find the latest legal job
Part Time Risk & Compliance Officer
Category: Other | Location: Brisbane QLD 4000
· Brisbane City · Flexible Part Time Hours
View details
Infrastructure Lawyer/SA
Category: Construction Law | Location: Sydney CBD, Inner West & Eastern Suburbs Sydney NSW
· Global elite law firm · Dedicated Infrastructure team
View details
Property Lawyer
Category: Property Law | Location: All Melbourne VIC
· 12 Month Contract · Diverse Work
View details
In-House Legal Counsel (Mid to Senior)| Regulated Markets (Energy and Gas)
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Melbourne CBD & Inner Suburbs Melbourne VIC
· Full PD on Request · Exciting High Impact Role
View details
Family Lawyer
Category: Family Law | Location: Eastern Suburbs Melbourne VIC
· Boutique Firm · Great Reputation
View details
Legal minds court controversy over Bill Henson saga

Legal minds court controversy over Bill Henson saga

A group of leading public intellectuals didn’t shy away from the controversial aspects of the Bill Henson saga, tackling the topic of “Disturbing Australia: Art or porn?” in…

A group of leading public intellectuals didn’t shy away from the controversial aspects of the Bill Henson saga, tackling the topic of “Disturbing Australia: Art or porn?” in Melbourne.

Allan Myers AO QC, a Melbourne Law School alumnus and National Gallery of Victoria Chairman, led a panel of experts in the second of the series of “Courting Controversy” lectures held at the Melbourne law school.

Other speakers included a Melbourne University art and law expert, Associate Professor Andrew Kenyon, children’s rights expert John Tobin, freedom of speech expert Professor Adrienne Stone and modern art expert Norbert Loeffler.

Each brought a different philosophical angle to the debate over the photographs of Bill Henson, illuminating both his works and the theoretical and practical implications of the Henson debacle.

Myer’s keynote speech focused on the artistic merit of the works and dismissed claims of child exploitation surrounding the photographs as hypocritical. He pointed to the consent of both the parents and the children involved, and contrasted Henson’s work with the depiction of children in modern media.

“The accusers are like the false friends of Alexander Pope’s poem, [An Epistle to Arbuthnot]: ‘willing to wound but afraid to strike’,” he said.

“I assert that there’s not the least evidence of exploitation of any child in relation to any of Bill Henson’s photographs. No-one has suggested a single instance of it,” said Myer. “Could this be said for every magazine and advertisement we’ve seen the last week, month year? There’s a whiff of hypocrisy here,” he said.

Associate Profession Andrew Kenyon addressed the topic from a rights perspective, focusing on the rights of the subjects to freedom of expression.

“[It’s the nature of] expressive freedom, that the artist certainly has interests in speech: the audience and recipients have interests, the wider public has interests as well, but so do the subjects in the photos,” he said. “There are many reasons that the voices of the subjects should be heard and not overlooked”.

John Tobin, senior law school lecturer and international law and children’s rights expert, also emphasised the rights of children. Tobin’s argument was the most conflicted of all the panellists, debating the merits of state intervention where the welfare of children “as a class” is threatened. Tobin also advocated a clampdown on the distribution of images, particularly via the internet.

This raised the ire of his fellow panellist, Myers, in the question and answer session. “It’s a muddleheaded idea, it can’t work,” Myers retorted. “It will only lead to less tolerance in the society.”

Professor Adrienne Stone, freedom of speech expert, lamented the heavy-handed treatment of the Henson affair, pointing to the inadequacy of the Criminal Code as a regulatory tool for this category of content, and calling for a regulatory system that would solicit expert advice where needed.

Myers took issue with Stone’s calls for a regulatory body, saying: “I believe in freedom of speech. I don’t believe in calm experts making decisions about what I can see or hear, or what I can give expression to. There’s no such thing as a calm expert in human affairs.”

Like this story? Read more:

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

The legal budget breakdown 2017

Legal minds court controversy over Bill Henson saga
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
Sally Wheeler
Nov 20 2017
ANU College of Law appoints new dean
A distinguished legal academic and the former head of law of a higher education institution in Irela...
Violence
Nov 17 2017
It's time for politicians to commit to eradicating domestic violence
The national shame of domestic violence cannot be left unaddressed, writes Christine Smyth. ...
Nov 16 2017
From lawyer in law firm to senior governance professional
Promoted by Governance Institute of Australia As a law graduate, Kate Griffiths never imagined...
APPOINTMENTS
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
opinion
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
Help
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...