funny.

        Perhaps if you come from Europe it may seen like we are..
    • GumGuts, on 07/08/2008, -20/+3Yeah, but porn is in the eye of the beholder to...
    • BoneheadFarker, on 07/09/2008, -10/+26FTFA:

      "I can't stand this stuff," said Rudd, a staunch Christian...



      Still surprised?
      • Quaterni0n, on 07/09/2008, -8/+22"staunch Christian"

        Well there's the problem.
      • siszam, on 07/09/2008, -20/+9A child is not able to give consent for their nude picture to be taken or published. They don't have the decision making ability to see how it can affect their future or how it can be used. It IS wrong. Using your bigotry against Christians to claim it's right just makes you look twice as foolish.
      • BoneheadFarker, on 07/09/2008, -3/+15@siszam

        As I stated in a different part of this thread:

        Technically, she can't give consent. But her mother, on the other hand, can. And she did.



        As for Christians...I don't have a problem with the normal reasonable Christians who read the bible for the parables rather then to find something to back up their hatred, fear, and never-ending desire to control people. It's the staunch Christians are the ones I have a problem with...
      • FairDinkumMate, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3So if her mother gave HER consent for the girl to do ANYTHING, that would be OK? Legally it is(in Australia), but morally is another issue. I'm not sure whether it should be classified as "porn"(probably not), but I sure as hell feel sorry for the kids involved whose parents are more interested in money than their kids welfare!
    • Schu, on 07/09/2008, -7/+19I agree. Its not porn. I don't think that 6 year olds should be in a photo like that but it in no way is porn. You only see part of the girls chest, and at that age there is no development there at all and you are not suppose to be be starting at her chest anyway. So it is def not porno. If you had see the girls other private areas then that would not have been art and that would have been a disgusting picture, and completely wrong . This is not, and it can be look at as art, maybe not the best but art.
      • cheezintern, on 07/09/2008, -6/+15I would agree, it's probably not totally appropriate either. If I were her parents I'd be worried about all the pervs getting off on it. I'd never want my child photographed like that.
      • sloonark, on 07/09/2008, -5/+5The photo in the article is not the only one in the magazine. There are other, more revealing, pics. These are the ones that most people are offended by.

        This article is a little misleading by implying it is only the one photo that is shown.
      • NotADoctor, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1It's true. I don't know why people are digging you down, sloonark. The editor of ART magazine put a lot of art in this issue with naked minors because he wanted to bring some dignity to the Henson debate. And the one on the front of the magazine is less provocative than most of the others.
      • 1randomguyO8, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1What is so artistic about it? It is *****. These artists need to lay off the drugs.
        I bet you think tying a dog to rope and watching it die is "art" too, right?
    • EarlOfLade, on 07/09/2008, -2/+55What is wrong with nudity? Why are you so scared of nudity? It all is very strange and very disturbing to me, but then again, I spent my childhood vacationing in nudist camps all over Europe.

      Nudity is not dangerous, guilt and thinking of it as some religious BS called 'sin", is dangerous.
      • kevir, on 07/09/2008, -14/+2***** everything. People hold on to their traditions. It doesn't matter if their life could easily be better by lifting them; There's just no way to stop tradition. Sure it makes sense that public nudity should be legal, but people in general are stupid. Heck, I myself might hold on to traditions, yes I am a dumb ***** like everybody else if that is the case.
      • dbug, on 07/09/2008, -1/+23It's all in the eye of the beholder. If these people see a nude 6 year old girl and think of it as a sexual subject, then it's not a problem with nudity but a problem with the associations they have with a nude 6 year old girl, and maybe they should seek help.

        I've been running around naked in my parents backyard and even on the streets as a child (yes, I'm from Europe), and nobody ever had a problem with that. Instead of yelling "child abuse!" they just smiled and minded their own damn business. There are tons of photographs of me naked when I was a child, and it never came back to haunt me.

        And yes, there migth be people out there who get sexually aroused by those pictures. So what? It does not harm the kid in any way. Can you imagine how many of these people are hanging out in public pool areas, watching half nude kids all day? Big deal. As long as nothing happens, none of the kids gives a damn while enjoying summer in the pool.

        If you wanted to protect your child from all the evil in this world, you'd have to lock it up in your basement and never allow any contact to the outside world. I guess I'll choose the lesser evil....
      • ashfish, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1America has always been afraid of nudity. I'm not quite sure if its the deep fundamental religious roots that promote shameful feelings for enjoying sex and not just doing it for procreation or what. We've ALWAYS had a problem with that here in the US tho. I didn't think it was so with AU but the fundies always yell the loudest so its not very easy to tell sometimes. But yeah I don't see anything pornographic here. The kid is naked so what, I've seen countless little kids running around nude at the beaches here before. Do you know how hard it is to get sand out of little kids bathing suits? Oi. Then again, I live in a place where "savages" used to rule and their culture is still a big part of normal life. Hell, we do have nudity in our hula performances its just most of the time their breasts are covered with leis.
    • bizkit00, on 07/09/2008, -0/+25check out michelangelo's sistine chapel where God and Adam are about to touch fingers. Around God's other arm is a naked girl that looks far under age. It's art and beauty, and it isn't sexual. Don't start drawing underwear on the Venus De Milo.
    • Fixthemedia, on 07/09/2008, -1/+19Its only a big deal if you're a pervert. I dont get how it is gross if you dont look at it sexually.
      • 1randomguyO8, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1Exactly perverts can exploit this
      • ashfish, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Yeah, and if I were a criminal I could exploit tax law. If I had no regard for other's wellbeing or rights I could get into the slave trade. Just because it CAN happen doesn't mean we should prohibit everything that could facilitate it. Stop being so afraid of everything.
    • fr3ddie, on 07/09/2008, -4/+8if child pornography was legal... we wouldnt think anything of it.
      CMON... we all get to see ourselves naked. what the hell is the difference.
      FREE YOUR MIND. Nudity is beautiful!
    • salomejones, on 07/09/2008, -1/+24A person who sees a picture of a naked child which has absolutely no sexual overtones whatsoever---and sees porno---has something deeply wrong with them. And I suspect its something that they would probably be very upset to see in the papers.
    • mike17032, on 07/09/2008, -8/+3Ya but this should still be labeled as maybe NSFW.
      • thevoiceless, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3It's a freaking NIPPLE. Get over it!
    • koan, on 07/09/2008, -0/+14I imagine that if someone looks at an image of a nude child, and becomes in some way aroused, then they are liable to feel disgusted in themselves.

      Rather than seeking help for this, some would then seek to censor the images - avoidance rather than addressing the root issue.

      Is this what happened to you Mr Rudd?
    • Smills, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2As an Australian I am quite shamed by Rudd's latest actions. He is turning Australia into America... I mean he is even trying to take our binge drinking away from us! What are Australians known for if not being able to drink crap loads and still stand? For shame Rudd.
      • NotADoctor, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1For crying out loud. Before he gave his opinion, he deliberately stated beforehand that it was his OWN opinion. He never said it was the opinion of the Labor party, Australia, "responsible Australians" or anything else. He didn't drag any of that into it.

