I get what you are saying but....if I were to murder somebody, could I explain that I was influenced by CSI and those type of shows on TV? The nature of the relationship in Lolita is also morally and legally unacceptable. I watched the film, but it never seemed to portray this sort of thing as acceptable. The film also carried viewing restriction and warnings didn't it?

Is art immittating life, or vise versa? How did these things come to be portrayed on film and TV in the first place? TV and Film being an "art", usually tends to add a dash of drama to what it sees in order to appeal to an audience for either artistic, political or commercial reasons. Those of us who are adults should be able to view something on TV, and decide for ourselves whether (a) its right or wrong, (b) whether we will or will not act on it, (c) that there may be consequences for ourselves and others, and finally (d); that if we do come this far, we must take responsibility for those actions.

I am not suggesting there should be NO restrictions, and the minds of children and those with "impaired" development should be taken into serious consideration. Trying to ban everything, however, rarely achieves its objective. Banning tends to only draw attention to the film or TV show, thus increasing its popularity. We seem to want to have a peak at something which they tell us is naughty. There are oodles of examples of this happenning, the Film "Lolita" being a prime one. How can we grow as people if evrything is banned? Whether we see certain things on film, or not, we are more than capable of doing all kinds of things anyway. Like I said before: Chicken and egg story, huh?

Silent Minority -- well said! Exactly what I was thinking.

I mean I see Chris Abood's point too, especially the second half of the article where he talks about advertising promoting a certain lifestyle message which happens to be illegal in real life.

However, I am with Silent Minority when it comes to films and other TV shows. I don't necessarily see that Desperate Housewives or Lolita as promoting that it's a good thing to engage in that type of action, and certainly the shows do not "portray them as acceptable behaviour", as suggested by the article.

Yeah, you are right Marg. I do agree with the section on mobile phone/cams advertising. Its just that my lengthy post didn't allow for it ;). Once I am on me soapbox.... ;) I do believe, however, that we didn't need such a suggestive advert to inform us of the innapporopiate things we could get up to with such a device. Of course not many of us would use the phone cam for voyeristic purposes, but those who do, would whether these avert exist or not.

Taking peoples photos without their knowledge or consent is the backbone of news and current affairs television programs. And yet someone with a mobile breaks the law when they do it?

Why is a 15 year old a poor defensless 'child' when they give voice to their raging hormones and jump someone but they should be treated like adults when they're roaming the streets destroying property and harrasing the neighbourhood?

Chris Apgood says of "Lolita" and "Desperate Housewives" that "However, under current legislation, if you were to either download or watch any of the above-mentioned shows via the Internet, you will face arrest and ten years in jail."

This is simply not true. The relevant legistlation is must less proscriptive that people tend to assume, and the program in question do not violate the law, which is in any case medum insensitive. It's eiher against the law to disseminate, or possess material, or it's not. The medium doesn't matter.

As for Peter Mackenzie, since he pleaded guilty, we know nothing about whether his actions were unlawful. Subsequent defended prosecutions against people for doing something similar (photographing topless women) were dropped.

Further the issue never was about photographing people without their consent, but the way in which the photographs were taken, and the fact that the women concerned were topless.

Sylvia Else.