Chris Illingworth, a father of four from Maroochydore Queensland, was charged after he posted the video he found on YouTube to another forum. His home was raided on the 30th of November, and he was subsequently charged with using the internet to access and publish child-abuse material.

The video showed a member of a Russian circus family swinging his child around a room, holding him by the arms. At the end of the clip the child was laughing and smiling, just as mine did at the many years ago when I did a similar thing. The YouTube clip was reportedly captured when the clip was broadcast on US television.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/net-video-crime-epidemic/2008/12/11/1228584982919.html

Some of you defended the Simpon's cartoon ruling below. Lets see how you go about justifying this one.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2363

The people who passed the laws making this illegal are the same ones who want to define "unwanted material" after the mandatory internet filters are put in place. Many have vented about that here. I hope you are venting just as loudly in other places.

Thought police in action. The nanny state. What is next- a fine for smiling like you actually enjoy what you see or do! Too many farts so a gas tax? Get real.
These sad people are everywhere.
Because I enjoy my work so much I smile and laugh, great you may say to see someone happy. No, you become the greatest target by the thought police within Queensland Health because you cannot possibly be happy!

Unbelievable. The term "witch hunt" comes to mind.

I suppose if this was a cartoon he would have also been charged. I'm taking all my Flintstones DVD's to the Police station and giving myself up.

"The video showed a member of a Russian circus family swinging his child around a room, holding him by the arms. "

I did this with my children.....

whoever is enacting these laws needs to be swung around by the ankles and their head bounced off any conveniently hard object.

except that would probably qualify as cruelty to (political) animals

This crap has got to stop.

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?

"I suppose if this was a cartoon he would have also been charged. I'm taking all my Flintstones DVD's to the Police station and giving myself up."

Steel Man good point, given the logic in the Simpsons porn case the portrayal of the physical assault of a cartoon child could potentially qualify. The mind boggles.

Almost every episode of the Simpsons shows Homer throttling Bart. If we take the logic "But by accepting that a person may be real or imaginary, and may be depicted by drawing then "a cartoon character might well constitute the depiction of such a person". McEwan was therefore guilty." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/08/simpsons_supreme_court/ and combine it with this case it virtually wipes out almost all cartoon's. The child porn one also re-raises the question of old art works featuring depictions of naked children - if a cartoon of the Simpsons can be child porn then so to every piece of art showing naked children real or otherwise.

As has been said before - The Law is an Ass.

R0bert

No cartwheels or handstands, no swinging kids around, no cuddling them, no photos, no internet and no cartoons. Could we be given a list of what we are allowed to do with our kids? It would be shorter.

chainsmoker asks:

"Could we be given a list of what we are allowed to do with our kids? It would be shorter."

Here's such a list from personal experience:

1. Commit them to institutions isolated from accountability requirements.
2. Rape them.
3. Lock them up in solitary confinement.
4. Starve them, particularly of any human affection.
5. Send them to church every Sunday so they can learn to love the god who has deserted them.
6. Thrash them and rub their noses in it when they wet the bed.
7. Use them as human guinea pigs in medical experiments.
8. Lie to them if they ask whether they've got siblings.
9. Make them believe it's all their own fault.

If you don't believe me see the evidence at:
http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/COMMITTEE/clac_ctte/completed_inquiries/2004-07/inst_care/report/index.htm

I can't understand any of this.

The only question that keeps going
around in my mind is - WHY?

Why did this happen?
What evidence do they have against
this man?
Why single him out - surely others
are posting all sorts of material.
Why pick on this guy?

Do the Queensland Law Enforcement Authorities
have too much time on their hands?

It doesn't make any sense.

Im glad to see that there are men and women of wisdom in this country.

If we dont control the filth...much of which is related to children and their abuse...then society will definitely fall.

Law and Order has to start somewhere... to begin to save society from that fall.

The teaching at school that you have the right to choose to do exactly what you want to do under 'freedom rights', is drastically immoral.

Before any excercise of free will we have the giant obligation to consider its damage to moral society.
Im glad someone made a start. QLD isnt so bad me thinks.

You're on your own on this thread Gibo.

I noted somewhere else that you support parents smacking children and the cane in schools. You have to decide where you stand.

The reason I'm opposed to parents smacking children is that it is usually done in anger, and teaches the child that it's allright to repond to situations we don't like with violence. That is child abuse.

Foxy: "What evidence do they have against this man?"

He admits to doing what they accuse him of. There is no lack of evidence.

Foxy: "Why did this happen?"

He is as surprised as you are. I suspect he is a granddad, and admitted to his actions so readily because he still can't bring himself to believe he has committed a crime. I hope the cost of defending himself doesn't break him.

I am surprised too. I tell myself there must be more to the video than is described in the newspaper article. The problem is - I am not game to look for it. A $3,000 fine and a criminal record is something I really, really don't want. I would have posted a link to it here so we could all evaluate it for ourselves, but I suspect that might be committing exactly the same crime Chris Illingworth is accused of. The situation is impossible.

How many times have I, and most everybody, swung kids around by the arms or given aeroplanes by one arm and one leg? Given them somersults and they laugh and want more.

The whole matter is ridulous, so ridulous that we should not even have to point it out to the poiticians, but we must. Everyone contact your local MP to change the stupid laws.