        And while I'm here: the only goddamn reason he was asked about it was so that media outlets could get a quote from the PM about a moral issue on the eve of the Pope's visit to Australia.
    • themastersb, on 07/09/2008, -4/+1Oh lawd is dat sum cp? ......and on an unrelated note: moar pics plz!
  • mctom987, on 07/07/2008, -22/+153Pedobear?
    • borninda818, on 07/08/2008, -11/+163………………………………………………………………………………………………
      ………………….._,,-~’’’¯¯¯’’~-,,…………………………………………………………
      ………………..,-‘’ ; ; ;_,,---,,_ ; ;’’-,…………………………….._,,,---,,_………………
      ……………….,’ ; ; ;,-‘ , , , , , ‘-, ; ;’-,,,,---~~’’’’’’~--,,,_…..,,-~’’ ; ; ; ;__;’-,……………
      ……………….| ; ; ;,’ , , , _,,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯’’~’-,,_ ,,-~’’ , , ‘, ;’, …………
      ……………….’, ; ; ‘-, ,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-, , , , , ,’ ; |…………
      …………………’, ; ;,’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-, , ,-‘ ;,-‘…………
      ………………….,’-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-‘ ;,,-‘…………..
      ………………..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;__ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,’……………..
      ………………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’¯: : ’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; _ ; ; ; ; ;’,……………..
      ……………..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;| : : : : : :| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘’¯: ¯’’-, ; ; ;’,…………….
      …………….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,_: : _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | : : : : : :| ; ; ; |……………
      ……………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,,_ : :,-‘ ; ; ; ;|……………
      …………..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-~’’ , , , , ,,,-~~-, , , , _ ; ; ;¯¯ ; ; ; ; ;|……..
      …………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’ , , , , , , ,( : : : : :) , , , ,’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|……………
      ……….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’, , , , , , , , ,’~---~’’ , , , , , ,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,…………..
      …….,-‘’ ; _, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’~-,,,,--~~’’’¯’’’~-,,_ , ,_,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,………….
      ….,-‘’-~’’,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; | . . . . . . ,’; ,’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,_ ; ‘-,………..
      ……….,’ ; ;,-, ; ;, ; ; ;, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ;’, . . . . .,’ ;,’ ; ; ; ;, ; ; ;,’-, ; ;,’ ‘’~--‘’’………
      ………,’-~’ ,-‘-~’’ ‘, ,-‘ ‘, ,,- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ; ‘~-,,,-‘’ ; ,’ ; ; ; ; ‘, ;,-‘’ ; ‘, ,-‘,……………..
      ……….,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ‘’ ; ; ;’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’-,,_ ; ; ; _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ;’-‘’ ; ; ; ‘’ ; ;’-,…………..
      ……..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯¯’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-,……….
      ……,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,…….
      …..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|..’-,_ ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ‘,…..
      ….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…….’’’,-~’ ; ; ; ; ; ,’…..
      …,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’~-,,,,,--~~’’’’’’~-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…..,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘……
      …| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘……..
      …’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’….’, ; ; ; ; _,,-‘’…………
      ….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…….’’~~’’¯………………
      …..’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;_,,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘…………………………….
      ………’’~-,,_ ; ; ; ; _,,,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘……………………………..
      ………..| ; ; ;¯¯’’’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-‘……………………………….
      ………..’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘…………………………………
      …………| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|…………………………………..
      …………’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ~-,,___ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,………………………………….
      ………….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘….’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,…………………………………
      ………..,’ ‘- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’……….’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,………………………………..
      ……….,’ ; ;’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-‘…………….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,……………………………….
      ………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’…………………’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |……………………………….
      ……..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-‘………………………’’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |………………………………
      ……..| ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…………………………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’……………………………….
      ……..| ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’………………………..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’’………………………………..
      ……..| ; ; ; ; ; ;,’……………………….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘………………………………….
      ……..’,_ , ; , ;,’……………………….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘……………………………………
      ………’,,’,¯,’,’’|……………………….| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘--,,………………………………….
      ………….¯…’’………………………..’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’~,,…………………………….
      ……………………………………………’’-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’~-,,……………………….
      ………………………………………………..’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ,,_ ; ;’-,’’-,……………………..
      …………………………………………………..’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,__,\--\...........................
      ……………………………………………………’-, ; ; ;,,-~’’’ \ , ,|, |……………………
      ………………………………………………………’’~-‘’_ , , ,,’,_/--‘……………………
      …………………………………………………………….’’~-~’…….......................…….
    • ForestRangerBen, on 07/09/2008, -4/+17***** you beat me to it!
    • RajDhillon, on 07/09/2008, -29/+4For those of you who don't know about pedobear I suggest you google 4chan
      • npsken, on 07/09/2008, -0/+24Thank you, oh master of the internet! I have been enlightened.
      • p0ss, on 07/09/2008, -7/+61st and 2nd rules!
      • Vosona, on 07/09/2008, -2/+5Only apply to raids, *****.

        And 4chan isn't on Google anyway. Try it and see.
      • rl41, on 07/09/2008, -1/+470% of people who read this will google 4chan.
    • Pedobear, on 07/09/2008, -0/+30You'll be pleased to know that I do housecalls now.
    • jsaya, on 07/09/2008, -2/+10What's the best thing about twenty six year olds?

