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.

Not being aware that it was mentioned here, I penned a discussion topic about Barnaby's latest effort. Oh well.

It is a worrying time for the easily upset.

Well I despise pornography especially child pornography. I have no respect for 'artists' who are so desperate for some public attention to their 'work' that they feel compelled to create images that place children and youngsters in contexts that are sexually suggestive. It's just cheap, unimaginative and adds nothing of value to the art world.

I would have to be one of the greatest NON-fans of the revolting but sad Larry Flint. The cartoons that he has published are not just portraying child-porn; child sexual abuse and incest - they attempt to normalize hatred of females of all ages.

However - this whole cartoon/ porn thing is almost as distressing. It is wrong because it detracts from real offences and offenders. It's so bizarrely oppressive that it is bound to result in a backlash that will BENEFIT pornographers and people who exploit actual children. It's an example of loss of freedom of speech and thought that is one of horrid Larry Flint's legal wins and his flagship issue. It plays directly into the case that he posed and won.

It's not against the law to have clinically defined paedophilic inclinations; it's against the law to ACT on them. It may be (though I haven't found any research to support it) that viewing cartoons is one way of someone with such inclinations to manage them. To put someone who views nawty cartoons on a sex offender register is a terrible way to victimize them - it means that many of them will never have contact with youngsters in their own family; it will impact on employment and relationship prospects for a decade or more.

Images like the Simpson's mock up should carry the disclaimer 'no children were harmed in the making of this cartoon'; victimizing cartoon artists or viewers is pathetic - like a smokescreen for the real thing.

Also, it's almost impossible to discern the 'age' of characters portrayed in most Asian (especially Japanese) cartoons. For example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oal8_PAiI48&feature=PlayList&p=7CEECD7260B7F04B&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3

Anyway, enough of this rubbish. I'm voting for the Pirate Party next time around.

As I have said on these pages before, I don't quite understand why so much murder, shootings and stabbings are portrayed on TV every night and few complain, But show a naked breast or any other part of the human body that most people possess and people say it is disgusting and immoral I wonder whether it has anything to do with the Bible where so much murder and killing is sanctioned.

Which is more natural, killing or sex ?

I recently returned from Germany where porn is available in all hotels, some charge some don't (Good catholic Spain was the same when I visited a few years ago) . They simply treat guests as rational adults and tell you if you want to watch its on channel 75 and 76. If you are offended don't go there and supervise your kids. Naked people are portrayed in all the dailies.. bodies are regarded as .. well bodies.. we all have them and sex is regarded as a joyful part of life rather than than with neo puritan disdain. They have a generally adult approach to all things. Germany regards its citizens as responsible and honest adults, so public transport is largely unregulated and talking to an inspector indicates that its largely the tourists who scam...
And as of course everyone will raise paedophilia, I picked up a book in London called "Censored" which is a collection of news stories and cartoons that never made the light of day in the US press. Amongst the stories of cover ups of murder and mayhem by US troops (which as one commentator above remind us is more acceptable that a naked breast) was a cartoon showing a small girl being force fed fats, chemicals in foods, GM soy milk, radiation, pesticides, marketing assaults, plastic useless toys, stereotypes, consumer trends and junk, while the mother stood in the
doorway saying "as long as she is not hit or fiddled with sexually."

Interesting point Melody- particularly regarding how Germany and Spain treat people as rational adults- in Australia you always get the feeling the authorities treat the citizens like untrustworthy juvinile criminals ready to go wild when the eye of the law looks the other way;
Which is kind of ironic, because at the same time, our authorities are quite poor moral rolemodels themselves, and more strangely, all our major celebrations seem to pander a LOT to yobs trying their very hardest to pass out drunk as soon as possible.

And that's another jaw-dropping issue- alcohol abuse is not only ok, but quite encouraged (despite most of our assault statistics pointing to drunken brawls)- but the moral crusaders only ever get roused by titties (sorry for the pun)!

At this point I'm amazed that through such lazy inaction over violence and alcohol abuse, anyone could ever get offended by sexual imagery (and not of course the crude disgusting references overwhelmingly on the radio of course), and be able to look at themselves in the mirror knowing how totally pointless they are as people to be so woefully particular about what upsets them.