I am very angry about this. I have been critisized for raising the issue of FGM whenever I get the opportunity and I don't apoligise for that as I believe it barbaric. There are possibly hundreds of young girls subjrcted to FGM every year. No numbers are available as we only see the ones that require medical treatment afterwards, for shock, bleeding or infection. Despite evidence, no one has ever been charged. Governments just turn a blind eye. They say there are cultural issues.

I cannot yet prove it, but it seems the same with forced marriages, if UK figures are anything to go by.

Yet this bloke is charged because he posted a video of a kid enjoying being swung around.

It is utter madness, so please everyone contact your local Member and object.

I heard on the news yesterday that Federal police had busted a big paedophile ring. Normally I would think that was good but I have become rather cynical. Why I would become cynical in recent times is anyone's guess. I wondered if the Simpson's production team were behind bars and there will be no more Simpson movies or cartoons.

With the current tomfoolery (is that the word?) you don't know whether the police are achieving anything to protect children or if they are thought policing people in possession of Simpson pictures.

I know where I stand Steel Mann.
Sure Im for spanking and the cane... and for the birch if crims wont toe the line.
My school teacher friend gets F words at her throughout the week. Teachers are losing control at a incredible speed.
Whats going to save society...more liberal attitudes?

Can I be serious for a moment.

What we are seeing now regarding tighter controls on 'freedoms' is nothing.
The surrepticious global plan is to get a microchip onto everyones right hand or forehead as is written in Revelation 13:16-18 and 14:9-11.
Big Brother wants this chip so he can watch our every purchase and our every movement (via tiny lithium battery in the chip).
If you want to resist the loss of freedoms... save your strength for that day.
Check out Mark of the Beast 666 and Verichip.

Gibo,

We're fighting on opposite sides here for the same cause.

I want to see children protected, but when police are raiding homes for trivial reasons suchs as looking for cartoons and videos of things that featured on TV overseas, we are wasting police resources that could be better used for fighting crime elsewhere.

You are concerned about the beast 666. I believe Gibo, that the controls that are coming into our lives now are all part of this. Satan wants to make out that he is doing the work of God.

The day is coming Gibo, when your home may be raided by Police, and you will be charged for having child pornography and child abuse items because the following items were found in your home:

-A school photograph taken years ago of your child.
-your baby photographs
-a wooden spoon from your kitchen drawer (might be used for hitting children).
-your Bible (remember Lindy Chamberlain's verdict was partly based on what was marked in her Bible)
-encyclopedias that show naked native children or art works showing paintings of naked children.
-old newspapers that have been used to line cupboards, or under carpets showing underwear advertisments featuring children.
-old VHS video tapes of TV shows or movies where you didn't delete the ads and the ads for products such as sunscreen that show such things as children at the beach in swimming costumes.

The prudishness that we have seen in the last 10 years is not from God.

I am at a loss to understand what exactly you are arguing for now Gibo.

Do you want more freedom or less? You can't increase the amount of freedom in society by reducing them.

Tighter controls over what we can and can't draw, watch or forward by email or internet will not increase our freedom or protect people.

What the hell is going on? Who's making these decisions? How are they overseen?

Clips of the most hideous violence are only a click away, yet the QLD cops prosecute someone for distributing a vid of a man playing with his child.

This has gone far enough.

There may be some method to the madness. The political powers that be involved would want a lot of convictions to make it look like something is being achieved. People with kiddie porn are probably fairly cautious. People with Simpson cartoons fess up easily and the sources may well be googleable. (Is anyone game to try?)

It is like the low level speeding fine thing. Convictions are easy at the bottom end even if it defeats the original purpose of the law enforcement. A result is achieved that makes it look like something is being done.

Sorry Steel Mann Im not with you in anything.
I find you too lukewarm and open to many types of immorality.
Im with those who are hot for Jesus and His Word and what it says.

Hi Bugsy.

Im for greater restrictions on porn or anything that corrupts the child so I dont mind the charging of those who do things that threaten children.
Even 'swinging the kid' clips are bad encouraging.
The offender will get a day at court. It might then get dimissed? Who knows.

Spanking and even the cane at school wont kill the child but discipline them.

Im also for an awareness of what One World Government of the future wants for the private citizen. When the 'chipping' comes it will be a free will choice to take it... or resist the system that wants to 'chip'.
The Bible says Revelation 14:9-11 not to take the chip/mark.

rstuart
My take on this is slightly different.
In the first instance the child was a baby. These sorts of activities are best avoided for someone so young (brain damage as in shaking). For children say 3+ the argument is not so clear. I might or might not have given my children aeroplane whizzes at 4-6 YOs. I can't remember. But in the light of current law I doubt that I would have been that irresponsible ;-)

Notwithstanding that one wonders at the application of the law as it excessively a ‘black letter law’ application. . Again here is the definition and as such should be altered forth with.

It seems to me that commonsense dictates that nuanced definitions like this is counter productive. Far more wise to publish the potential consequences or post a public warning against such practices.

I wonder if this squad has heard of the ‘common man test’ if they have then they should be instructed to use it before creating public angst and wasting valuable court time for such a trivial issue.

If there is any culpability then it is theirs for not contacting Utube to have the item either removed or have a warning in place.

Even my ancient mum has rang her MP. I’ve written to the appropriate minister and asked for a common sense response.

rstuart

"The people who passed the laws making this illegal"

Actually, they didn't. The law in question refers to a child being subjected to "abuse, cruelty or torture." Courts will construe the word "abuse" in that context, as something akin to the other two.

If the video has been correctly described, including the fact that the child was smiling at the end, then what the man was doing seems highly inadvisable, and quite dangerous, but it is not "abuse" in the sense intended by the legislation.

