Australia bans depictions of small breasts
Align
Remain Calm Join Date: 2002-11-02 Member: 5216Forum Moderators, Constellation
Remain Calm Join Date: 2002-11-02 Member: 5216Forum Moderators, Constellation
in Discussions
<a href="http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/australia-bans-small-breasts/" target="_blank">http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/...-small-breasts/</a>
Select tidbits:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The <a href="http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/framelodgmentattachments/A4DD01BB110AD94DCA25700D002EF73E" target="_blank">National Classification Code</a> dictates that anything that describes or depicts a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not) in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult is Refused Classification.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Keep in mind it’s highly unlikely that a naked photograph of a 30, 40 or 50 year old woman with small breasts would ‘appear’ to be child pornography on the basis of her breast size alone. Small breasts do not automatically mean something will be banned or is illegal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can see where they're coming from, but it seems way too extreme a measure.
Select tidbits:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The <a href="http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/framelodgmentattachments/A4DD01BB110AD94DCA25700D002EF73E" target="_blank">National Classification Code</a> dictates that anything that describes or depicts a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not) in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult is Refused Classification.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Keep in mind it’s highly unlikely that a naked photograph of a 30, 40 or 50 year old woman with small breasts would ‘appear’ to be child pornography on the basis of her breast size alone. Small breasts do not automatically mean something will be banned or is illegal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can see where they're coming from, but it seems way too extreme a measure.
Comments
This is possibly the highest concentration of weasel-words I've ever seen outside Fox.
Seriously though, I like it when people forget that these laws exist to prevent child abuse, not parade their delicate sensibilities and moral sanctimony. And I use the word "like" here quite wrongly.
No. "These laws exist to protect children" is not the catch-all argument to end all arguments, especially not when those laws convict innocent people. Who the ###### are we to tell a 17-year old that they are not allowed to take naked pictures of themselves? But that is EXACTLY what laws like this do. They don't even need to be all stupid about it and MMS them to each other or something. The simple act of TAKING that picture means that they are now <i>in posession of child pornography</i> and could be charged with a criminal offense. In what way, shape or form is that not COMPLETELY ###### UP?
I repeat, because this is something I want an answer to: In what way, shape or form is that not completely ###### up? Not a whole lot of ways, that's for damn sure.
The law should be concerned with preventing harm as opposed to going on a moral crusade or try to wipe out everything that may offend someone's delicate sensibilities. The case in OP isn't even trying to shy away from the fact that it's the latter, it even says so outright: "in a way that is likely to cause offence."
This and many other more important cases basically stem from our ignorance on what the hell law and morality are: we treat them like unspoken rules that must never be broken, as if by some divine authority (or literally divine authority for some), a taboo, something that demands no explanation. But they both exist to work towards a certain goal, whichever one that may be, not be self-serving (it'd be circular logic, actually). In case of law, it has never ceased to state it's purpose openly even if we no longer pay attention to it: to prevent harm while guaranteeing freedom. Bull###### like this does nothing to uphold either.
If seeing simulated child porn hurts real children then simulated murder in movies causes real people to die.
See, you can't make fun of this. There are people out there who say exactly that (special greetings to Mr. J. Thompson).
You can never protect children enough, is the public view. So laws like this, while "odd", won't be seen as bad. Just... protective. But the instant someone challenges it, they're a pervert and/or a paedophile, and *will* be painted as such by the media, because they are going against the child-protection laws already in place. Which, obviously, means they want to hurt children. [/sarcasm]
Meaning no one is going to take the bullet and challenge it. At least, no one who will come out unscathed. It's why any topic discussing things like age of consent cause "media outrage" unless it's "raising it". A while ago in the UK, a police official said age of consent laws that punish a 17 year old sleeping with a 15 year old the same as a 40 year old sleeping with a 15 year old are really stupid (which... y'know, they are). Cue outrage.
Also:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>(whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not)</b> in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult is Refused Classification.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting. So... The Simpsons is banned? Kids getting into pointless fights, stealing cars, making sexual references etc... "reasonable adults" have been getting offended at The Simpsons for a long time. To say nothing of other cartoons that have children in (i.e. all of them) such as Billy and Mandy and even Adult Swim cartoons like Metalocalypse and the Venture Bros. What odd wording.
Can an Aussie explain why you have the biggest nanny state ever? Does a majority of your population actually think things like this are good? Or is it that people are dumb and keep electing morons?
