Nothing about cartoons depicting Homer Simpson swinging his baby daughter or otherwise endangering her?
Give them time. I’m sure that some mental midget will make that leap eventually, if nothing is done to stop them.
Holly crap, and I was* thinking* about moving to Australia. :dubious:
How about Homer strangling Bart 4 or 5 times each episode?
Raphael’s “Three Graces” (Australians - don’t look it up on your computer! - if you have an art history book at home - as you probably do you little pervert! - then you can look it up in there, in the secrecy of your own home) might be another no no. The context is sexual (by all accounts), and they’re probably pretty young, given the themes and the times. Art, you say? Sure it’s a defence, but can we really trust a court to tell us what is art and what isn’t ? Do we really want a court to tell us?
I’m not going to argue for or against this particular ruling, but I think that your analysis is overly simplistic. First of all, while anti-child pornograph laws are indeed designed to protect children, it does not automatically follow that this is their only rationale for their enactment.
Second, while no children were immediately harmed by these drawings, it does not automatically mean that no children can reasonably be harmed by them. As Noel said, there’s also the issue of such depictions feeding an appetite for underaged sexuality.
Now, you might not consider that to be a legitimate concern, and that’s your right. As I said, I’m not going to argue for or against this particular decision. However, I also think it’s overly naive to declare that the only purpose behind these laws is to protect children from immediate harm, just as I think it’s overly simplistic to declare that no children can be harmed by these images.
As I said, an overly simplistic analysis.
I haven’t seen the video, but I do know that when it comes to being picked up, swung about, turned upside down etc, my nerve gives out long before my young boys’ nerve gives out. They love that sort of thing, and their usual reaction is that I am not throwing or swinging them high enough, fast enough or for long enough.
The insanity of a moral panic in full swing is something to behold. Check out this news story from our local paper. Apparently having housing overlooking a schoolyard is inviting pedophiles now.
Great Og, children have been photographed? The horror! I can’t believe it!
Child pornography is rife? That may be, but yanno, I suspect it may not comprise photographs of childen in school uniform playing in the playground.
I suggest we start dressing our children like Saudi women. Anything else is frankly irresponsible. People may see them.
What other laws in Australia refer to “person(s)” that could be affected by that kind of precedent?
Strictly speaking this is true, but the fact that the DPP published his decision is being widely interpreted as a clear statement of intent. The reasons not to prosecute are almost never released (as I understand it), and it’s of particular note that the DPP went out of his way to emphasise that it is on grounds of the public interest, not lack of evidence. It’s an unusual step, and almost certainly has meaning outside the scope of this one case.
I would indeed “seize upon” the technical point (although I object to the slightly opportunistic impression that gives ;)), but I agree that there may be more to this story than we know, and that there may be perfectly decent reasons why the prosecution was in the public interest. Absent further information, however, I would argue that a DPP could perfectly reasonably hold that this case is not in the public interest, without resorting to a “general unhappiness with the law” (which I entirely agree would be no basis for deciding not to prosecute).
Hmm. Superman is a paedophile. Now I’ve just got to go to Australia and see if I get done for libel. 
Hard to get sued by someone that doesn’t exist.
Vile slander! You shall be hearing from Supes’s lawyers toot sweet, young man.
What if I make a drawing of Superman’s attorney demanding to take the matter to the court floor?
If he does exist, what was your libelling of him supposed to prove in the context of this thread anyway? Hah, you’re hoist by your own petard:p
Given that people have successfully won libel damages in the UK after being accused of being gay, despite actually being gay, I don’t believe that the truth or otherwise of an allegation necessarily affects its actionable nature. So Superman can not exist and still sue your balls off.
It’s all very Schrodinger’s Lawsuit.
No he can’t, he doesn’t exist.
I think it’s fairer to say that my client’s probability waveform has not yet been collapsed, and that your anticipatory statements vis-a-vis his existential nature or otherwise are extremely damaging to my client’s reputation. You will be receiving a box shortly, which may or may not contain a cat with a law degree.
Right, that’s quite enough of that.
And you’d better not since it apparently can get you arrested, (and it’s not even a joke 
).
[For people who didn’t read the article, the video depicts an adult swinging a baby , and the person (who isn’t the adult on the video) was arrested for owning a depiction of child abuse.]
I hope you got cash up front because I have a bad feeling about whether your fees are getting paid.
What the fuck is happening down there?
I’m not a very nationalistic person, but for a while i used to take a certain pleasure in pointing out stupid, prudish shit in America and saying, “That would never happen in Australia.” This was especially the case with sexual stuff like the hysteria over Janet Jackson’s nipple exposure.
Are the fucking lunatics running the asylum in Australia now? Was it always this bad, and i just didn’t notice? Fucking neanderthals.
By the way, for those who are interested, the Judgement in the case we’re talking about in this thread is now available.
I see why the Justice made the ruling he did, but i still find much of his reasoning rather tortuous. It seems that, in every place where there might have been some room for doubt or different interpretations, he did everything he could to broaden the type of representations that would fall under the legislation.
While the legislature itself probably deserves most of the blame, i think this judge (and the one before him) deserve some for themselves. I still think that, at the level of true justice and rationality, the result of this case is absolute bullshit.
This country has always had a weird relationship with obscenity and we have no broad constitutional right of free speech to counter it.
I knew about Australia’s limits on freedom of speech, but it had always seemed to me in the past that, whatever the legal and institutional problems, most individual Australians weren’t as ridiculous and paranoid about the issue as Americans tended to be. It seems that, if this were in fact the case at one time, it is no longer true.
ETA: I remember reading an excellent book on the subject of free speech (or lack thereof) in Australia about ten years ago. It was called Guilty Secrets: Free Speech and Defamation in Australia, by Robert Pullan, and it was quite an eye-opener.