This charge will probably be dropped, or dismissed at the committal stage, because the available evidence simply doesn't prove the elements of the offence.

The real problem we have is that police behave like a bull in a china shop at the remotest suggestion of something that falls into the child pornography area, and rush in with warrants and charges before wiser minds have a chance to prevail. Witness the Bill Henson child pornography charges that were subsequently dropped because they were without basis.

We can only hope that in time the police will learn, and make appropriate legal inquiries before they act. After all, neither this case nor the Henson case had any element of urgency about them.

Sylvia.

I'm so glad that some of you secularists and politically correct folks are SEEING just how the Law can be when it is used by your mob.

You can be pretty sure I'd say that the impetus from this level of scrutiny of subject matter..(Illingworth's action) is not coming from the 'bible basher' segment..or evangelicals.. I'm happy to be proven wrong here... if such is the case, but this smacks of the tyranical, PC 'human rights' advocates attitude where they (like the pharisees of Jesus day) try to codify every aspect of human behavior.
When it turns around and bites them in the ideological bum, they scream foul!


Well..sorrrrrrry.. this is the result of that mode of thinking and approach to social values.

Sylvia Else: "Actually, they didn't."

I hope you are right in your reading of this particular case, Sylvia.

However, your "Bull in a China shop" comment is misplaced. You say the police may of overstepped the mark in this case, but it is a nuanced argument. It should not be a nuanced argument. It should be very clear. They should of been so far over the line disciplinary actions was called for.

We allow movies showing kids speeding, taking drugs, murdering, and so on. We even show these things in advertisements as a prevention measure. Yet, we don't in this case. Again we allow sound judgement and sound laws to be twisted by a "save the children" argument. Images showing this sort of thing are absolutely repulsive, but why ban them? If anything putting them on display makes it obvious just how repulsed we all are by it.

So the problem here is not with the police. The problem is the law itself. The police overstepping the mark by a small amount should not cause ridicule to be poured on them or the law.

But that is not the worst of it. I'd wager you could not point to any incident and say "without these laws, this harm would not of occurred". But I can point to at least two cases, and say "these laws caused this harm to occur". It is the very definition of unsound law. The pollies who passed it should be crucified.

rstuart

I don't see it as nuanced. To me it is clear. The intent of the legislation is to prevent the production of material for dissemination to people who get their jollies from seeing children being hurt, molested, tortured, sexually assaulted, etc. It isn't to prevent the publication of material that some people might think portrays conduct that is unwise, but which which is not sexual and isn't distressing or wilfully harming the child, even if it is clearly dangerous.

The police might be incapable (and I suspect there's a degree of wilful blindness involved) of seeing the difference, but the courts will. Assuming it even gets that far. It's entirely possible the DPP will cause the charges to be dropped.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else,

You're spot on. All police involved with Child Pornography investigations must be required to undergo training with the Office of Film & Literature Classification Board prior to undertaking any child pornography investigation.

The Bill Henson exhibition should have never been raided, and I hope that the Police and Hetty Johnson are sued over that incident. (Although Bill Henson got plenty of publicity from it).

Sadly, I know plenty of Gibo's. We had someone just like him in my church recently. Just like Gibo he had crazy ideas about how we should all live and soon found hardly anyone in the church wanted to talk to him. He then left to go to another church and repeated the process. These people are very rarely in the one church for more than 6 months. Is that what it's like for you Gibo, going from one church to the next because all the other believers in the church you attend are lukewarm? Do people in your church avoid you?

Gibo you might be interested to know that my faith was week when I joined the nudist movement. I went there because I was disillusioned in my faith, and needed some social activity in my life to replace church as I was not attending church at the time. I chose the nudist movement because I thought there wouldn't be any Christians there. Wrong, there were quite a number and they encouraged me to get my life back in order with God, (and they also showed me that being a nudist was not a sin). Now I'm able to do the same thing with others in the movement that need encouragement. There's a very high percentage of Born Again Christians in the nudist club I attend, over 10% in fact. We are mostly from traditionally fundamentalist churches such as AOG, Baptist, Church of Christ and other Pentecostals. Some of them are deacons in the church and we have one pastor. Don't ask me to give any names as that is against nudist protocal.

I cant tell who youre with Steel Mann but it seems like either The Skeptics or the Athiests or those for 'gay christians' or some other group but your talk is all wrong for a born again christian.
I suspect youre a mole for some group pulling christian legs for a laugh.

That's a pretty frank admission, Boaz.

>>You can be pretty sure I'd say that the impetus from this level of scrutiny of subject matter..(Illingworth's action) is not coming from the 'bible basher' segment..or evangelicals.. I'm happy to be proven wrong here... if such is the case, but this smacks of the tyranical, PC 'human rights' advocates attitude where they (like the pharisees of Jesus day) try to codify every aspect of human behavior. When it turns around and bites them in the ideological bum, they scream foul!<<

If I read this correctly - and please put me straight if I am wrong - you are saying that you approve of the action against Illingworth.

You then make it clear that you believe such action to stem from "tyranical, PC 'human rights' advocates attitude where they (like the pharisees of Jesus day) try to codify every aspect of human behavior"

Fitting the logic together, this declares that the modus operandi of "bible bashers, or evangelicals" is to tyrannically codify every aspect of human behaviour.

We always knew this, of course. It is just that it is so refreshing hearing it from you..