      ………………………………………………………………………………………………
      ………………….._,,-~’’’¯¯¯’’~-,,…………………………………………………………
      ………………..,-‘’ ; ; ;_,,---,,_ ; ;’’-,…………………………….._,,,---,,_………………
      ……………….,’ ; ; ;,-‘ , , , , , ‘-, ; ;’-,,,,---~~’’’’’’~--,,,_…..,,-~’’ ; ; ; ;__;’-,……………
      ……………….| ; ; ;,’ , , , _,,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯’’~’-,,_ ,,-~’’ , , ‘, ;’, …………
      ……………….’, ; ; ‘-, ,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-, , , , , ,’ ; |…………
      …………………’, ; ;,’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-, , ,-‘ ;,-‘…………
      ………………….,’-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-‘ ;,,-‘…………..
      ………………..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;__ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,’……………..
      ………………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’¯: : ’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; _ ; ; ; ; ;’,……………..
      ……………..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;| : : : : : :| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘’¯: ¯’’-, ; ; ;’,…………….
      …………….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,_: : _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | : : : : : :| ; ; ; |……………
      ……………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,,_ : :,-‘ ; ; ; ;|……………
      …………..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-~’’ , , , , ,,,-~~-, , , , _ ; ; ;¯¯ ; ; ; ; ;|THERES TWENTY OF THEM LOL
      …………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’ , , , , , , ,( : : : : :) , , , ,’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|……………
      ……….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’, , , , , , , , ,’~---~’’ , , , , , ,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,…………..
      …….,-‘’ ; _, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’~-,,,,--~~’’’¯’’’~-,,_ , ,_,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,………….
      ….,-‘’-~’’,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; | . . . . . . ,’; ,’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,_ ; ‘-,………..
      ……….,’ ; ;,-, ; ;, ; ; ;, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ;’, . . . . .,’ ;,’ ; ; ; ;, ; ; ;,’-, ; ;,’ ‘’~--‘’’………
      ………,’-~’ ,-‘-~’’ ‘, ,-‘ ‘, ,,- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ; ‘~-,,,-‘’ ; ,’ ; ; ; ; ‘, ;,-‘’ ; ‘, ,-‘,……………..
      ……….,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ‘’ ; ; ;’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’-,,_ ; ; ; _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ;’-‘’ ; ; ; ‘’ ; ;’-,…………..
      ……..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯¯’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-,……….
      ……,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,…….
      …..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|..’-,_ ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ‘,…..
      ….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…….’’’,-~’ ; ; ; ; ; ,’…..
      …,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’~-,,,,,--~~’’’’’’~-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…..,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘……
      …| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘……..
      …’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’….’, ; ; ; ; _,,-‘’…………
      ….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…….’’~~’’¯………………
      …..’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;_,,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘…………………………….
      ………’’~-,,_ ; ; ; ; _,,,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘……………………………..
      ………..| ; ; ;¯¯’’’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-‘……………………………….
      ………..’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘…………………………………
      …………| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|…………………………………..
      …………’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ~-,,___ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,………………………………….
      ………….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘….’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,…………………………………
      ………..,’ ‘- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’……….’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,………………………………..
      ……….,’ ; ;’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-‘…………….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,……………………………….
      ………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’…………………’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |……………………………….
      ……..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-‘………………………’’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |………………………………
      ……..| ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…………………………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’……………………………….
      ……..| ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’………………………..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’’………………………………..
      ……..| ; ; ; ; ; ;,’……………………….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘………………………………….
      ……..’,_ , ; , ;,’……………………….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘……………………………………
      ………’,,’,¯,’,’’|……………………….| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘--,,………………………………….
      ………….¯…’’………………………..’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’~,,…………………………….
      ……………………………………………’’-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’~-,,……………………….
      ………………………………………………..’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ,,_ ; ;’-,’’-,……………………..
      …………………………………………………..’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,__,--...........................
      ……………………………………………………’-, ; ; ;,,-~’’’ , ,|, |……………………
      ………………………………………………………’’~-‘’_ , , ,,’,_/--‘……………………
      …………………………………………………………….’’~-~’…….......................…….
  • dignews, on 07/07/2008, -82/+21I agree it shouldnt be allowed, weither you would call it 'art' or not, the bottom line is its a 6 year old girl naked and its illegal and wrong.
    • chaddles, on 07/08/2008, -2/+48It's not illegal...
      The Henson exhibit caused the original uproar... the exhibit was closed down and the police removed the artwork. It was reviewed and classified PG, and returned to the art gallery.
      The picture shown in this article is not child porn, and not illegal.
      • SquareEnix, on 07/09/2008, -17/+2well what is it then? how can it be considered anything but a cheap excuse for art?
      • filmbandit, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4somebody tell me when inquisition occurred and what year is this?
      • thevoiceless, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4It's a freaking NIPPLE. Get over it!
        The problem is not with the art, but with society. When people look at a picture of a nude 8 year old girl that is intended as art (regardless of what you consider art to be) and you see something pornographic, YOU are the one with the problems, not the art.
    • petermac99, on 07/09/2008, -0/+30Are babies in diaper ads illegal? At what age does it become wrong?
      • NotADoctor, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1It's not an age issue, it is the matter of the artist's intent, or how people construe it. That is how ART magazine is allowed to have naked minors of varying ages in it; i.e. because it is art.
    • alex7575, on 07/09/2008, -1/+20Why is it wrong to depict a nude child? There is nothing wrong with that, what's wrong are the sick nutjobs that get off on that, and the stupid people who are overly sensitive about this issue.

      Do you know you can't take bath pictures of your own baby, without having the photo place warn you that they'll have to tell the cops about it...(why didn't that happen back in the day when MY parents were doing that ***** to me).

      A naked child is the most beautiful image you'll ever see, as long as you're seeing it with the right eyes. Why is that it bothers you so much? Because of the sexual connotations? Those come from inside your head, the fact that the child is naked, that's only the trigger.
    • salomejones, on 07/09/2008, -0/+13Are you sure you want to tell the entire world that you automatically sexualize naked children?
    • Phyraxus, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8http://www.synthstuff.com/mt/archives/Coppertone_g ...

      OMG, THIS IMAGE IS PORNOGRAPHIC!!!
    • altrego99, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Just wanted to point out, illegal does not imply wrong. Advise using your own head to decide what is right and what is wrong, rather than blindly following the scriptures.
  • ileftfark, on 07/07/2008, -24/+253I totally met her on a chatroom the other night. But she said she was 8. Lying bitch.
  • SuperWinner, on 07/07/2008, -15/+318Porn is pictures of people engaged in sex acts...

    Simple nudity is not porn, regardless of age. Ever been to a nude beach? Nothing sexy about it I can assure you...
    • EatingPie, on 07/08/2008, -49/+14Actually, that's not true.

      Pornography, noun - Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intending to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.

      There are certainly nudes that aren't pornographic. Equally certainly, there are nudes which ARE... Playboy and Penthouse are pornographic magazines, and focus primarily on individual nude women.

      -Pie
      • Dauntless1, on 07/08/2008, -4/+17So that picture was supposed to stimulate erotic thoughts? In who?
      • fas2, on 07/08/2008, -3/+8Pedos?
      • itsthebrod, on 07/09/2008, -3/+19Huh? SuperWinner states that porn is basically pictures of people engaged in sex acts. You post a definition stating "Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity." How is that any different?

        The point is this picture is nowhere near porn. Too many people equate nudity to porn. Since when did being in our natural state cause so many prudes to freak out?
      • Zarokima, on 07/09/2008, -0/+11Pie: He said "*SIMPLE* nudity [emphasis added]." Without the "simple" you would be completely right, but as is you sound like you're just arrogantly looking for something to correct. Simple nudity (i.e. just hanging out naked) is not sexually provocative (unless you make it that way in your mind). Nudity (note the lack of adjective) may or may not be.
      • tacojohn48, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Dauntless1 - I don't think he was claiming that that does stimulate erotic thoughts. He was just pointing out that pornography does not have to include a sex act in it.

        itsthebrod - people started freaking out about nudity when Eve and Adam ate the fruit from the tree and they realized they were naked. (actually nudity became taboo during the Victorian era with a resurgence in recent times fueled by the "religious right")
      • tobikow, on 07/09/2008, -1/+11We can read you username wherever you make a post.
        you dont have to put "-pie" at the end of your comment.
      • Phyraxus, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4Yes, I do believe the quantifier SIMPLE as opposed to EXPLICIT is the difference between nudity and pornographic nudity. EXPLICIT is a close up of the girl's crotch with intent to arouse, this picture doesn't even show it from afar. People are making a big deal out of thin air.
    • bratterscain, on 07/09/2008, -39/+3Tell that to the people who get off on child porn. If we let this slide, do you not realize this opens the door for more child exploitation? I'm not a prude or religious, but where do we draw that line? When does photographs of nude children become "artistic"? Is it by consent of the children or consent of the parents? It just opens the door for a whole ***** of excuses to have nude child photos in your house or on a PC.
      • Zarokima, on 07/09/2008, -4/+9If you can really get off on that little (even if she was fully grown in the same pose) then pedophilia is not the only thing wrong with you.
      • wexmajor, on 07/09/2008, -2/+12I don't support banning this picture, but this post touches on an important issue.

