Naked children, moral philosophy and photographs

The survey of 13 people, primarily teachers of ethics, gave seven against the photographs, three for, and three undecided (as had not seen the photos). The dinner table conversations were overwhelmingly against.

The arguments against the photographs were primarily that children were unable to weigh up the full implications of what they were doing, but second on the wider issue of the sexualisation of children, and the responsibility of parents. "Would Cate Blanchett allow her children to be photographed that way?" was on one of the survey forms.

One particularly powerful argument came from an adult male: "I went to a Christian Brothers School," he said "and there were two members of that religious order who use to fondle boys. I was one of those boys. Remember in those days, boys wore short pants. I have never since fully trusted the intentions of middle aged males." He added that the fondling of the private parts of school boys approaching adulthood, plus the then current knowledge of the 70 men in Australia currently being charged with internet pornography, much of which were photos of naked children, was his concern with the exhibitions.

The arguments for the exhibition were principally on the desire for artistic freedom: "I do not want censorship", said more than one respondent. Plus, a denial that the photographs were in any way pornographic - a denial that was echoed by several on both sides. "Many (of the photos) are even beautiful", said one respondent who did not agree with the exhibitions.

Of those who supported the exhibitions, the anonymous defenders of artistic freedom in On Line Opinion provided the more brilliant of the "for" responses: "Hensen is no more guilty than Michelangelo for his innocent artistic portraying of nude forms". (gecko); "All advertisers and artistic productions involving children could be characterised as 'using children for their own ends'". (Steel); "well, there go the harry potter movies. and the children of narnia movie. and nicky webster at the olympics. and ... god, this is just too easy." (bushbasher); "Very silly argument: ... Well, yes. Just like ABC Learning Centres , Mattel and the Wiggles, to name just a few" (jpw2040).

The most intelligent comment of the lot came from someone who at least had the courage to supply his name "Back under your rock, Bowden - come back in 50 years" posted CJ Morgan, Tuesday, June 3, 2008. Mr Morgan's comment is to be valued; for it is one that contributes immensely to the country's intellectual thinking on this debate.

Statues and paintings of naked children have been created since time immemorial; even paintings of a naked Christ, (Jan van Hemessen, Madonna and Child, 1543). But this issue is not about paintings or statues. The current controversy is about photographs: photos of actual children whose names we know. They are a far cry from a naked Michelangelo. We have no idea of who posed for this statue, and even if we did, the statue is not him but a statue of David, a representation from biblical history. The photos today are circulated around the country, with the full power of the internet, about real people whom we will know for many years.

The Narnia movie, Harry Potter, and the Wiggles are childrens' entertainment. The photos of naked children were not intended for other children, but for adults.

There is little doubt that the photographs have offended some people. The Minister for the Arts has asked for protocols. Should we have them? John Stuart Mill gave us another convincing guideline.

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

Do the photos cause harm? Remember: the trial of the paedophile Dolly Dunn, and the recorded conversations about the bodies of young boys they saw on the street, or Maddy McCann and the reports that she was kidnapped by a paedophile ring, or the respondent who still could feel the wandering hands of his male teacher?

So, it may not be, even indirectly, harm from the consequences of these exhibitions that affects the models, although we are far from sure. It may be the harm that arises from arousing the senses of men who get a thrill from naked children; and the possible harm to other children.

Note: Sydney's Philosophy Café will debate this issue on August 19. Gecko, Steele, and other staunch defenders of artistic freedom are invited to stand up and have their say.