Sylvia,
You said

"The real problem we have is that police behave like a bull in a china shop at the remotest suggestion of something that falls into the child pornography area, and rush in with warrants and charges before wiser minds have a chance to prevail. Witness the Bill Henson child pornography charges that were subsequently dropped because they were without basis".

If that is the case why oh why have they not laid charges in relation to FGM. Do you not agree that it is child abuse. Since about 94-95 all states made FGM illegal. Hospitals have ample evidence with admissions of little girls in emergency wards. It is possible that medicos have to notify Health Dept. of FGM.

What is required is simply fair and reasonable application of the law

David, "You can be pretty sure I'd say that the impetus from this level of scrutiny of subject matter..(Illingworth's action) is not coming from the 'bible basher' segment..or evangelicals.. I'm happy to be proven wrong here"

You might want to have a look at who on OLO has supported both prosecutions - clearly a 'bible basher'.

By the way I'm still waiting for your comment on the behaviour of that bible basher and his best buddy on the porn thread. You also tool Steel Man to task for commenting on one of your mates state of mental health, will you take that mate to task for his comments about Steels Man's spirtual walk?

R0bert

The real problem with Bill Henson was that it took police to long to investigate how someone parading as an artist should have young girls strip for him to make money out of. We have gutless politicians and civil servants who know this is repulsive but don't want to upset people in high places. For a long time catholic priests were protected. Now if you classify something as art or cultural you seem untouchable. You will be charged for photographing a child clothed but allow to satisfy the lusts of others by photographing them naked and in sensual positions as long as you label it art.

Can't help but think this stuff is all part of some larger scheme. Currently the government are all over the internet censorship thing. There's like some sort of overt scare campaign going on. The two posts here on these retarded criminal charges involving the net are just two of many.

You know is REALLY to blame?. The judges. And who do the judges answer too?...

You CANNOT tell me judges are really that stupid. It's political. IT's scary.

PC
You still wont accept that moral standards doen't need religion. The same for religiosity is no guaretee of not abusing laws.

Banjo,

FGM is appalling, it's certainly abuse, and it's definitely unlawful.

But it's also a different issue.

StG,

I don't see how you can blame the judges for any of this. They haven't even been asked their opinion yet. If they ever are, I'm reasonably sure they'll say that the charge is entirely without merit.

Sylvia.

Sylvia,
Yes I am aware that FGM is a different issue, but if you can use the Bill Henson photos as another example of over zealous policing, there should be no reason for me not to use FGM as an example of no action taken where there is clear issues of child abuse.

But my argument is not with you but with the governments. In relation to FGM my bet is that occurrences are not forwarded onto the police for investigation. It seems to me that the governments are selectively not applying the law so as not to upset some ethnic groups. The sad thing is that in not applying the law the governments are condoning the torture and mutilation of Australian female children. I expect a child to die before action is taken.

In relation to the topic of this thread,I hope you are right and the charges are dropped or dismissed. Maybe the police are endeavouring to see just how far they can take this child abuse matter, but that is little comfort to the poor bloke being charged. Some of the mud will stick.

Sylvia Else: "I don't see it as nuanced. To me it is clear."

It appears you are judging the clip on its intent. Paedophilia is not judged on intent. It does not matter whether the child asked for it, whether the adult was sleep walking, or the mother was servicing a quadriplegic son - although it seems you can bend the rules by calling it art. Similarly when it comes to violent sex, all that is required to get RC is violence + sex. So, for example, if a man kills a husband, then has sex with his wife, it doesn't matter whether she was raped, or the enthusiastic participant who organised the deed. It is violence + sex - and so it is banned.

This is how it must be, as it is simply too hard to judge intent. The bottom line is, if swinging a baby through the air could reasonably cause the baby harm, and we apparently believe when men sees others harming a baby like this some will go out and do it, does it matter whether the man looked like a doting father or whether the baby smiled? If that is all it takes to get past the censors, just hire a fatherly actor and splice in a picture of the smiling baby at the end, and for gods sake don't show the baby in pain - even if it dies in agony of a spinal injury the next day.

If the law says ban movies showing child abuse, and these is a chance this child was abused - and you say there is, then ban it. If you make it complicated then no citizen is going to know if it should be banned or not.

You say it is not about judges being wrong. I say it is not about the police being wrong. It is very clearly it is the law that is wrong. Any law based on the premise that when adults see babies being abused, they will start abusing babies themselves is based on some very warped view of humanity.

rstuart

Intent comes into it because if what was filmed was not intended to happen - that is, was an accident - then it is not abuse. Many Funniest (?) Home Video clips would be caught by the legislation if that were not the case.

In the instant case, there is no allegation that the man intended to cause harm or distress to the child. Indeed, there's no evidence that the child even came to any harm or distress. All there is is speculation from some quarters about the damage that a child might come to when played with that way.

So the man did something with the child that other people consider not to be a good idea. That hardly makes it abuse.

Sylvia.

Robert....which porn thread? give me a link will you.. there's quite a few from memory.

Pericles... no...I don't approve of the action against Illingworth at all.. I think it is just illustrative of the 'place' where secularism and trying to make a law for everything from sneezing to wiping ur butt will lead.

You see.. the primary difference between the freedom we have in Christ and a 'under law' approach to life, is that it is about a relationship.. The "Law" is like a guide, a mentor which is mean't to give us an idea of what's right and wrong. Its the relationship which motivates us to live accordingly, not the law by itself.

