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.