Here are a few recent outcomes of our current censorship laws. I thought it timely to ponder on them, given we are apparently about to get internet censorship:

Another man has been sentenced by the Supreme Court to 1 years jail and is now a registered sex offender for possesing Simpson's cartoons:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/simpsons-powerpuff-girls-porn-nets-jail-time-for-australian.ars

We have a man jailed for selling a X rated DVD to an adult, which is legal under Commonwealth Law, and another jailed for making one which is also legal Commonwealth Law:

http://www.rossfitzgerald.com/2010/01/x-marks-the-rot-as-we-go-the-way-of-china-and-iran/

And finally, our moral guardians have decided that pictures of women with small breasts are a possible reason for refusing classification:

http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/australia-bans-small-breasts/

Since women with small breasts are obviously a corrupting influence on us all I presume they will be banned from topless beaches in due course.

don't worry rstuart. The SBS and Commercial stations will ensure your required doses of porn. They are immune from any decency.

RStuart,

I'm not a big fan of sex as as a spectator activity personally I prefer more the contact, participatory, hands on approach (so to speak).
I think that one, CP real people therefore jail-time particularly is the culprit is a paedophile .

The other is fictional, puerile humour, inappropriate in some situations but doesn't warrant more than a minor fine.

It really comes down to a "letter of the law" vs. "intent of the law", and I think our justice system is still stuck with "letter of the law".

In some states porn is illegal. That's the law so either don't live there or change the law.
As for the case of privately taped porn for private use give me a break some attorney generals need to look a bit closer at the intent of the law. Clearly the test should be the purpose for which it's intentention and use.
i.e. spy camera on the fashion model down stairs, understandable if you're a 14 yo virginal boy but *wrong* serious stuff.
For personal hilarity/guilt 30 seconds of arms and legs in motion and 40 minutes snoring hardly a threat to societal morals.

Posting such pics maliciously, revenge, blackmail, mischief, embarrassment big no, no serious stuff jail time.

Making them for profit with paid actors(?) state prerogative. Exploitation/age/competency issues.

Pictures of nude under age identifiable subjects wrong.
artistic value defense of the above, shortsighted and nonsense!

EE's locker room unsolicited photo.. big... well a no no should have been jail time for those involved.
'Over the fence' telephoto lenses etc, paparazzi photos of celebs, no no jail time. Both the above are peeping tom crimes.

Judge Roy Bean 2 has spoken :-)

More power to SBS if they offend Runner.

Rusty

Not sure why people are so paranoid about it. Should be used to censorhip by now, we are not a free press nation anyway.

I remember back in the old days they wanted to bring in national ID and people did not want it, all up in arms. When I was young the concept of having "papers" was a symbol of nazi Germany and the jews. It was not acceptable that ID be demanded. So now try to get anywhere without ID? Almost impossible. I refused an agency listing recently because they wanted far too much like photo ID on file and the rest of it. I am old fashioned I know, the government got it's way anyway so hard to fight that.

Same with censorship. We are so censored already and it will only increase one way or another. They always find a way. In fact some cultural integrity maybe maintained if we have local censorship. Oterwise we will be just up for international judgement which is far worse. Just look at fall out over anything that arrives on you tube like the KFC ad. Of course we never stand up for ourselves always like a grovelling dog apologising and "we will never do it again", promise!

Waste of time worrying about it. We lost this argument years ago. We just never noticed.

ooops

Forgot my inspiration to reply! I was censored right here. I know in Australia we do not have free speech but as far as I know we have implied free political communication. So I wrote about someone who made a political statement and I guess the reason I was deleted. So many websites employ EDITING. This site very good really but even so near every site you go to is EDITED. Editing is far worse than censorship will ever be. Everyone worried about being sued I guess. So LAWSUITS will be the biggest factor, not some poncy government filter.