This problem of Illingworth being charged is the same PC mentality which want's to censor building height near childrens playgrounds.
There is no end to it.. what's the diff between "No, you cannot eat an egg laid on the sabbath, because it represents 'work'"...and 'No you cannot drive past a primary school with a camera in your car'

Not a great deal I suggest.

EXAMMY... I've never said "Moral standards don't need religion".. refer my paragraph above to Pericles. "Law" needs "relationship" to function. The point about the Christian position is that it is not about 'begrudging compliance' but "joyful obedience" :)

You can have to people complying with the law exactly. But one does it because he knows he will be incarcerated or fined if he doesn't...the other..because he knows it is right and wants to obey it.

What I DO say is.... "moral standards" are very rubbery things in the absense of clear guidance from the Almighty :)

David I've put links to the comments at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2360#52270 and the following post on that thread - that was the thread where you got bothered by my "recovered former believers" comment so it seemed appropriate to give you the opportunity to comment on your fellow believers comments about those who don't share their passion for censorship of adult porn.

If refering to myself and a couple of others is "insult Christians in the most disturbing manner" then I'm interested to see what you make of two of your dearest brothers in christ accusing others of being paedophiles. Will you excuse it, will you down play the comments, will you ignore them, will you agree with them or will you correct runner and Gibo (in love of course) for their most vile comments?

If I was a betting man I'd put my money on you treating it all as a bit of over enthusiasm on their part, perhaps a sideways hint that you don't quite agree but no direct comment to either of them as a fellow believer about just how wrong their actions are. I hope I'm wrong.

R0bert

Sylvia Else: "Many Funniest (?) Home Video clips would be caught by the legislation if that were not the case."

Yes indeed Sylvia. The problem with your example is it already caught by the legislation. If I were capture some funny event that involved a 10 year of girl being accidental stripped naked on video, and then that video was found in my possession, I would be charged. I personally think that is insane. Nonetheless that is how it is.

It is rather hard to imagine how a violent sex event could caught on funniest home videos. But if it was, it would be RC.

It keeps things simple, I guess.

"StG,

I don't see how you can blame the judges for any of this. They haven't even been asked their opinion yet. If they ever are, I'm reasonably sure they'll say that the charge is entirely without merit.

Sylvia.
Posted by Sylvia Else, Friday, 12 December 2008 6:32:48 PM"

{break between your comment and mine but this stupid site wouldn't accept too many of these '-'. Good grief.}

Then tell me why was a guy convicted for possessing child porn over some dodgy Simpsons cartoons?.

Would the police need to approach a judge for a warrant to search the guy's house in the above case?.

rstuart

Regarding your example of footage of a child accidentally stripped naked, you're probably right in saying that you'd be charged if the police found you in possession of such footage. But that would merely be another example of the police acting without seeking proper legal advice. Such footage would not fall within the definition of either child pornography or child abuse material, and you would not be convicted.

StG,

The Simpsons cartoon thing was a bit different. The law relates to the depiction or description of a child in a sexual context. It doesn't matter whether the child is a real child or a fictional child. The rationale for this is that the lawful availability of such material involving fictional children would create a demand for the real thing. I'm rather sceptical of this, and unaware of any evidence to support it. I suspect it's really just a pretext for banning stuff that some people don't like. But I agree with the judge in the case that that's the law as it stands, and the judge had no choice about enforcing it.

The same judge would no doubt find that the video of baby swinging was not child abuse material within the meaning of the legislation, and that disseminating it was therefore not an offence.

Robert

You really are trying hard to put your own interpretation of what I wrote. I never accused anyone on OLO as being paedophiles. Please back up your outrage claims. What I said was
'With so many sick judges, artists and priests it is no wonder we have trouble having any sort of child protection in place. It makes me wonder how many of the champions of porn on OLO are into this sick material. I have no doubt that most if not all paedophiles are into pornography.

OLO has many who defend the porn ( pervert industry) to the death. They openly admit/boast about their right to view this crap. It is an easy line for viewers of porn to cross from watching adults/teenagers/kids. This is proven by the many caught with child porn from all walks of life.

I am happy to stand by this statement although your interpretation of accusing porn/pervert watchers as paedophilles is not accurate or true. Unlike some others on these posts I have generally found you to be at least honest. You on this occasion are using deceit for whatever reason.

Any believer in Christ or any other person who has the slightest conviction by God's Holy Spirit knows that pornography whether it be adults/kids/animals is nothing short of dehumanizing and destruction to individuals, families and society. People everywhere are bound up by this crap despite it leading to child sexual abuse, the breakdown of families and the degradation of men, woman and children.

Demonizing those opposing this cancer on society does not change the clear outcomes of those caught up in it and its victims (many kids).

HI TO ALL THE FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS

JUST HAVING MY SAY IF IT WAS SOMETHING ILLEAGLE THIS PERSON HAS DONE SO BE IT THAT THE LAW DOES THE RIGHT THING

SPIKEY ,I Agree With You

and some others here on the site

we know the internet is now the most evil place for pedophiles to access information and pictiures and videos of children

and it is not just one person invovled with these things its many of many

like the porn bust with the Q C And Police officer,pedophiles are every where just is we don't know who they are until they are caught in the act or with evidence

i speak of this as truth as im a victim of child rape abuse while being detained in our states institution daruk boys home new south wales in 1977and 1978

and they were the staff employees that raped me

and the law and the courts have protected those two peophiles as well as protecting D.O.C.S. at the same time , stating records have been destroyed
The Reason Being If These Documents Were To be Read In Court The State Welfare of New South Wales would be So Hummilliated By The Truth This Is Why They Destroyed The Actual Proff of a Victim Who tried For Nearly Ten Years To Get Justice I Know Becuase Im That Victim The State Goverment still Cover up till this day

The courts and the goverment and the law does't care about us past victims or the latest victims that are suffering

so it seems they only want to act on what they feel like

their are many many more victims out their like myself who really are just about at boiling point overload

the goverment of australia and the state of new south wales and other states of australia are and were responable for our care and this did not happen as the truth has been told by the victims and the goverment covers it up so its not damming for their departments

regards huffnpuff we will no longer be forgotten

Hello Huffnpuff

I hope you're going OK at the moment. I know the people at CLAN think about you often and hope that one day you will get the justice you are entitled to.

