Exactly. So you’re wrong. Your proposition was too broad. It would have been correct if you had qualified it in this way. You didn’t and consequently your proposition was wrong. I threw you a rope by suggesting you narrow your proposition but you declined it.
You have the option of climbing out, or continuing to dig. Up to you.
So let’s see if I understand this. Your purpose isn’t so much to demonstrate that descriptions of child porn are legal, which they aren’t (due to any of them a judge decides might be arousing being illegal), but to make me say I worded a previous sentence poorly? Congradulations, you win. I worded a previous sentence poorly.
Doesn’t change the fact that it is Australian law that describing child porn in sufficient detail (the level of said detail being undefined and soely subject to judicial discression) is illegal, but you can have your empty victory.
It’s not a DESCRIPTION of child porn – it IS child porn. Just of the written variety. Literature can be pornographic as well. (Hello, ever heard of slash fic?)
Again, being porn does not disqualify something from being a description. Is this some strange, alien concept I’m describing here?
I think you’re being disingenous here. Most people would consider a “description” to be a vague summarizing – like the back cover of a book. Not the actual book itself. A book isn’t a description. Erotic lit doesn’t count as “description”, Cesario, no matter how you try to spin it. It can be descriptive as in graphic, but it’s not actual description of porn. It IS porn. Written porn. Porn fiction. Porn is not just visual.
Now, if you want to argue the legalities of THAT, fine. But this semantics game is quite frankly ridiculous.
No, you don’t understand. Descriptions of kiddy porn are legal as long as they are not porn. “Porn” being here defined as arousing etc.
Saying something that is not porn is illegal because if a judge decided it was porn then it would be illegal is silly. It’s not merely poor sentence construction, you don’t seem to understand the basics.
It may help you to realise that something can be legal or illegal depending on characterisations made by judges and juries. There are any number of instances. That a particular distinction may not be clear cut does not make the distinction any the less the reality of the law.
If true, “most people” are idiots. Is there some page count that “most people” use as a cut off for when something stops being a description, dispite it still being nothing more than text describing scenery, for example?
Provide me with a way of describing two people having sex that is both sufficienty unambiguous as to be a meaningful description, but which does not count as “erotic lit” by someone’s definition. I’ll wait.
You don’t seem to be grasping that something can fit into more than one category. Is this some hereditary condition you’re struggling with, or just ordinary willful ignorance?
I agree, this semantics game is ridiculous. It’s absolutely ridiculous that you are standing here and saying that a description isn’t a description.
Oh don’t stop at “etc.” You guys apparently managed to put together a definition for porn that isn’t absolutely subject to judicial fiat, and it’s outright criminal to deny that definition to the rest of the world that’s been struggling with it for centuries.
So share the definition that isn’t “what a judge decided”. I’m eager to learn from you legal masters.
If there is a real distinction, you can draw a line and be able to say before the fact whether some action is or isn’t illegal. If it is impossible for a citizen to know whether their actions are legal or illegal until after they’re subject to the arbitrary whims of the state’s judicial process…
Well, let’s just say that “chilling effect” is something of an understatement of the problem.
Nope, you’re still not getting it. I never said the definition was clear cut. In fact, in my last post, I explicitly said to the contrary.
Do you accept that driving in the US is illegal? Can you tell me before the fact precisely what acts I will have to avoid committing such that I cannot be charged with “reckless driving”?
In other words, it’s illegal to have such a description, but you’ll never know if the piece of paper you are holding is illegal or not until after the trial. Yeah, doesn’t sound like there could possibly be any sort of chilling effect on free speech in that situation does there? :rolleyes:
Nope.
If you give me a description of an act, I can tell you if it qualifies or not. Oh wait, your definition of a description is such that if you provide enough information for it to be perfectly clear exactly what is going on, it doesn’t count as a description anymore. I forgot. Sorry about that. I’ll need to ponder what linguistic acrobatics I’ll need to go through in order to get this very simple concept across in language that meets with your peculiar set of definitions.
I do not believe this is true. The highest Australian court found that the Constitution affords Australians a right to free political speech:
I would not be so unequivocal vis a vis “in no way.” In any case speech that is political in nature is protected, or free.
No you can’t. You cannot know how a judge and jury will decide a borderline case. You could probably tell me most of the time, I agree. People in the US don’t hesitate to drive merely because of this lack of total certainty in the same way as no one here would have any difficulty coming up with a description of kiddy porn that was not kiddy porn.
As a matter of logic, you understand that the fact that there could be borderline cases of reckless driving doesn’t mean that it is hard to avoid engaging in reckless driving, right? Now extrapolate out from there and apply it to your proposition at your post #83.
You’ve confused yourself. You may be thinking of some other poster. I’ve never said this or anything that amounts to it.
Provide one, and let’s see how it holds up. Specifically, give an example where it is sufficiently clear exactly what is occuring in the scene, rather than just general “um…kids are having sex”. Let’s see if you can avoid manufacturing kiddie porn right here.
Your own cite, which I have quoted before, describes kiddy porn when it refers to “explicit fictional stories about children being sexually abused” and “children being raped and sexually assaulted”.
