Forum - View topicNEWS: AU Judge Separates 'Anime' Child Porn, But Says It Is Illegal
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
JaQiLinOtaku
 Posts: 22 Location: Australia |
|
|||||
|
Ah, Ipswich. Living up to your reputation very nicely there I see.
P.S It should be The Queensland Times in the first sentence. You got it right later on in the article ^^ |
||||||
|
||||||
Kougeru
 Posts: 5578 |
|
|||||
|
EVERYTHING is illegal is Australia
|
||||||
|
||||||
Otakuboy T
 Posts: 59 Location: Morris, IL |
|
|||||
|
I got on the Bolton train and found myself deposited here in Ipswich.
|
||||||
|
||||||
Ashen Phoenix
 Posts: 2940 |
|
|||||
|
I'm glad the judge made some measure of distinction between the images of child pornography featuring actual real-life children and the graphic representations of fictitious children.
With the recent talks of the Handley sentencing and somewhat parable cases, I keep coming back to a phrase I've heard worded different ways over the years but which carries the same profound meaning regardless, "I may not agree with what you do, but I'll fight to the death for you're right to do it." Provided there isn't other aggravating factors involved - such as the individual posing a reasonable threat to their community, or if, say, the drawings in question used actual kids as 'models' - I'll continue to support this belief with everything I have. |
||||||
|
||||||
Mr. sickVisionz
 Posts: 2175 |
|
|||||
The person who said that would be sickened to their stomach if they found out it was being applied to child porn. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
jtstellar
Posts: 94 |
|
|||||
you clearly don't understand american founders. they didn't say those words just to make a grandstanding. if you don't live in the states or simply spent too much time in fantasy 2d-land that you're totally oblivious to the whole concept of freedom, well, that's barely an excuse but i would understand why. U.S. Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" but of course this was in australia, understandably so seeing how the concept of freedom seems alien there, and seeing also how that country's history of prosperity has always been quite limited compared to other creditor nations in europe and u.s. in its peak times. quite a close inverse relationship with how badly a country's constitution was written. |
||||||
|
||||||
DakotaAngie
 Posts: 3 Location: Wheeling, WV |
|
|||||
I dunno what United States you live in, but the one I live in is anything but filled with freedom. Unless you're straight and Christian; you're "freedoms" are strictly limited. And in some places, being black or a woman hinders it as well. This is a country that demands a snow sculpture inspired by the 'Venus de Milo' to be "covered up" because it's "indecent". I hate it when I see Americans beating their chest, hollering about 'freedom' when, quite frankly, we're a country that still bans books based on outdated Christian ideals. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Deca Density
Posts: 1 |
|
|||||
|
It isn't the COUNTRY that demands the naked snow art be covered. It is the COMMUNITY. This is the inherent problem with US obscenity laws. We leave it to individual communities to police obscenity, and that means there is no standard whatsoever. This is what leads to outrageous abuses, like a porn producer in LA being jailed because his porn is not accepted in a certain county in Florida.
If I purchase something that's coming directly to me, I don't believe it's any of the community's business. If it's not on display for the community to see, it's for my personal consumption. If my material breaks federal laws, I would fully expect to be prosecuted for possessing it. Otherwise, the COMMUNITY has no business climbing up my ass to see what turns me on. |
||||||
|
||||||
ikillchicken
 Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
|||||
Holy crap yeah! You should totally move to somewhere else in the world because I'm totally sure it's better there!!! 