        Despite what seems to be popular belief, child porn is NOT illegal so that pedophiles have nothing to fap to because ***** pedophiles. The reason child porn is illegal is because the child cannot give consent. I hardly think this girl, at the age of six, was able to give informed consent to having naked pictures of herself distributed on a national scale. Regardless of whether or not it was meant to be erotic.
      • bratterscain, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2Zarokima, why do you think Playboy magazine is so popular and yet not so revealing? Because guys actually *read* it?
      • BoneheadFarker, on 07/09/2008, -2/+7@wexmajor

        Technically, she can't give consent. But her mother, on the other hand, can. And she did. That's what people need to remember too...
    • altrego99, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4Never been there, but I have about 4gb of photos of such people, mostly girls. Would definitely love to go there and see for myself sometimes :-)
    • TheRealToma, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2I do believe its called softcore porn.
      Hardcore is where people do it.
      • drdave1114, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1no you dolt. softcore is normally doesn't show the insertion at any time, and is normally vary slow, drawn out and has mood music in the background, hardcore normally deals with anything beyond that and is rather more violent. this picture shows nothing sexual unless you decide to make in sexual, like how saying something with a different undertone can change the definition of what your saying entirely
  • jblen, on 07/08/2008, -17/+191What a joke. Our society has turned into a bunch of paranoid fools. There's nothing wrong with this picture...
    • akschnare, on 07/08/2008, -38/+12Especially if it gives me an erection.
      • minusthebux, on 07/09/2008, -9/+3What a joke. Our Digg has turned into a bunch of humorless fools. There's nothing wrong with this comment...
    • mrshare, on 07/09/2008, -7/+14You can blame the christian lunatics and fanatical, paranoid soccer moms for this type of *****.
    • AWBoy666, on 07/09/2008, -14/+10Ehhhhhhh..........while this isn't porn, it's certainly not in good taste and definitely should not be put on the cover of a magazine. I'm personally offended by it just due to my personal nature. I'm not interested in seeing a 6 year old girl naked and quite in fact really don't want to. Therefore, I don't regard this as art or porn. Just something I don't want to see.
      • dbug, on 07/09/2008, -2/+11Oh yeah, I'm personally offended by little pictures of elephants that wear the colours of the American flag. I hope you understand my concerns and remove your very offending avatar as it is something I don't want to see. Thank you very much.
      • MinsterX, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1This was a magazine that specialises in Australian art news. The current calls for censorship by Bravehearts and others constitute art news.

        Sexualisation of both this picture and Bill Henson's work occurs in the mind of those who view them. Many of the MSM in Australia showed the picture with huge black marks across it, intimating that there was something to hide, while the national broadcasters showed the picture without black marks because, in the words of one prominent commentator "you can't see nothing anyways".

        Australia is one of those countries that could have benefited from a war of independance. We value our rights too lightly here, as we have never had to fight for them.
    • tobikow, on 07/09/2008, -8/+5@akschnare
      Go back to 4chan!
  • hollyminkowski, on 07/08/2008, -9/+96That image seems pretty innocuous to me.
    • diggenerate, on 07/09/2008, -1/+7agreed there is nothing wrong with this picture, it is just as innocent as someone taking a picture of their children playing in the bath, yet somehow people still get in trouble for it. I mean come on we were born nude and there is nothing wrong with posing nude, it is our natural state.
    • Eezyville, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4Aww she is so cute! :3
  • nastronomical, on 07/08/2008, -71/+4Liberals and perverts....whats the difference?
    • Dauntless1, on 07/08/2008, -9/+16Conservative and Dictator? No difference in America.
    • Zarokima, on 07/09/2008, -5/+6I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch that, what did you say? Republican foot tapping?
    • dha07030, on 07/09/2008, -6/+4You are upset with him for making the comparison so you go and make an equally stupid one, Bravo!
    • tobikow, on 07/09/2008, -0/+15They have nothing to do with each other. There you go.
    • tacohead, on 07/09/2008, -2/+15One is conservative, the other is liberal.
  • str3ama, on 07/08/2008, -16/+43"I can't stand this stuff," said Rudd, a staunch Christian whose centre-left Labor government won a sweeping victory over conservatives last year, in part on a vow to reinvigorate Australia's small but influential arts community.

    Enough said..I'm not surprised, Australia is one of the most conservative and censor happy countries in the world
    • chaddles, on 07/08/2008, -1/+16Very true.

      The cops seized the artwork in the Henson exhibit (which the article refers to)... this was reviewed by the classifications board and rated PG... probably the same rating this photo would receive.

      Australians aren't really so conservative and censor happy, we've just had a run of bad governments lately, honest! Withdrawing funding from the magazine is not a good response.
      • bbqsalad, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6As an American. I understand your pain.
    • diggenerate, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4yet they allow nudity on public television.
    • aristideau, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5"Censor happy!!", dont think so, can you say "*****" or "*****" on public TV in your country, like you can here in Australia without it getting bleeped.
    • NickDaddyKing, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2"said a staunch christian" hmmmm religous bias much? im suprised noone notices this stuff.
    • CrazyChair, on 07/21/2008, -1/+3Yeah so conservative we've legalised prostitution. We were the first ones to have a brothel publicly listed on the stock exchange.

      What exactly is censor happy about Australia anyway? The only thing I can think of is the retarded video game classifications board who haven't created an R18+ rating for video games yet. Most Australians want the R rating. It would at least stop games from being slightly toned down and sold to 15 year olds (which makes no sense).
    • pinguwin, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Do you really think it's one of the most conservative societies in the world? Just travel north to Papua New Guinea where men and women NEVER hold hands in public. I've traveled quite a bit and spent seven months in Oz and I can assure you, there are more societies that I've been to that are far more more rigid than Oz. It's fair to say it's more conservative than you prefer but not even close to one of the "most conservative."
    • MinsterX, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Strangely enough I agree with both you and aristideau.

      Australians see themselves as 'just as good as anyone else'. A quick review of newspaper articles whenever a new Top 10 list of countries, cities, etc is released indicates this; Australian media laud any increase in popularity, livability, attractiveness with obsessive fervor. We see ourselves as laid back, tough and compassionate but run to our politicians the moment that a question of morality arises, seeking an answer that is laid out in law. We see ourselves as intelligent and informed but stop thinking the moment someone uses the word 'Terrorist' or 'Paedophile' as if the word is a definition and justification in one. We are teenagers on the global stage, seeking firm boundaries against which we can test our identities.

      We need to grow up, cut our hair, move out of home and get a job.
    • cornflakepirate, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5Australia is not conservative or censor-happy at all, it's just Rudd being an uptight holier-than-thou catholic douche sticking his personal opinion where it doesn't belong.
      • NotADoctor, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Sorry, but Rudd never stuck his nose in. He was asked in an interview on ABC news radio that covered Global warming, the G8 summit and other content. This subject was one of the final questions. And since he is one of the few politicians who has a quote on the subject (and being PM and all), his comments have continued to circulate since Sunday.