You are fighting some very powerful interest groups, but one day you will be vindicated.

This seems to have gone quiet, so I hope the OP won't mind if I widen the discussion a bit.

One of the things that has to be proved when prosecuting an offence of possession/dissemination of child pornography, or child abuse material, is that the depicting of the child is done in such a way as to offend a reasonable person.

I don't know how one is meant to tell whether the material one possesses or disseminates would offend a reasonable person. There is no research that I'm aware of that gives any indication of the views of a reasonable person. This also seems to mean that courts themselves have a problem, because they can't tell either. They must be relying on their own perceptions of community attitudes, which must inevitably by coloured by sensationalist media commentary.

In the case of the Simpsons cartoons, the issue of whether they would actually offend a reasonable person isn't mentioned in the appeal judgement, and there's no information about how the local court reached its conclusion. Maybe I'm unusually insensitive to such things, but I think my response to cartoon images of children engaged in sex would be one of complete indifference. They're cartoons. Big deal.

It all seems a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Sylvia.

Dear Robert....

I'm sure it would bring delight to some minds and hearts if I were to set myself up as some kind of 'big stick' against my fellow believers eh?

No such luck. They can look after themselves I'm sure.

I've seen the approach of Gibo and Runner melt stony hearts and trasnform people.... because irrespective of your annoyance at how they (and I)speak at times... God uses all of us in His own way.

As for you, I heartily recommend a considered and reflective reading of Romans 9:14-18.... and you might also think about your own position with those verses in mind.

Then... maybe this:

1 How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears,we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:1-2)

Porky: << I've seen the approach of Gibo and Runner melt stony hearts and trasnform (sic) people.... >>

Name one.

While we're at it, I'll paraphrase a question I've asked here previously, but which elicited absolutely no responses:

Hands up everybody at OLO who has been brought closer to God by the comments posted by Porkycrap, Gibo or runner?

Sylvia

Enjoying and agreesing with your comments regarding cartoon porn. Seem to recall some kind of controversial porn cartoon many years ago about some cat - too young to remember the name or what happened, but I think it was banned.

I would probably find the Simpson's cartoon offensive in the same way I find some jokes offensive - they just don't appeal to my sense of humour so I avoid them. I don't believe that people should be criminalised for such - the Simpson's cartoon being the case in point. If the man in question had a load of real child porn, then surely he would be charged over that, but if the cartoon was the only thing he possessed, our judicial system is clearly overreacting.

You ask the $6,000,000 question regarding the indefinable "reasonable person". I think I'm very reasonable, but would bet that certain people on OLO think I am the epitome of capriciousness.

CJ Morgan

In answer to your question regarding Gibo, Polly and Runner the only thing they have convinced me of is that their god has appalling spelling, terrible grammer, is bigoted, divisive and generally offensive (just to remain close to topic).

You know what REALLY puzzles me is that OLO's Graham Young approves so many of Gibo's and Polly's topics. Can't fathom that at all.

Sylvia Else: "Such footage would not fall within the definition of either child pornography or child abuse material"

A more complete version of the statute you quoted above, ie the one this man was indicted under:

'child exploitation material' means material that, in a way likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, describes or depicts someone who is, or apparently is, a child under 16 years .... (b) in an offensive or demeaning context; or (c) being subjected to abuse, cruelty or torture.

Claiming "how a reasonable person might be offended" isn't wide open to many interpretations is absurd. Also, it looks to me many a Funniest Home Video's would be caught by this, as they are often demeaning to people under 16. That they aren't is because no-one is prepared to implement the law as it is written - not the police, not the DPP, not the Judges.

This censorship is something new. Until recently the Album cover below was legal in Australia. It was on sale at and pictured at http://www.bigwentertainment.com.au up until Saturday the 13/12/2008. Although it is a Australia site clicking on it is probably risky, so I will describe it. It is a picture of a naked pre-pubescent girl front on, legs spread, back arched, a crack in the camera lens obscuring her genitals. The Album was released in the 70's.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24732004-5001021,00.html

I presume my parents regarded it as a piece of youthful rebellion, sighed and looked the other way. Such was the tolerant society I and most of the other posters whinging here grew up in. In the last few weeks(!) we have headlines of a man convicted of possessing cartoons, a grandfather being prosecuted for a video of a father playing with his child, and a man prosecuted on paedophilia charges after taking pictures of fully clothed kids in a public swimming pool, and a government promising to censor all "unwanted material".

