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?.