On Oct 7, 12:38 am, fasgnadh wrote:
> Anna wrote:
> > Most people would be arrested for this type of activity.
>
> What activity, precisely, would be the basis of charges?
>
> >http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24444067-16947,00....
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/54hu7q
>
> > Revelations that photographer Bill Henson selected children to pose
> > . for ... have sparked anger and alarm among parents' groups and principals.
>
> Lies often spark anger and outrage, but no children
> were 'selected to pose .'.
>
> None.
>
> The principal contacted two parents to see if they
> would like their children photographed by an important
> international photographer (last week she might have asked
> if someone wanted to be on Neighbours, or in a footy team)
>
> One pair of parents said their son was interested, he was
> photographed CLOTHED.
Again, for me the main issue isn't whether the model is . or not
but how the model is posed. A photo can be posed to be . even
when the model is clothed.
> Those photos have been on exhibition.. NOT ONE SINGLE
> COMPLAINT have been made about them.. it there had been
> the police would have laughed!
>
> So what stops Henson from suing you for libel, for calling
> him a 'Child . Perv' on the basis of lies?
>
> DO you have any assets?
>
> ---------
>
> falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
>
> ---------
|