[plug] Censorship - this thread needs a new home...

[Oliver White]

Yeah, I agree. The guy might be a bit a bit sick in the head, if he gets
turned on by that, but there's a big difference between looking at
pictures and taking, or encouraging others to take, those pictures. If
we're going to filter media depicting abuse, are we going to stop pictures
of kossovar  attrocities? I've seen plenty of child porn, and the effect
is the same as far as I'm concerned, it simply turns your stomach, not
your mind.

Also of note, private email may be included in this legislation:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newslink/nat/newsnat-27may1999-24.htm

Really I don't see much wrong with most porn, the worst most can be
accused of is bad taste. (oh, and poor spelling/grammar ;)

Anyway, we need to get organised. We all grumble on the newsgroups/mailing
lists and on IRC, but most of the country isn't involved in these media
yet. A new mailing list would be appropriate.

Cya at the march,

Oliver White

Mike Holland wrote:

> ( Congratulations David - that the longest subject line ever seen! )
>
> Speaking of censor ship, what do you folks think of this one:
>
>   I heard this week that the appeals court (WA?) overturned a suspended
> sentence, and jailed a man for 18 months for possesion of child
> pornography from the internet.
>   He hadn't paid money for these (which would have been encouraging
> child abuse), or distibuted them, or anything else which might hurt
> anyone. No suggestion of any paedophile behaviour.  Does this seem a
> little worrying?
>   Presumably, he had images of some disgusting abuse. But what sort of
> a broader precedent is this?
>
> [disclaimer: (the bleedin' obvious) I do not endorse ... yadda yadda...
>  merely the appeals cout changing the sentence. ]
>
> Mike Holland <mike at golden.wattle.id.au>            Perth, Australia.
>                           --==--
> Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.
>                 -- Rich Kulawiec