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24732004-5001021,00.html

You say this is all a case of bad interpretation. The rest of us are wondering what the hell happened in the years since that Album was released.

rstuart

You have to look carefully at what the legislation says. One might have concerns about whether displaying a video of a child being accidentally stripped naked is offensive or demeaning, but that is not what the legislation is criminalising. The child has to be in an offensive or demeaning context, and then be depicted in that context. A child who is accidentally stripped naked is in neither in an offensive, nor demeaning, context. They are simply in an accident, and the video would depict that.

So given that none of the three possible alternatives would be met (sexual etc, offensive/demeaning, abuse etc) the offence is not made out. It then doesn't matter whether the material would be offensive to a reasonable person, because even if it is, there is still no offence.

I can't see which album you're referring to, and you didn't name it, but I doubt that the image you've described would actually contravene the act.

The man photographing children a Darling Harbour has pleaded not guilty. A magistrate expressed concerns about whether the charge was correct.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=676276

There is no doubt that society has become more precious about images of children in recent years, to the point of hysteria. The media are at least in part responsible, particularly in the way that they report the laying of charges in big print, but either don't report their being dropped, or do so quietly on an inside page.

But, leaving aside the cartoons issue, the law itself is not that unreasonable given what it is trying to achieve, which is to limit the demand for child pornography, the production of which is unarguably harmful to the children involved.

We just need the police to get a clue.

Sylvia.

Sylvia,

You might try reading the act. You can find it here:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/index.html#s228a

Sections 207A, and 228A-D. Contrary to what you claim, the legislation says stuff all beyond what has already been quoted. Tell me, how to you "carefully read" the section of the act below to get a different interpretation from what the police evidently got. This is a direct cut & paste of an entire section of the act linked to above:

228C Distributing child exploitation material

(1) A person who distributes child exploitation material commits a crime.

Maximum penalty--10 years imprisonment.

(2) In this section--

distribute child exploitation material includes--

(a) communicate, exhibit, send, supply or transmit child exploitation material to someone, whether to a particular person or not; and

(b) make child exploitation material available for access by someone, whether by a particular person or not; and

(c) enter into an agreement or arrangement to do something in paragraph (a) or (b); and

(d) attempt to distribute child exploitation material

rstuart,

Sections 228A thu 228D all relate to things done in respect of "child exploitation material". That expression is defined in 207A. If the material doesn't fit that definition, then it is not child exploitation material for the purpose of the act, and the offences created by 228A thru 228D cannot be made out.

Sylvia.

Sylvia,

Maybe you would like to link to and quote the section of the Act you are referring to that clears this all up. As I said, as far as I can see its all the relevant bits have already been quoted here.

Regarding the link to the picture: I stuffed it up, sorry. This was the link I should have posted. These people show the cover, but aren't selling it. Right now Big W isn't showing the cover (they were last week), but will sell the album to you.

http://www.play4me.com.au/product/virgin_killer_1480945_5046.html

Finally, perhaps you don't realise this debate has been held here before, when the legislation concerned came into force.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5217

It was pretty obvious to me where it would end up then, and I was pissed off about it at the time, as you can see from my comments. Distressingly to me, just about everybody supported back then. The general public were caught up in the hysteria I guess. Perhaps, like you, they thought these laws were nuts and would not actually be enforced. Or perhaps they had too little imagination to see how such vaguely worded crap could be interpreted to their detriment.

To paraphrase my mother, all this posturing is fun and good until someone gets poked in the eye. Well, it looked to me like everyone did enjoy the posturing at the time. But now the eyes are getting poked it ain't so much fun.

rstuart,

This link didn't work, but I think you're referring to an album by the Scorpions - Virgin Killer. The cover was banned in many countries from the start, and was redesigned. The Scorpions I know best for their 1992 hit, Wind of Change.

rstuart

The privacy stuff, in sections 227A and 227B is a separate matter. Those are not the sections under which Chris Illingworth has been charged.

It appears to me that he has been charged under 228C and 228D.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s228c.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s228d.html

In the first case they have to prove that he distributed material, and that the material was child exploitation material. In the second case they have to prove that he possessed material, and that the material was child exploitation material.

The distribution and possession aspects are unlikely to be contested, with the entire case depending on whether the material is child exploitation material.

That takes us to 227A.

"child exploitation material means material that [...] depicts someone who is, or apparently is, a child under 16 years--

(a) in a sexual context, including for example, engaging in a sexual activity; or

(b) in an offensive or demeaning context; or

(c) being subjected to abuse, cruelty or torture."

There is little doubt that the child is under 16. However, the context is clearly not sexual, so that leaves (a) out. The context is certainly not demeaning, and it's not offensive. People may be offended by the action, but the context itself is not offensive. That leaves out (b). The only remaining question is whether the child is being subject to abuse, cruelty or torture. These words are intended to cover the field of ill-treatment. The word "abuse" cannot be taken out separately, and have a distinct meaning attached to it that is unrelated to the other words. If it had been Parliament's intent to cover anything that people might consider improper, dangerous, unwise, etc, then Parliament would have said so. To my mind, that eliminates the final possible aspect, meaning that the video is not child exploitation material.

If it's not child exploitation material, then there is no offence under 228C or 228D.

Analysing the situation of the girl on the record cover goes much the same way... but I've reached the word limit.

Sylvia, we are going around in circles here, and given neither of us are lawyers and given that the law is a bit of a lottery it is probably beside the point. However, I can't help but notice you once again didn't quote these words from the statute:

"in a way likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult"

My point is that if an adult knows that swinging a 1 year old child around by the arms may cause it grave harm then they may well regard it as abuse and be offended. You are effectively saying it is not reasonable to take offence under any circumstances. I am saying there are undoubtedly quiet a few people who will be offended - regardless of what you or I think. Who knows if the judge who is assigned the case will be one of them.

