Investigating 'indecent, obscene or pornographic' art : lessons from the Bill Henson controversy

This article considers the manner in which police in Australia investigate art that is putatively indecent, obscene or pornographic. It does so by examining the recent Bill Henson controversy and other similar instances where art and the criminal law have collided. This analysis will demonstrate that under Australian law there is little or no chance of a successful criminal prosecution for obscenity, indecency or pornography. Consequently, it is argued that police investigative procedures must take account of this legal reality. To this end a reform proposal is offered: upon receiving a complaint of this nature, police must — as a matter of internal procedure or law — immediately refer the impugned artwork to the Classification Board for a classification decision before they commence a formal investigation.

Ethical discriminations? Representing the reprehensible

This paper reflects upon the ‘goodness’ or ‘ethics’ of Critical Management/ Critical Organisation Studies (COS) research practices. I argue that academic representations of others entail an ethical responsibility to the researched, a responsibility that COS is, as yet, insufficiently exploring. Reflecting upon my own research with those who have colluded in discrimination and Stanley and Wise’s (1979) research on obscene telephone callers, I explore the nature and limits of responsibility when researching those who have acted reprehensibly. I end by arguing that COS “owe(s) some responsibility to ‘the researched’ of all kinds, whether we morally approve of them or not” (Stanley and Wise 1993:177).