Censors told to ignore artistic merit of child pictures

Photograph: Bill Henson

One of Australia's most prominent child protection advocate, Bravehearts, has weighed into the art censorship debate, calling for the Classification Board to be overhauled and for matters of ''artistic merit'' and expert evidence to be scrapped when deciding if art is pornography.
Bravehearts's submission to a Senate inquiry into the film and literature classification scheme was one of several submissions highly critical of the board for allegedly sanctioning the exhibition of photographs of children that would otherwise be illegal, and for failing to halt the proliferation of images that demean women and pressure young girls to act in sexual ways.
Other community and Christian groups wanted the board's power increased so it could censor outdoor advertising, which is at present self-regulated by an industry body, the Advertising Standards Bureau.
The executive director of Bravehearts, Hetty Johnston, an outspoken critic of the work of the photographer Bill Henson, called for NSW employment laws that ban taking photographs of naked and semi-naked children to be replicated across Australia and said such photos should be refused classification by the board.
''How is it that it was illegal to take the photos but not illegal to exhibit them?'' she said, referring to photographs Henson took of a naked 12-year-old girl that were exhibited at a Sydney art gallery in 2008, sparking a ferocious debate about pornography and art.
Ms Johnston said the Classification Board should not be able to render such images ''inoffensive to reasonable persons'' and therefore legal just because it had rated them G or PG.
''Deferring such critical decisions to a panel of selected individuals in a separate process is, in our view, not only unfair and unwise, it is dangerous. The Henson debate proved that.''
The group Collective Shout criticised the board for not censoring sexualised images in films, TV and the internet, and demeaning depictions of women in music recordings. It said self-regulation in advertising was ''lazy, irresponsible government'' that ''effectively [demanded] lone citizens enter into an exhausting and often futile battle with the government classification board which appears to defend corporations''.
Kids Free 2B Kids was angry children were bombarded with adult sexualised imagery on billboards, including images that if displayed in the workplace would be considered sexual harassment. It said it seemed the only criteria for an ad to be pulled was if a female's nipples or genitalia were exposed.
No matter how many complaints were received by the Standards Bureau, advertisements such as one for Wranglers jeans showing part of a woman's buttocks, topless women in GASP Jeans ads, and outdoor ads for brothels would continue to be permitted in the public domain, it said.
The director of the Classification Board, Donald McDonald, defended the board's work to the Senate inquiry but said that while the Classification Act was ''perfectly in tune'' for some things it was outdated for others. He said also that it would not be unreasonable for outdoor advertising to fall under its auspices.
''[The act] works perfectly for films and DVDs. It works quite well for publications. What it does not work for are things that are published on the internet,'' Mr McDonald said.
Wendy Frew @'SMH'