You know, I totally object to obscenity laws and encourage people to speak out against them. At the same time though, I find it more than a little irritating to hear spoiled American brats whine about how there is so little freedom in their country. I hate to break it to you but you've actually got it pretty damn good. At least as good as most other countries if not significantly better. Again, I don't mean to say that this justifies the instances where your freedom is limited. But stop being such a bloody drama queen. It's downright offensive to those people who suffer in countries where they really do have very little freedom. |
||||||
|
||||||
CCSYueh
 Posts: 2707 Location: San Diego, CA |
|
|||||
I live in a United States that continues to be a work in progress as our founding fathers desired it to be. We are torn between the ideals of our founders to be truely a free nation (which is a far more difficult thing to achieve than one would think) & the ideals of our Puritan founders who sought freedom to worship as they desired, yet were swift to deny that freedom to others. Are we not hearing this idea bantied about more often these days? "This nation was founded on Christian ideals!" Yes, but the people who changed it from a colony of the land those pilgrims fled into the nation we are still struggling to become did not hold those Christian ideals as sacred. They put freedom above religion in the name of protecting all. It's not an easy point to reach. Most people DO tend to take an "us vs them" mentality that "my side" is correct" & "their side" is wrong, but the reality is it's really "freedom to do as one chooses so long as one doesn't interfere with the freedoms one's fellow citizens possess" vs "those who wish to impose their reality on others". I was in the other camp without realizing it. Reality is I may not like what you're doing myself, but if you're not actually harming another being, I shouldn't have any say, should I? No, it's not a slippery slope that Gay Marriage is going to allow your neighbor to marry a dog or your 10 yr old next as Prop 8's supporters claimed in their scare tactics because your 10 yr old & that dog have rights also that cannot be violated. (Animals are expected to be treated humanely. One has the right to put down one's own animal, but it must not be cruel, etc. Children are under their parents' control unless that parent is deemed not acting in the child's best interest) It's a scary world. Yes, we all want to protect the children & it is so easy to slide into thought police/pre-emptive strike territory, yet that is the territory that most violates the concepts of our founding fathers. Until that person actually commits the crime, they have all the rights the rest of us possess. This leads us to making laws that remove freedom in the name of protecting what we deem dear, yet it is the most dangerous place to go since it does go against the ideals of our nation's founders. I might be reading the article wrong, but I am slightly encouraged at the separation between virtual & actual child porn. Does this judge's decision carry weight, or is the aside that it SHOULD be illegal just an opinion like any could voice? (As in "I am judging it as illegal to be used in future decisions" vs "My decision is on the actual porn. I don't like the anime porn & feel it should be illegal, but I'm not making that call") |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Cronoveri
Posts: 1 |
|
|||||
|
Ah... to clarify, that quote:
"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it." Was actually said by Voltaire, the Frenchman who was one of the philosophers towards the French Revolution but had died years before it took place. The context was on the grounds of Freedom of Speech (of which he was imprisoned many times, especially when he published a paper comparing the British Constitutional Monarchy and the French Absolute Monarchy). As for Judge Sarah Bradley, I agree with her statement that although abhorrent, it is not as serious as the real thing. Although it is disturbing how nothing more was mentioned in the news article. Was Brentford Paul Higgins a past offender? How was he caught? How does this preclude in regards to graffiti? How does this preclude to works of "art"? It was noted that child porn in Australia is anyone depicted as under 18, but many manga series have highschoolers having sex or in nude scenes. So, how does it affect those series (the cloud disappears from TV to DVD)? He was charged a $1000 fine and a promise not to re-offend for 5 years. Yet that was only for the drawn pictures (non-real). What about the other part of his sentencing regarding the real stuff? I know that in Canada the drawn pictures wouldn't be considered (although you'll be sentenced if you show them to minors), but he'd get at least 5 years in jail just for possessing (downloading onto the Temporary Internet Files Folder) the real pictures. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
yellow ledbetter
Posts: 54 |
|
|||||
|
Well it's nice to know that there are still places out there more backwards than the U.S.
|
||||||
|
||||||
tygerchickchibi
 Posts: 1478 |
|
|||||
In a strange way, I agree with him though. It really depends on how you're looking at it. I do appreciate where I live but even so, the way America presents itself now is why the attitude of its people have become...negative. I really feel they still have a lot of work to do. -.- freedom could be in a different context and you two may not be on the same wavelength. |
||||||
|
||||||
nightmaregenie
 Posts: 167 Location: Palmy, NZ - student central |
|
|||||
|
http://www.qt.com.au/story/2010/03/05/stress-led-man-to-child-porn/
This is the page with the submitted article, hopefully this will clear up (or not?) a few things. other articles I've managed to find so far are just variations of this one. And yeah, virtual child porn is illegal in Australia as far as I know.
Sure, all countries in the southern hemisphere live under perpetual oppression
The judge in this case recognises the fact that there's a difference between virtual child porn and the actual one, and that the latter is of far more concern. Dunno about you but I think that in itself is a (albeit small) step forward. |
||||||
|
||||||
Moomintroll
 Posts: 1600 Location: Nottingham (UK) |
|
|||||
Close but...no, it wasn't. It was written by S. G. Tallentyre (aka Evelyn Beatrice Hall) in 1907 whilst summarising Voltaire's reaction to the burning of Helvétius' De l' esprit in her book The Friends Of Voltaire. The correct quote, incidentally, is "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group