This ambiguity is why laws based on feelings are bad laws. There is no objective way of measuring community feelings, except perhaps by doing poll of the population every once in a while. That doesn't happen.

Steel Mann,

I was aware the album was banned in some places. But it is being advertised as being available for sale here in Australia right now. And you can download the image off an Australian retailers web site right now. Yet, it appears that situation is changing and indeed has changed has changed between posts on this very thread. My point was the Australia I and many other here grew up in was a tolerant society, but now is becoming less so. Personally, I think the album cover is a very good example of just that.

No censorship is so effective as when you get people to censor themselves.

rstuart,

I left out the issue of offence to a reasonable person because I considered it irrelevant. To constitute child exploitation material it has depict a child in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable person *AND* either fit (a) or (b) or (c). Since my argument is that it fits none of (a), (b) and (c), the issue of causing offence to a reasonable person doesn't arise. That is, regardless of whether a reasonable person would be offended, the material still wouldn't be child exploitation material, and therefore an offence wouldn't be committed in respect of the material.

"No censorship is so effective as when you get people to censor themselves."

This is most definitely true, and I am very concerned that merely the fear of being subject to search warrants, arrests and charges, even if for prosecutions that must ultimately fail, is causing people to refrain from what are in fact perfectly lawful activities.

It doesn't help that these dubious prosecutions take so long to be finalised. For example, the man charged with possessing child pornography as a result of filming children in their underwear on December 1st now has to wait until Feburary for a hearing.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24801378-5006009,00.html

At least he's pleaded not guilty.

Sylvia

Sylvia Else: "offence to a reasonable person *AND* either ..."

OK. Point conceded. The AND isn't actually there but now I re-read it, it is obviously implied. I'll just assume you are correct about "abuse, cruelty or torture" - as I don't know how laws are meant to be read. We will see in a few months, I guess.

The album cover is a rather more iffy. Some will definitely regard it a sexual content, and there aren't any other words near that to it to qualify it further. It might pass via the "artistic" defence, though it probably should not as it was almost certainly intended to provoke in order to generate publicity. I don't know whether it worked when it was released, but it sure as hell worked when the IWF put it on its filters in the last couple of weeks. I wonder if that generated some more sales for them?

I presume you know Conroy is talking about just tacking the IWF blacklist onto our own - so we will have some international organisation based in another country deciding what we should see if these internet filters come in.

Finally, pelican. I presume you aren't watching but if you are, notice the album cover generated this sequence of events:

1. Album was an unheard of, lying in a quiet backwater of the internet.

2. IWF (International Watch Foundation) added it to its list of "back listed" URL's. The IWF list is used by many of the voluntary clean feeds around the world.

3. It was noticed the IWF banned that image - ie the IWF list "leaked". (Leaked is possibly a poor choice of works here.)

4. The number of people who looked at the image went through the roof.

5. The IWF removed the image from its list because it was counter productive - putting it on there caused more people to see it, not less.

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2232298/iwf-backs-wikipedia-censorship

I had mentioned this would be one inevitable consequence of having such a list. This is a real life example of the effect in action.

rstuart,

It needs to be remembered that elements of a criminal offence must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. In respect of the girl on the album cover, that means it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that she is depicted in a sexual context. The mere fact that some people might find the image sexual is not sufficient. If must also be proved beyond reasonable doubt that she is depicted in a way that would be likely to cause offence to a reasonable person. So, again, the fact that some people claim to be offended is not sufficient.

Now, the concept of proving things like that beyond reasonable doubt is a tad problematic, but I'd be inclined to think that no such proof could be forthcoming if there's any reasonable ambiguity.

While no fan of Conroy's filtering proposal, I don't read his form letter as saying that the IWF filter will simply be tacked onto our own. At most it appears to me that the ACMA would examine links added to the filter to see whether they meet the requirements for filtering under our existing filtering rules.

The IWF blocked the entire Wikipedia page. It's probably reasonable to suppose that the ACMA, as a body implementing statutory provisions (the IWF list is used voluntarily by ISPs in the countries that use it), would be more conservative, and even if it had formed the view that the image violated Australian law (which I doubt) would have blocked only the image.

Sylvia Else: "It's probably reasonable to suppose that the ACMA ... would be more conservative ... blocked only the image"

A surprising conclusion. As you know the filter will be porous. Leaving a URI embedded in a web page would be like waving a red flag to a bull - inviting someone who read the text to take the trouble to bypass it. The British implementations of filters return a fake "Page Not Found" (or perhaps a real 404 - I have not seen it) to the entire page, I presume for that very reason. It is either that, or they are trying to hide the effects of the filter itself. Probably both.

As for the how the IWF list is used - perhaps. Possibly more troubling is how the URL's will be judged. It is far too expensive to use the current ACMA process, which is a pity because the ACMA process is relatively transparent. So instead we have, according to the trail test, a bureaucrat deciding whether the ACMA would have judged the material to be objectionable. He must do this in secret of course - because the filter is porous, and so we will never know his decisions. The DBCDE's request for expression of interest for the trial therefore requires every participating ISP sign an NDA with the ACMA.

The end result is I guess we won't ever know for sure whether the image was judged child pornography, so we won't which of us is closer to the truth.

And as for what a judge would think of the image - well its all beside the point, isn't it? It is not a judge in an open court who is making the decisions.