Hi Guys

It's been a long time since I have graced this hollowed forum, at this stage I just want to voice an opinion or two:

Here we go, first I believe I know what pornography is when I see it and I also know what art is but I do not know the point where art becomes pornography or vice versa. So, I believe, like most normal people, that there can be a fine line between the two but have difficulty in distinguishing that line.

Second, there are some people who regard all forms of human nudity as pornographic and there is no reasoning with such people.

Now my main point, the little girl from Vietnam, whose village was napalmed, I believe that under current western legislation it is highly unlikely that such a picture would have been published. After all, she was definitely under aged, around about 8 - 12, she was nude and in obvious pain, the skin on her back was hanging off in tatters. However, the current laws would have censored the pictures of this girl and so the full horror of the Vietnam war, and it's affect on the ordinary Vietnamese people, would have been hidden from the western world.

Finally, I would like to say that I personally do not believe in censorship as a rule, simply because governments and powerful organisations use it as a tool to hide their illegal and morally dubious actions and as an aid to promoting their own brand of propaganda.

However, I do believe that all vulnerable people, whether young, old, disabled, etc., should be protected from unscrupulous people exploiting them. And, unfortunately, one area of protecting vulnerable people is through the blunt, catch all instrument of censorship.


UK Bob