Hmmmm. Clearly there's a difference between nakey pics of your kids running around the house and the cover of this publically funded Australian magazine. For one, nudie shots in the tub are hardly this well composed. Also, your own kids' shots are pretty much just for the family (oh, and the blog).
Plus, I don't know about your kids, but my girls rarely sit and pout like subdued -- "it's what you can't see" -- fashion models.
Still, I wouldn't exactly call this kiddie porn. What do you think?
The prime minister of Australia says he's "disgusted" and is reviewing funding of the magazine for running what he thinks is a provocative photo -- shot, incidentally, by the topless/pantless subject's mother. (Lots of the outrage centers aruond the girl's exposed nipple.)
Some background: the cover shot is a protest of the government shutting down an art exhibit that featured many, many nude kids as the subjects. The artists and curators claim those pics were art, not porn, but seems the country's very religious leader feels otherwise.
From The Independent [via Jezebel]:
The Australian Childhood Foundation said parents had no ethical right to
consent to nude photographs being taken of their children, as it could have
a psychological impact in later years.
But Nelson and her father, art critic and professor Robert Nelson, defended
the photo in a press conference outside their home in the southern city of
Melbourne.
"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.
Rudd last week met with the leaders of Australia's six states and said he
would forge a national child protection system following a spate of shocking
cases of child neglect and abuse.
What do you think? Kiddie porn or art? Little of both?
Related Posts:
Photo: The Independent