Your original comment was that in Australia “it’s illegal to even describe what kiddy porn would contain”. I suggested you might want to retract your comment and substitute something narrower. Your response was “I have no need to retract anything. My earlier comment stands.”
Accepting that the previous paragraph was legal, there is no need for me to give an example “where it is sufficiently clear exactly what is occuring in the scene, rather than just general ‘um…kids are having sex’” to falsify your original comment, which you have stood by explicitly. If you want to retract and narrow your original comment, feel free.
Your problem is that your original comment was wrong but you have defended it vociferously and now you would lose too much face by admitting it, so you are doomed to defend the indefensible. Sucks to be you. Next time someone is polite enough in debate to throw you a lifeline, you might want to think about taking it.
See you just did it. I have reported you to Big Brother for this infringement.
Keep going for it Princhester. I gave up.
Cicero, I will turn the question around.
What is banned in America? I am sure that there have been some books, movies etc that have been outlawed? I don’t know if you will answer this or not but the point is that besides some extremes there is not much I can buy in the good ol’ USA that I can’t buy downunder and the same can be said for political views.
Australia has not and will never allow blanket absolute rights, it is impossible for these absolute rights to exist without infringing on other peoples’ rights. You may have the right to wear a very offensive tshirt that exhorts people to kill people but what about the people described? Do they not have a right to the pursuit of happiness or acceptance of their religion?
Miller test for obsenity seems to closely align with our countries obsenity laws.
The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.[1] It has three parts:
* Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
* Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[2] specifically defined by applicable state law,
* Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific.)
The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.
The first two prongs of the Miller test are held to the standards of the community, and the last prong is held to what is reasonable to a person of the United States as a whole. The national reasonable person standard of the third prong acts as a check on the community standard of the first two prongs, allowing protection for works that in a certain community might be considered obscene but on a national level might have redeeming value.
This direct from our gubberment.
Five fundamental freedoms
All Australians are entitled to freedom of speech, association, assembly, religion, and movement.
Freedom of speech
Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to say or write what we think privately or publicly, about the government, or about any topic. We do not censor the media and may criticise the government without fear of arrest. Free speech comes from facts, not rumours, and the intention must be constructive, not to do harm. There are laws to protect a person’s good name and integrity against false information. There are laws against saying or writing things to incite hatred against others because of their culture, ethnicity or background. Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others.
Freedom of association
We are free to join any organisation or group if it is legal. We can choose to belong to a trade union or to a political party. Having and debating points of view allows for a healthy and strong democracy.
Freedom of assembly
We are free to meet with other people in public or private places. We can meet in small or large groups for legal social or political purposes. Being able to protest and to demonstrate is an accepted form of free expression. Protestors must not be violent or break laws such as assaulting others or trespassing on private or public property. People can change governments in a peaceful way by elections and not by violence.
Freedom of religion
Australia does not have an official or state religion. The law does not enforce any religious doctrine, however, religious practices must conform to the law. We are free to follow any religion we choose. We are also free not to have a religion.
Freedom of movement
We can move freely to and from all states and territories. We can leave and return to Australia at any time. Some migrants may have conditions placed on their visa until they become Australian citizens.
You missed post 102, didn’t you?
You make a grave error in assuming that I approve of my country’s weakness of character on this issue. I don’t claim perfection from the United States, and I rage against its failings quite often. It’s just better here than over there.
Plenty of movies (for certain values of the term) have been banned here. Certain categories of images (narrower than in Australia, since our supreme court struck down the “virtual child pornography” legislation they tried to sneak through, meaning drawings are legal, even if photos are subject to the same worthless, insane standard in place in Australia).
But as for text, so far as I’m aware, there is nothing beyond state secrets that one can’t own. Feel free to correct me on that, and I’ll set about tearing into whatever traitors enacted such a ban, but at this time, I’m not aware of any.
The extremes are the important part. Mainstream views don’t need to be protected, because they’re protected by the fact that they are mainstream. As I said, if you don’t believe in free speech for the most abhorent views imaginable, you don’t believe in it as a concept.
No, they don’t. Having genuine freedom of expression means that everyone else loses their “right” not to be offended. You and I just value that trade-off differently. It’s a fundamental impass, I’m afraid.
And yet still lacking in anything resembling a defintion. The defintion changes and shifts with the whims of the general populice, and thus it is no guarentee or protection for anything.
Thus, not free speech.
And since only government approved organizations are allowed, not free association.
Looks like freedom of assembly, though the last sentence is disconnected and suggests a failure of the government to appreciate the right of the people to a final check on the excesses of their government.
Unequivocally freedom of religeon.
And clearly freedom of movement.
Three out of five anyway.
Yeah I guess you are right, free speech within guidlines is what we have. I would say without boundaries just breeds anarchy and not representative democracy.
It’s a fundamental impass, I’m afraid.
These are from your country not ours.
I understand but it is those that are not government banned as opposed to approved. Could I join al qaeda in the USA?
Um it just says you can’t overthrow the government through arms etc. Not sure on the USA but I am sure something similair operates there.
Three out five I am happy to take. Remember Australia founded by convicts, USA by puritians and masons.
Cesario a good response.