        The good thing he did was to say that it was his own personal opinion. He didn't drag his party or leadership group or rank or office with him, saying that they were with him on this issue, etc.
      • cornflakepirate, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1True, but it was pretty foolish of him to give such a strong personal opinion. Sure you might say that his comments are highly circulated and taken out of context, but surely he would (or should) have expected that, given the sensitive subject matter and his high profile. If he genuinely didn't want a big fuss over the matter then he would have handled the question a bit more delicately.

        Anyway, when I was writing my comment I was mostly just outraged at the "conservative and censor-happy" remark, I'm not really _that_ upset at Rudd's comments. :)
  • rocketman42, on 07/08/2008, -11/+235The girl, now 11, is more mature than the prime minister:

    "I love the photo so much. I think that the picture my mum took of me had nothing to do with being abused, and I think nudity can be a part of art," Olympia Nelson said.
    • Morfine, on 07/09/2008, -32/+4ever thought her parents brainwashed her into thinking that as she grew up?
      • RNEMESiS42, on 07/09/2008, -1/+11So what parents teach their children is akin to brainwashing? Every human on the planet must be a goddamn zombie then; get the shotguns!
      • evil-doer, on 07/09/2008, -0/+26teaching children (or anyone for that fact) that nudity is wrong is brainwashing
      • opiniastrous, on 07/09/2008, -5/+1I did Morfine.

        I'm not too interested in this whole debate, but I saw the press conference held by Robert Nelson and his daughter Olympia.

        It's quite hard to describe in words, but there seemed to be something odd about the father and the girl. The girl certainly did seem to appear as if she had assimilated her parents' attitudes to many things. I think this article provides some interesting information about the conference:

        http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,239 ...
    • barnsaton, on 07/09/2008, -10/+3Cookie-cutter response.
    • h0ly, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4In the end, the parents' attitude towards this fact is what really mattered the most (for her)
    • JointVenture, on 07/09/2008, -8/+1This girl will be on the pole, but only after a stint posting photos of her 13 year old self giving old men blow jobs to Anon.
    • NotADoctor, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Olympia was asked in this interview what she thought of Rudd's opinion to her piece of art. She said she didn't know what Rudd had said, to which her father stated "Basically, he hates it." Olympia then agreed with her father, and went on to say that she'd like to debate Rudd on the issue.
  • digjam, on 07/08/2008, -54/+8I dont care whether you call it porn or nudity....THIS IS SIMPLY WRONG! There is no ..so called..art in it.THIS IS ***** RIDICULOUS. Why put it on the cover when u could have easily done without it....and its not even adding anything to the magazine.
    • mctom987, on 07/08/2008, -7/+3Publicity?
      How many people do you think would buy the magazine to read why there was a nude child on the front page?
    • chaddles, on 07/08/2008, -1/+31Why is it wrong? It hasn't hurt anyone. Whether it is 'art' or not is in the eye of the beholder. I can understand thinking that porn is wrong - child porn obviously so. But why would you think that nudity is wrong? Should Renaissance artworks also be censored when they feature nude children?
      • tacohead, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4hould Renaissance artworks also be censored when they feature nude children?

        Digjam thinks so!

    • unorginalityftw, on 07/09/2008, -0/+17Ever been to an old European church and looked at the images on the glass?

      ...yeah...
    • filmbandit, on 07/09/2008, -1/+11you think this is porn?

      you shouldn't be looking at art magazines

      you should be looking at 10 to 20 yrs
    • digjam, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1I m being dugg down for saying its WRONG to post nude pics of children on mag covers? WEIRD

      AND BTW THIS IS NO WHERE CLOSE TO RENAISSANCE ART YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT!
      • chaddles, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6I was just using Renaissance art as an example... what about the album cover for "Nevermind" by Nirvana? It's not the "high art" of the renaissance period, but neither is it pornographic in any way. Would you censor it?
        What about the old Superman movie? He arrives on Earth naked.
        What about a parent who photographs their child while they play innocently in the buff?
        What about sex ed books with pictures?
        Where do *you* draw a line between what is and is not acceptable?
        The line drawn by Australian legislation is one of sexualisation... A sexual image of a naked child is not legal... a non-sexual image of a naked child is legal.
        The reason the magazine made this move was to protest the police and government's heavy-handedness in censoring an art exhibition that included pictures of naked minors that were later rated PG by the classification board. There's a big difference between a recommendation of "Parental Guidance" and child pornography.
  • Steinr, on 07/08/2008, -9/+47There is something wrong with people who think that this picture is wrong. The picture is great and yes she has no cloths on but there is nothing graphically porno or absurd about it. It is a great piece of art. as quoted above:
    "I love the photo so much. I think that the picture my mum took of me had nothing to do with being abused, and I think nudity can be a part of art," Olympia Nelson
    • Dauntless1, on 07/08/2008, -21/+3Well guess what. I was walking through wal-mart the other day, and say a lovely new section of clothing. Thong underwear, lingerie, thong two piece bathing suits, lace panties. ALL FOR AGES 8 TO 14. Go censor Australia when you bitches get that ridiculous store to pull that merchandise. Anyone who listens to those retarded fools call themselves a family store is deluded. Morals start AT HOME. Not anywhere else.
      • tacohead, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6I don't goto walmart, so I can't verify that these items of clothing exist. I suspect you are misinterpreting what you saw there.

        But you don't have to buy these things if you don't like them.

        We are supposed to live in a free country right? you are on the more Victorian side of society, others are not.
        If you would like to continue to believe and do what you want, your going to have to stop making others do and think what you want.


      • ssdded, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4EXACTLY. AT HOME. Your words. In other words, by your logic, in a more moral culture, there wouldn't even be a market for such items if we raised our children right.

        In other words, why not raise YOUR children right and implore other parents to do the same instead of demanding a store to remove their merchandise? Or would that make too much sense?
      • Dauntless1, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0Right. So selling that stuff to children is ok?
    • opiniastrous, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2That's the cover of a magazine. There are pictures inside it you know.

      Also, from the information present in this article, the debate has been oversimplified.

      http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,239 ...
    • twitch488, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1obviously a prepared statement.
    • dracostimpy, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1That's true; it's totally artistic and in no way obscene. Unless, of course, you're like me and you lighten it about 65%, zoom and despeckle to find that you can in fact see that the little girl is actually a little boy! WTF, THAT'S OBSCENE!
  • EatingPie, on 07/08/2008, -38/+75When the Miley Cyrus' Vanity Fair photos came out, diggers at large condemned her for them. Called her a slut, that she was following Brittney Spears' footsteps, and so on.

    Here is a far more revealing photograph, of a far younger child, and yet it is now staunchly defended. Why is that? Is it because we wanted to judge and condemn Miley Cyrus? Is it because a politician is now involved? I'm not sure I can see the reason. There sure looks like a double-standard here.