<a href="http://kotaku.com/5361301/left-4-dead-2-banned-in-australia-%5Bupdate%5D" target="_blank">Surely you mean violent videogames?</a>
Honestly though, let's not look for specks in the neighbour's eye. <!--coloro:#696969--><span style="color:#696969"><!--/coloro-->I never actually got that saying, you'd think a speck in the eye would be something worth pointing out, urgent medical attention and all.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Honestly though, let's not look for specks in the neighbour's eye. <!--coloro:#696969--><span style="color:#696969"><!--/coloro-->I never actually got that saying, you'd think a speck in the eye would be something worth pointing out, urgent medical attention and all.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isn't the full phrase "don't point out specks in your neighbours eye when there's a plank of wood in yours" or something along those lines. Changes the meaning a bit.
Yes, it's what I was referring to. <!--coloro:#696969--><span style="color:#696969"><!--/coloro-->Also how do you see anything with a plank of wood in your eye.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
That's the <strike>joke</strike> point.
From what I heard on FA.org, this was not actually something the government passed at all; the government is already moving to get rid of it or around it somehow. Give me a minute...
EDIT:
Right - thanks to TheLastRoboky.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am adoring the hyperbole being thrown around about how draconian Australia seems to be.
I won't bore you with the details but the actual government itself played little to no part in this decision at all. This was all non-government senators and non-aligned public servants.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually this seems as good of a thread to mention it as any. The Australian Federal Government is until the end of February taking submissions from Australian citizens who may argue for and against the lack of an R18+ classification for video games. This completely circumvents the shenanigans of the South Australian Attorney General who has been stifling all dialogue concerning it and blocking the creation of said rating.
With luck and intelligent submissions we may yet see something be done. It's politics though, so obviously it will still take too damn long to implement if it's even acknowledged.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I also don't see the need for a legal age of consent, after all having sex with someone against their will is still rape regardless of age.
But you're right age of consent should propably be enforced up until 14 (that's how it is here).
I was thinking more of the american law, which sets a ridiculously high bar (18) in many states and unnecessarily criminalizes amicable sexual relations between teenagers.
Too uneducated, not too young. This law stems from the ridiculous notion that people magically get smarter with age, on subjects they're forbidden to know anything about, no less. Or, as you put it...
<!--quoteo(post=1749782:date=Jan 30 2010, 05:53 AM:name=Tesseract)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tesseract @ Jan 30 2010, 05:53 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749782"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Of course kids these days are too dumb to make a sensible decision at 16 (the age of consent here in the UK)...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If kids get no education on the matter and the best they can catch from the media on the issue is that it's something "adult" and "fun"... Can we really act surprised? Actually it's rather the same way about, say, joining the military which, I think, is actually a much more important issue.
Obviously you don't give them plenty of education if they shun it (and school in general) like that, especially if it's something pertaining to sex, the one thing to occupy a teenager's (and most adults') mind. Frankly, modern education system is an abomination for most countries, and I'm not even talking about that cruel joke I've had to go through myself.
Reminds me of that "abstinence-only" sex ed some American states practice... Or the those logic-defying anti-drug ads every single damn country seems to have. It's like, "What do you expect?" You can't just say something is bad and you're a nazi if you do it, that's not education, it's lazy propaganda. Education has to be informative, honest and relevant, and that simply cannot be uninteresting.
Yes, they do. Your capacity to learn, curiosity and impulsiveness decreases with age as the neural mass stops forming and hormone flow peaks. Everything else pretty much stays the same, of which us retaining vivid memory of the time period should be the first clue. Speaking of memory, it does not start forming until you're about 1,5 years old, at which point the argument does ring true.
It's actually a common argument, you might even hear about something like "responsibility centres" in school or college, which is nothing short of pseudo-science (or possibly a blatant lie). Otherwise it's a fallacy: "different" does not "inferior", and especially "incompetent in this certain manner". Our competence in any area does not increase with age but education and practice, it's just common sense, frankly.
I suppose since we're on this topic I'd like to point out that I'm not trying to specifically defend kid's rights to bone random strangers. I think they should be properly educated on the issues so they can make informed decisions instead of being treated as sub-human only to live up to the title, in a manner of self-fulfilling prophecy: what school and profession they might choose, what to do with their health and body, where to stand on religion, morality, taboos and other forms of indoctrination, what education to receive, what lifestyle to subscribe to if any, and more.
Works the opposite way for me.
I'm sure there are lots of traits connected to that - libido, per se - but they're hardly substantial to the particular subject. We're not putting restraining orders on nymphomaniacs so they don't hurt themselves, are we?..
I have no idea how this connects to my previous post. What are you talking about?