Possibly of interest to those discussing or reading:
Australia banning depictions of small-breasted women and of female ejaculation
Yes- they are of course a reputable source and have no hidden agendas.
It makes more sense when you consider that said death threats are also a form of speech.
I don’t think you read that right. It’s the ways things are different that concern me. It’s like how Huxley, found his own Brave New World a more frightening possibility than Orwell’s 1984. The two dystpoias are as different as could be imagined, but both were undesirable worlds and neither author would want to live in either of them.
I couldn’t advocate for the political changes important to me. I can do that here in the United States. Even though here there are a lot of voices trying to shout me down, my right to advocate for my causes is protected. I have no such right over there, and my cause is sufficiently unpopular that your government does not protect anyone’s right to advocate said cause.
Think of the most disgusting, unpopular position that you can. If you really believe in free speech, that means you want to allow people to advocate for that position. If you don’t think people should be allowed to advocate for that position, you don’t believe in free speech. It is by that standard that I judge whether someone believes in free speech as a concept or not. I do believe in free speech.
This reflects a lack of imagination more than anything else, and is itself a symptom of the censorship. I can write some text in this box that will make you a criminal in Australia for posessing (being in an internet temp file on your computer counts as posession), but which is perfectly legal in the United States.
I think we might be dealing with a disconnect between our definitions, so I’ll ask this question. Are you allowed to turn in a blank ballot and satisfy your requirement to vote? Or do you have to support one or more of the candidates who made it onto the ballot even if the policies of every one of them disgusts you? That’s what I would think this disconnect is about.
They most certainly are government approved. The fact that your candidates aren’t in the majority doesn’t mean they aren’t picked out as among the acceptable positions that you have to choose from.
If he got into parlament, his wasn’t a fringe position the government would have felt like censoring in the first place. Try to imagine a genuine fringe position instead.
It’s a good standard. Unfortunately, by that standard, I haven’t seen any genuinely civilized countries out there.
Because that isn’t condescending at all… :rolleyes:
Then you will love australia, since their stance on kiddy porn is that it’s illegal to even describe what kiddy porn would contain.
Do you have any proof to offer for this?
Of course you can advocate for political change in Australia. People do it all the time, mainly fringers as the majority of people accept the status quo.
The polli who I quoted got into parliament on a very small number of votes, I know of pollies who got voted in because they wanted to change our system of government. So I don’t understand what you mean by fringe views?
Not sure what you mean by the death threats line but I see no reason for tem to be protected.
We agree on what free speech is, two people in this country can exchange views.
I concur with everything Martini Enfield has said in this thread, and take my hat off to him for his patience persistence. Say what you like about differences in rights and constitutions, but look at the results. We’re living pretty good lives down here, thanks for caring. If we want US style “freedom of speech”, we’ll have a referendum and vote on it. Our system’s not broken though, so why would we bother?
The US seems to have as many, if not more domestic problems than we do, in spite of their supposedly superior constitution. Remove the log from your own eye, etc, then get back to us. And learn to play Cricket, ferchrissake! 
Here you are:
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/man-convicted-of-reading-child-porn/story-e6frfku9-1111116447156
A story in a major daily describing what some kiddy porn contained is proof that it is illegal to describe what kiddy porn would contain? Was the journalist arrested? I’m clearly missing something here.
A person arrested for posessing a textual description of child sex acts is the focus of the story. The person who posessed these stories was arested, convicted, and subject to criminal punishment dispite not having any video, photo, or even drawing of child sex acts. Just a text description.
I suppose it would depend on the contents of the actual stories, and how explicit they were. NOT knowing anything about Australian law, I can’t say, although I don’t think you were quite honest, Cesario. This was not merely a “discription” of kiddy-porn. It was porn lit. Also known as “erotica”. Like bodice-rippers, only with kids involved. I wouldn’t call that mere “descriptions”.
(I thought he was talking more of people saying that “so and so had this kind of porn and this and this”, not written porn)
Nice try, but the inescapable conclusion from your own cite is that your earlier statement was inaccurate. Or show me where the journalist got arrested. If you want to retract your earlier comment and substitute something narrower, feel free.
Books that can be considered potentially harmful to the public may also be banned. Several $cientology books have been banned in Australia over the years (thanks dad!).
Can you give examples of that to which you refer in your first sentence?
Can you give a cite as to scientology books being banned? I had never heard of this and googled and could find nothing despite reading two long articles giving a history of scientology’s various brushes with authority in Australia. It would seem an amazing omission if both articles failed to mention books being banned.
From wiki:
Summary:
In 1965 the State of Victoria passed the Psychological Practices Act, 1965, banning the use of the E-meter and teaching Scientology for money. This Act was repealed in 1987 though, it’s not really relevant to today’s law (I see now!).
In any event, back then, some of the books the $cientologists were selling from their HQ dealt with psychological teachings. They were seized and destroyed in raids. I read some of them - truly wacky.
Is that the same as an outright banning? I think so, because I’m pretty sure if a shipment of such books were intercepted at the state border, they would be similarly seized and destroyed.
Your cite doesn’t even say that books were destroyed, let alone support your wider proposition.
Sorry I can’t find a cite that substantiates my claims. So treat it as you would the ravings of any street-corner lunatic.
So how explicit must a text be before it stops being mere text?
So we’re allowed to question other poster’s honesty now?
In what sense is “description” not an accurate term? It is describing a particular scene and the actions of the individuals in that scene.
Don’t blame me because you didn’t read carefully and jumped to a conclusion.
You didn’t read my statement very well, did you?
Clearly the term “selective enforcement” must be absolute gibberish to you.
I have no need to retract anything. My earlier comment stands.
Perhaps the reason Cesario has such a firm view that the news article only refers to a written description of child pornography is this.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2256
§ 2256. Definitions for chapter
(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
bolding mine from here.
So specifically in the US pornography is a visual representation only not a text description.
No amount of bluster is going to avoid the fact that your cite neatly disproved your proposition. Nor will some conspiracy theory about selective enforcement. It isn’t illegal here to describe kiddy porn as containing “explicit fictional stories about children being sexually abused” and “children being raped and sexually assaulted”.
Your mistake is in not taking into account the subtle difference betwen porn and clinical description. That you may not draw that distinction is not important: the distinction is one that the law here makes. Consequently, your proposition was incorrect.
Again, your utter failure of reading comprehension is your problem, not mine.
And I suppose it’s also a conspiracy when only one care out of fifty gets pulled over for speeding? :rolleyes:
No, just illegal to go into enough detail that a judge might think someone could be aroused by.
Your mistake is in pretending that something being pornographic disqualifies it from also being a description.
So your country has a law that makes certain kinds of descriptions not legally count as descriptions? I did not know that.
Did you read my “proposition”?