    -Pie
    • Haoie, on 07/08/2008, -4/+20We all should just get over that little photo shoot, too. A whole lot of fuss over nothing.
    • swrostmore, on 07/09/2008, -3/+29I don't remember "diggers at large" condemning Miley Cyrus. I do recall Bill O'Reilly making a huge production about it, and suggesting on air that he "hold a conference" for some reason.
    • Uiaccsk, on 07/09/2008, -1/+12I think the difference there was people consider miley cyrus a celebrity in her own right, with responsibilities to those she influences. In this case those who see something wrong with this see this girl as a victim rather than someone culpable for the obscenity.
    • feoren, on 07/09/2008, -6/+13There's no ***** double standard, you're just making up something that never actually happened. I can just as easily say "omg diggers all said that women should have to wear a burka but now they're DEFENDING this exposed girl?" ***** you, I never said Miley Cyrus was a slut for that photograph, in fact it's the only thing she's ever done that's not completely *****. You're a digger too, ass hole. I'm sure there were people saying stupid crap like that, but those people should be ignored anyway, and 10 examples is not "diggers at large"
    • tacojohn48, on 07/09/2008, -1/+14The are several differences in the two. First the age of the subject; a prepubescent child is not seen as sexual by the majority of the population where a teenager is. Another thing is that Miley is supposed to be a role model to young girls and many parents disagree with the message that was being sent. Finally Diggers like to make outrageous statements and that is what happened with Miley's photos.

      /we discussed Miley Cyrus in my marketing class(before the pictures) and I said that the creepy guys were a secondary market for the show and that Disney was fully aware and accepting of it. Those pictures were a way to transition the brand before Miley's appeal to children fades. It was a thought out and planned move.
    • Tyrghast, on 07/09/2008, -0/+12There is no double standard being expressed. Miley Cyrus was showing off her bod to advance her career, to shock the conservatives and get more attention. It's not original, but it's a strategy that works time and again.
      The pictures of this little 6 yr old are artistic, done solely for the purpose of creating a good picture rather than draw attention to oneself and increase popularity.
      • joey368, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Never heard such a thing. First of all, Miley's still underage to be judged by how sexy she is. It's against the law to pose nude underage, 18 is the age when you're allowed. I remember this one raunchy video game got banned just for having a 17 year old get naked. Second, it sure isn't convincing me to like her. I don't see anything bodalicious about a Disney-approved naked photoshoot of a 15 year old. And I don't know why it's working.

        And pretty much the 6 year old in a magazine isn't art if it's a photograph.
      • Tyrghast, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Joey, the sheer fact that you know of miley cyrus and her revealing photoshoot means her bid for attention worked.
      • joey368, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1Well what does Vanity Fair benefit from it? It's not even advertisement since she isn't even wearing clothes haha.
    • MarspK, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4http://digg.com/politics/Revealing_Photo_of_15_yea ...

      where do you see diggers at large condemning the pictures? The comments there seem like the ones here, its no big deal, its art, the media is blowing it out of proportions, etc.
    • dracostimpy, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Miley Cyrus is a slut and so is your face!
  • jesusfish, on 07/08/2008, -15/+175Anyone offended by that picture is a closet pedophile.
    • SquareEnix, on 07/09/2008, -41/+9and anyone not offended is an out-of-the-closet pedophile.
      • Briandt75, on 07/09/2008, -0/+11Wow, you sure hopped on that bandwagon fast pal. Methinks you've got some similar dirty laundry of your own.

      • Prathik89, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1SquareEnix? LOL!
    • def1234, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2-Kurt Cobain

      I fixed it for you
    • yayintertubes, on 07/09/2008, -2/+9I agree. Nothing offensive or even slightly suggestive about that painting. Being 'disgusted' is either overreaction, or overcompensation.
    • jblen, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1I was thinking the same thing...
  • Shigglyboo, on 07/08/2008, -26/+9I gotta say it's a bit weird to see a naked 6-year old posing like that. It doesn't seem natural. It's like from the neck up she looks older and womanly, but she's a child from the neck down. So why do people wanna look at naked 6-year olds? I can't think of a justifiable reason really. I suppose it's not smut or anything, but I wouldn't want it in my house.
    • p0ss, on 07/09/2008, -0/+7At the risk of having Chris Hansen showing up at my house:

      Do you agree that the human body in all its miriad forms is one of the most beautiful things in existence? You may hate spiders and think that people who like them are sick and twisted, but does that mean people shouldn't be able to take pictures of spiders?

      For my money the problem here is that we all believe photographs to be reality, when in fact all photography, be it documentary or not, is art. A photograph doesn't give you a moment in time, it is not a slice of reality. It is a single angle of a single persons perception of a single moment. We are constantly shown pictures of events and told to believe that wwe are seeing reality, we are not, we are seeing art, every time.

      I have been to war zones, i have seen truly shocking thiings, this is not shocking. I don't believe that any other person has the right to decide what i see, they can by all means warn me that i might not want to see it, but I am a sane, educated and rational adult I should be free to make my own judgement on the things i percieve, in relation to my own moral standpoint.

      I don't care what other people think when they see that image, I honestly don't even care if they are aroused (the sick bastards), because it is in their own minds. I care when they act on those thoughts.

      Society can not be allowed to govern peoples thoughts, no matter how twisted. Everyone has thought of killing someone, but we dont, and if you start trying to arrest all the twisted thought murderers out there, you will eventually end up arresting yoruself.

      Honestly, should we start banning six year olds from being naked, just because some wierdo might find ti arousing? should we just go the whole hog and ban six year olds all together?

      Government: Stop trying to be the thought police, you have enough trouble trying to control the physical world.
  • ivan423, on 07/08/2008, -13/+111What's the big deal? When I was six years old my uncle used to take pictures of me completely nude.
  • SUPERnova007, on 07/08/2008, -19/+9that picture is nothing but awkward
  • smurfz, on 07/08/2008, -27/+6Now that's just nasty.
  • Beanbones, on 07/08/2008, -2/+5This won't end well.
  • RobotLeAwesome, on 07/08/2008, -3/+26Uh what? What's the big deal?
    • silencerider151, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Don't you people have random 6 year olds running around your local pool similarly naked?
  • stubear, on 07/08/2008, -3/+67So, it's OK for people to have pictures of their kids in their birthday suits but the second a photo like that shows up on a magazine cover then it's pornography? I really wish people would stop marginalizing the small stuff, there are serious child pornography rings out there that are far more important to shut down.
    • beezn, on 07/09/2008, -0/+18When I was a child - 10 months I think, my mom took a picture of me in only a baseball cap, taking a bath in the kitchen sink - it isn't porn or weird or anything. it won me a cute baby contest though at our church. yes It was a catholic church but still.
    • tobikow, on 07/09/2008, -8/+3Dugg your comment for "birthday suits."
      spellcheck is awesome.
    • alex7575, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Actually, it's not OK to have pictures of your own baby or kids naked, my neighbor took some pictures of her son and his sister taking a bath together, when she went back to the photo place, the dude told her that he'll have to notify the authorities about the pictures, and that that was the law...
  • PhillAholic, on 07/08/2008, -22/+9In other news, an Australian art magazine has come under fire for a nude photograph of a six-year-old girl...Which we will now show you!
  • smurf22, on 07/08/2008, -5/+95This is only pornography if you're a sick *****. She's not engaging in sex or any other lewd act.
  • jonlarge, on 07/08/2008, -4/+39If your computer was searched and they found this "art" on your hard drive, what would happen?
    • Jacob, on 07/09/2008, -0/+23most likely nothing as long as they dont find a bunch of child porn with it. It's a matter of context. By itself the picture is nothing but if it's in the same folder as pictures of 6 year olds getting raped then in the context this is bad.
      • floridiot2, on 07/09/2008, -1/+19Moral of the story: Keep your 6year old art in separate folders than your 6 year old rape porn.
      • MadHarvey, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2It could be a little more tricky. If you had this picture in a directory with normal pornography, it would be treated as child pornography. By grouping it with other erotic photographs that are meant for sexual stimulation, they can (and HAVE) use that to show intent that you intended to use this image in that way. Its all about your intent.

