PEOPLE reports that a nude portrait of Brooke Shields at 10 years old was taken down from a major London exhibit after police visited the gallery.  Click here and here if you want to see what all the buzz is about.

In my opinion I think it was definitely the right decision to remove the portrait.  It’s totally boarder line child porn.

Artist Richard Prince’s photograph of a young Sheilds was set to be displayed starting today as part of the “Pop Life: Art in a Material World” exhibition at the Tate Modern.  But since it raised the question of whether it would be considered child porn, the room containg the portrait has been closed.

“The officers have specialist experience in this field and are keen to work with gallery management to ensure that they do not inadvertently break the law or cause any offence to their visitors,” a Scotland Yard spokesman said, confirming the Wednesday visit by the Obscene Publications Unit.

The investigation was prompted by Kidscape, a group that campaigns against child abuse in the U.K. Founder Michele Elliott said the image could be a “magnet for pedophiles.”

FYI: Prince’s Brooke Shields piece was originally taken by Garry Gross, and was shot with Shields’ mother’s permission.  Gross told Britain’s Daily Telegraph that “the photo has been infamous from the day I took it, and I intended it to be.”

The Prince work has already been shown at New York’s Guggenheim Museum without controversy.

What do you think about this decision?  Should the photo be considered child porn?