Ongoing concern

I am still worried about this censorship business (here).
My concern is not, I think, that there should be absolutely no censorship. It is rather that if art is to be deliberatedf upon then I don't think the police are the ones who shoudl be doing the deliberating.
They may be the ones who need to go in and turn off the lights, but I don't think that in the end Superintendent Plod shoudl be the one deciding what is good and bad art.
Nor do artists need to be quite so precious and get all thingy because something called 'art' is critiqued as being exploitative.
I had a look at what is left of the said photos (which bizarrely have been made quite obscene by the imposition of censorial bars across various parts of various anatomies....another point altogether) and my impression is that they are not neutral, they are over the line.
Of course as a society we can say it is inappropriate, and even illegal for children to be treated in such a way. But maybe there is a case for any nude art being 'classified' (as films are) before they are put on display.
Then it is OK for police to act appropriately, but they should not be deciding what is and what is not art.

Ipso facto

Censorship makes me nervous.
It is even controversial to discuss it in relation to images of children. The latest row over a photographic exhibition in Sydney which, it now appears, police have closed down is the case in point.(here)
Naked photographs of children and teenagers.
The complaints are that they are sexual, and they may well be I don't know as I haven't seen them.
But not all naked pictures are necessarily sexual.
Anne Geddes has made a fortune out of delightful photos of cute babies. And we have on our wall at home one of our children in a giant plant pot after her style.
Whilst we are all so frightened to discuss this stuff, lest we be branded paedophilic, it would be a pity if we weren't able to have any more cutesy photographs.