        On an interesting related note, everyone that viewed pornography in their browser previously and then clicked on this Digg link--without clearing your temp files, is now in the position of having mixed this photo with pornography in the same directory, and could have a potential problems if they happened to be searched for some reason. Fun times!
    • tacohead, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4likely nothing. but given that all of you have been to the web page containing this article. I suggest that none of you ever take your computer to geek squad now just to be safe.

    • bxblox, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1Depends. If its a picture of your daughter, probably nothing if the picture was something like that. If it's someone elses kid, expect to go to federal pound me in the ass prison if the family doesn't get you first.
  • mal1964, on 07/08/2008, -5/+4I'm so glad i don't have any daughters. But if i did and you see her naked on a magazine cover, I'm dead.
    • Premier, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Your dead?
      • mal1964, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2You're dead.
      • gyrfalcon, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1So if we see your non-existent daughter on a magazine cover you're dead?

        What if your non-existent daughter was madly in love and happily boning someone... would you die then too?
  • Nextrix, on 07/09/2008, -4/+18Lets cloth the girl, and put a gun to her head and take another picture, and see what reaction we get from that. It's ART, not kiddie porn. Next they will start saying that the naked baby photos that almost all parents get taken need to be blurred out when published. Sad sad world.
    • filmbandit, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1i think that's already happening though i can't recall where i read it
      • Nextrix, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4Really? Wow, I just threw that one out there into the blue randomly to see the reaction I would get.
    • filmbandit, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4i've read about the chain drugstore film developers turning over innocuous naked kiddo in the bathtub photos to the local police
      • MinsterX, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1Thankfully for the parents of Australia we don't have drugstores in this country.

        And we use digital cameras. Keep up with times USA!

        :)
  • aphexcoil, on 07/09/2008, -3/+7Have a seat right over there!
  • dstruktNine, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Meh.
  • davidbarnes, on 07/09/2008, -22/+7The submitter has misrepresented the circumstances in Australia around which this has occurred. Bill Henson, an Australian photographer had an exhibit (closed by police and debated about in parliament) of nude children (with the youngest being 13 I think). Much of the population was offended, as were politicians (including both the Prime Ministers cabinet and opposition cabinet), and a national debate began over whether it was child exploitation and pornography (and whether the owners of the art gallery and Bill Henson should hence be charged and prosecuted).

    Now 3 weeks later, that art magazine has deliberately placed a sexualised nude image of a 6 year old (not even 13 like Bill Henson did!) on its front cover to provoke outrage.

    Personally the liberal art idiots have gone too far, and both the editor of the magazine and photographer must be criminally charged. The art magazine has also lost all of its government funding as a result of this, so I wonder if they now think it was all so worth it lol.
    • beautifulleper, on 07/09/2008, -0/+10It doesn't look sexualized to me. I don't know what your talking about.
    • filemeaway, on 07/09/2008, -2/+9Truly, you're as clueless and intolerant as the politicians opposing this. A previous incident shouldn't affect the interpretation of the piece. That's not how law works. The image is in no way "sexualised", unless you are approaching it that way. That being the case, your disgust shows more about you than the morals of the photographer. If you don't like it, don't buy the ***** magazine.

      Your poor excuse for a concept of liberty exemplifies what's wrong with the world. Stop forcing your skewed morals on the rest of the society. No one was hurt in this incident, both parents and the child knew what they are doing. If any crime was committed, it's the close-minded politicians who attempt to encroach on the liberty of those simply expressing themselves.
    • aaabatteries, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Anyone over 13 is not a child.
      • CarolineAttack, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1*****..anyone under 18 is a child... and a good portion of those over...
    • apophenic, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Dugg for the backstory, could have done without the vitriol though.
    • Haecceity, on 07/09/2008, -0/+9If you think there's something sexual about that picture, I hope to god you don't have any children. Please go see a therapist before your pedophile tendencies become any stronger.
    • tacojohn48, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2You had me going for a minute. I almost took the bait. Don't feed the trolls.
    • javip, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4YOU have misrepresented Australia
    • chaddles, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2The Henson exhibit, as you rightly say, was closed by police.
      But you fail to mention that after the police seized the art, it was reviewed by the Classification Board. They classified it PG, upon which the artworks were released, and the exhibit re-opened. If they believed the depiction was sexual, it would have been classified differently.
      The magazine was protesting the police action and government over-reaction, rather than attempting to "provoke outrage".
      If you think these people should be charged, perhaps you can point out what crime they have committed, or under what legislation they should be charged?
  • FrankTheTank17, on 07/09/2008, -4/+6Doesn't Australia have a lot of nude beaches and therefore encourage nudism? I'm sure there are plenty of children who live with nudist families and don't see a problem with it. Besides, looking at the picture, you can tell it's not porn.
    • Morfine, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2australia doesn't have any nude beaches, its has some "deserted" beaches. so get your facts straight before you say that it encourages nudism
      • FrankTheTank17, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Well according to this site about beaches in Australia, there are plenty of nudist beaches in Australia. Maybe you should get your facts straight before you say something that's just plain wrong.

        http://www.freebeach.com.au/Beach%20List.htm
      • vorky, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0Point is that there is currently no legal nude beaches in Australia ... Maslin (sp?) is probably the closest in South Australia, however the Queensland government have put out an Expression of Interest in creating a legal nude beach at Noosa (Alexandra Beach) ... which has been an unofficial one for a while.
  • sneaker98, on 07/09/2008, -2/+37This just in: everybody has a naked body. Even kids.

    Now, if she was being depicted in a pornographic way, then yeah, that'd be wrong. But geez, that's clearly not the intent in this photo. Relax, people. The kid is clearly not traumatized, she said she likes the photo. There's no issue here.
    • statsman1982, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1@sneaker98 "She said she likes the photo."

      Irrelevant. She's six. She's not old enough to give informed consent and recognize the long-term consequences of decisions like these.
  • triont, on 07/09/2008, -24/+4Bunch of sick ***** in here.
    • tacohead, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5and arrogant jerkwads apparently.
    • artfiend77, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3Yeah, and you'd be standing up in that line? So what was your first thought of this little girl when you saw the picture? Nevermind, I don't want to know.
  • welliwonder, on 07/09/2008, -7/+27there seems to be nothing sexual about the art... what is wrong? Nude does not always = sex you ***** PERVERTS!
  • kidlover69, on 07/09/2008, -8/+3You cant keep my love from this beautiful bo- wait it's a girl... Nevermind
  • wexmajor, on 07/09/2008, -5/+5Nude art isn't necessarily pornography, but porn can still be art. Anyone who claims it can't has no clue what they're talking about.
  • Inordinate, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8Well. As an Australian, I'm not sure how I should feel that this is what it takes to get us on the front page of Digg.

