From Monday's Herald comes this little piece.
A 16-year-old New Zealand model has been pictured topless in fashion magazine Russh Australia - prompting a "please explain" call from her agent here.
The Australian magazine is being investigated for pictures featuring Auckland model Zippora Seven and 16-year-old male model Levi Clarke.
One image shows the pair in a bubble bath, with Zippora topless and Levi's eyes closed, as if he has passed out. Four bottles of champagne are visible.
The Australian Classifications Act prohibits the depiction of nudity and sexual activity of minors under 18, and a spokesman for the Australian Classification Board said: "I can advise that the board has contacted the publisher of Russh Australia."
Zippora's Australian agent Priscilla Leighton-Clark yesterday admitted the shoot had gone too far.
"It's wrong that our girl has appeared in our magazine exposing her breasts when she is so young," she told the Sunday Telegraph in Sydney.
However, Russh editor Natalie Shukur defended the shoot, claiming it was a homage to supermodel Kate Moss and her one-time boyfriend, actor Johnny Depp.
So the mag considers Kate Moss to be an appropriate role model for young teen girls?
Zippora's New Zealand agency Red Eleven said it had no involvement with the photo shoot.
Director Mandy Jacobsen told the Herald Red Eleven was "shocked" and "disappointed in the pictures", shot about a month ago.
She said the agency would be talking with Ms Leighton-Clark this week, and wanted an explanation.
There is an unwritten law in New Zealand preventing the use of under-18s in nude photo shoots, Ms Jacobsen said.
"We have to be very careful about these girls on shoots, and what the story's about."
Well, for a start, this stinks to high heaven. Despite the very direct parallels to the Cyrus instance there is one distinction that is very clear. I am prepared to accept that the Cyrus photos taken by Liebowitz were not taken primarily for publication; that they were taken as an add-on and forwarded to the magazine as part of a portfolio by Cyrus.
This instance involves, as clearly, the magazine taking the images with the clear intent of publication.
Today's Herald -
The responses in the public forum make depressing reading, even for an old lech like me.
This one is WRONG. Read that ? WRONG!!!!!
It is patently illegal under Aussie Rules. That should be enough for anyone. For me, the rules would be WRONG if they allowed the publication.
That opinion might seem to differ from my somewhat guarded acceptance of the Cyrus photo. The latter was (my vain hope) taken without the intent of publication. I have not seen the Aussie photos, and I won't be going looking for it any time soon. From the description I would have some "difficulty" putting it into the same category as the Cyrus photo.
There are limits. Cyrus I can accept (if only because the photographer was Liebowitz). This example I can not, irrespective of the name of the hack who took them.