    And don't believe that everyone here thinks identically to Kevin Rudd. There's a very healthy debate raging.
  • cparsons, on 07/09/2008, -8/+51All your IPs have been recorded.
    • tobikow, on 07/09/2008, -1/+7tor browsing FTW
      • passedoutghost, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0You do realise that if the person is browsing child porn and you happen to be the last node on the network, you're *****, right?
    • floridiot2, on 07/09/2008, -1/+6child porn roll?
  • davidbarnes, on 07/09/2008, -16/+5If the prime minister or anyone else in Australia had that image as his computer screensaver, he would be thoroughly investigated and most probably be listed as a sex offender. Just because it is on a magazine doesn't make it any better. Remember you're dealing with Australian culture and law, not American.
  • amerryman, on 07/09/2008, -18/+1..
  • wexmajor, on 07/09/2008, -5/+13You can't even see anything. What kind of psychopath would think this is pornographic for even a second?
  • hamobu, on 07/09/2008, -3/+25It is kind of silly. The girl is obviously not abused. In some respects our society is not that different from Taliban. Remember that high school kid that got 10 years for consensual oral sex? We keep basing our laws and morality on rather backward religious sentiment.
  • diargasm, on 07/09/2008, -22/+7She's 6 years old, she should be playing with dolls or something, not being used as an object by her mother to create "art".
  • hoghug, on 07/09/2008, -6/+28Nothing wrong with nudity in art, been going on for 2-3000 years now.

    If you think this is sexy, however, do mankind a favor and take a hedge clipper to your nuts before you do something that can't be undone. If you're worried other people will find it sexy, maybe that's just you repressing something.
    Better break out that hedge clipper, just in case.
    • artfiend77, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5Really now, I couldn't have said it better myself.
    • thevoiceless, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1This comment is so true that a billion green thumbs-ups wouldn't do it justice.
  • poidh, on 07/09/2008, -2/+22For the 99 out of 100 people who are not paedophiles, there is nothing sexual about a naked 6 year old girl. ***** everyone who tries to sexualise children.
    Jeez, my mum has got a photo on the stairs of me aged 6 months old, with my ***** out, being held over a potty by my grandma. Apart from the "hilarious" comments about my 6 month old tiny *****, it has never bothered me or anyone else that has ever seen it.
    Some people get turned on by pictures of animals; should we ban photos of those too?
    • Unzorn, on 07/09/2008, -1/+6Only if those animals are depicted having sex
      *turns on Animal Planet*
  • waydee, on 07/09/2008, -2/+19Christ almighty its just a little girl, theres nothing sexual or obscene about it.

    Go to any beach and you'll see naked children, topless children, topless teenagers, topless women, all out naked adults - or is this a curiously European thing?

    There is nothing wrong with the human form, people need to get the ***** over this idea that any display of flesh is somehow pornographic. It's a piece of art and nothing more. Is Nirvanas Nevermind wrong because it depicts a naked baby on the cover?
    • Akaricloud, on 07/09/2008, -4/+3I think we've established that this isn't pornographic in nature. The thing is though, the child was exploited to make a political point. Regardless of whether or the girl (now 11, still YOUNG) thinks it looks nice, the truth is that the image was only displayed to make a political point. It wasn't to express an art or some feelings, it was to get a shock reaction out of the community.

      There was nothing artistic about it, the girl might think its a nice photo herself, but the photo isn't being displayed for the reasons she personally believes.
    • morepinklemons, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Some certainly thought so since almost every store I've seen the CD in has put the price sticker right over the "offending area." When I first saw that I found it really creepy that a store would have to go to that lengths to cover their asses from possible repercussions.

      I don't understand people like this; they make everything so difficult.
    • Einchy, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4Holy *****, I need to move to Europe.
    • Kzoo, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1"Go to any beach and you'll see naked children, topless children, topless teenagers, topless women, all out naked adults - or is this a curiously European thing?"

      I won't say exclusively, 'cause I'm not sure (and I don't think it is) but there are places (the US for example) where nude beaches are specifically designated (if they're even allowed), and the greater number are not for nudists.

      "the truth is that the image was only displayed to make a political point. . . There was nothing artistic about it"

      There are a great variety of things that can be called art. . . that includes works that "make a political point." Whether or not it's good or appropriate art can be debated, but that doesn't change its designation. .
  • ForestRangerBen, on 07/09/2008, -12/+1WHERE IS PEDOBEAR?
  • mrhedges, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3Wow, this is nothing compared to Def Leppard's Virgin Killer album cover.
  • davidbarnes, on 07/09/2008, -14/+5Buried for being inaccurate. As an Australian I would be a hell of a lot more offended if Kevin RUDD WAS NOT offended by this, rather than him being offended by it.
    • javip, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3Buried for making us Australians look bad
    • spriggig, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2That's just it! He's not really offended, he's just exploiting this situation to gain political brownie points.
  • DiscoLando, on 07/09/2008, -18/+10Just because it's not pornographic doesn't mean it's ethical. Six year olds aren't capable of determining whether not a photograph of them is appropriate or not - taking such a photo is manipulative and takes advantage of the power adults have over children.
    • InkTank, on 07/09/2008, -4/+4How about asking the girl who is now 11 what she thinks

      FTA:

      "I love the photo so much. I think that the picture my mum took of me had nothing to do with being abused, and I think nudity can be a part of art," Olympia Nelson said.
      • DiscoLando, on 07/09/2008, -5/+3Did she say that when she was six? If not, then it's irrelevant.

        If she did, it's still irrelevant because six year olds aren't capable of making complex moral decisions like that.
      • aladrin, on 07/09/2008, -2/+6She's still only 11, and not exactly able to take care of herself. What's 'part of art' to her now might turn out to be truly awful later in life. 'You posed for a nude photo? You never told us that. You're fired.' comes to mind. It won't matter that she was 6... unless it was to make it worse. Especially since she approves of it.

        At 6, she DEFINITELY couldn't handle that decision.

        You're being rational and completely forgetting that most of the world is not. Especially when it comes to children.
      • thevoiceless, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2If an employer doesn't have the common sense to realize she wouldn't have had a say in the event, she shouldn't bother applying there in the first place.
    • TheSexyGeek, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4What? You think that she'll grow up and see the picture and have a nervous breakdown?
      • dbug, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1And she will probably never be able to get a job because of it, except maybe as a stripper or a private secretary :(
      • thevoiceless, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2If the employer isn't smart enough to recognize that she didn't have any say in the matter (or if she did, that it wouldn't be significant), it's obviously not a place she should want to work.
  • Narthex81, on 07/09/2008, -6/+2Hi, I'm Chris Hansen from Dateline NBC.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 141 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.