Pop in any address on the site where Google Street View is available you’ll be presented with a photo of the street and an assault rifle to shoot at will.

Screenshot from the 'Shoot' website.

Technically it’s a very basic concept, but it presents an irresistible opportunity for politicians, law enforcement and the media to ‘have a go’.

How long will it be before you see “Online Massacre Training” and “Shoot Up Your Neighbour’s House” splashed across Australian newspapers?

Update 1:58PM

Fairfax now has a story on ‘Shoot View’ and reports that Google has removed the game’s access to the Street View API — effectively disabling it from using Google Street View maps and images. A teaser video of the game remains hosted on Youtube.

When The Chaser team was roundly castigated for their “Make A Realistic Wish Foundation” sketch it revealed another reason why satire rarely makes the grade in Australia.

“There’s almost a part of people that wants to be outraged,” says Simmons. “That sketch was two minutes in half an hour. People being outraged the next day, sure, but it went on for weeks.”

Simmons believes it’s partially attributable to our uncertain times.

“So much is out of our control — the war in Afghanistan, the GFC, Swine flu, they all affect us in different ways. This is a way for people to claw back some control in their lives, to express their anger and their outrage and to make them feel good about themselves.”

Which leads us back to the numbers thing — because of our relatively small population, vocal and indignant wowsers receive a greater share of voice than they would in countries like the US, where they can turn over and watch something else.

Simmons’ remarks about clawing back control are particularly relevant, especially when you look at recent cases like the Cotton On kids clothing ruckus. Author Hugh Mackay’s views on regulation in Australia give us insight into why: that if we make it appear we have solved a problem through regulation, we ease the burden of personal moral responsibility.

Other recent incidents of outrage, like that surrounding the Chaser Dog skit, probably rest more closely with our news media trying to whip up a storm in a teacup.

…Has Judge Adams ever watched The Simpsons? The casual, almost reckless child abuse that occurs every time Homer strangles Bart is precisely the sort of “abuse” that judge Adams seeks quash. As near as I can tell, television brodcasters and everyone who watches any episode of The Simpsons where Homer throttles Bart (there are many, many such episodes, plus last year’s feature film) have violated Australia’s laws concerning the distribution and viewing of materials which depict child abuse.

And let’s be blunt: Homer does abuse Bart. There’s no other rationale for Homer’s behavior. It is child abuse. And any materials which depict child abuse in any way are wholly illegal under Australian law.

He also looks at the case of Christopher Illingworth, who today faced Maroochydore Magistrates Court charged with two counts of using a carriage service to transmit child abuse material. And by child abuse material QLD police mean the famous video of a baby being swung around, circulated widely across YouTube and shown on news reports in the United States. Chris republished it on Liveleak.com.

Never mind that this video was freely available online, had been viewed by hundreds of thousands of individuals, or that it had been broadcast by American TV stations. None of that matters. Nor do police seem interested in the context of the video, reported to be a Russian circus family having fun with the baby. It is child abuse, and even watching the video is illegal in Australia.

Jeremy Gans, who teaches and researches in criminal justice law, also has a great article discussing both cases on his blog. Well worth reading.

First up, Chris Illingworth, a 60 year old from from QLD, has been charged with using the internet to access and publish child-abuse material after he republished a controversial viral video of a man twirling a baby around. As Asher Moses from SMH points out in his article, the same video has been shown on American TV news shows and is widely available online. Some details on the arrest and what happened here.

If you, like millions of other people, watched the video online or on the TV news, it might be time to turn yourself in at your local police station.

Meanwhile, in the case of Alan John McEwan and pornography depicting members of the animated The Simpsons family, the New South Wales Supreme Court ruled that a fictional cartoon character was a “person” within the meaning of the relevant state and commonwealth laws. McEwan was convicted of possessing child pornography and using his computer to access such material – The Simpsons porn – in February. He lost his appeal today.

SBS World News reports:

The magistrate had rejected a submission that cartoon depictions or representations of fictional characters such as The Simpsons were not of “persons”.

Justice Adams said the legislation’s main purpose was to combat the direct sexual exploitation and abuse of children that occurs where offensive images of real children are made.

Didn’t The Simpsons movie feature a penis?

Oh, and how could I forget: The Internet Watch Foundation says the Wikipedia entry for the Scorpions’ 1976 album Virgin Killer could breach child abuse laws. ISPs using the IWF list therefore blocked access to the page and caused a number of Wiki editing problems in the process.

The same list Conroy wants to incorporate into his own ‘clean feed’.

Children at risk from every angle

Alan Jones

We need to reflect on the dreadful story of a young 19-year-old woman being raped in a taxi in November last year, twice indecently assaulted as she drifted in and out of sleep.

[...]

Then a nine-year-old girl is the latest victim of a reported child abduction attempt in Sydney in the past month. And this at a time when the Safety House network has been disbanded last year without public debate.

[...]

Well may parents wonder how safe their children are on the streets. And lament the seeming inability of society to protect the innocent.

But tragically parents may face the same concerns in the nation’s classrooms. Not through physical violence, though that occurs as we know through unchecked bullying, but through intellectual assault.

If you’re still wondering whether Alan is back to his same old tricks, here’s something he said in the audio version (in bold) that was left out of the published article:

‘Justice has prevailed and the taxi driver, 22-year-old MD Kawsar Ali [PAUSE] I wonder how he got into the country, will be sentenced in November.’

Thinking of the children… the white ones at least.

I was discussing the billboards on Aussie tech forum Overclockers today and was surprised at the number of people who supported the ASB’s decision.

Most folks thought the ads were annoying and were glad to see them given the boot, others admitted they had no objections to them but accepted others did. I don’t recall anyone admitting that the ad offended them, but the overwhelming majority appeared to support the methods used by the ASB.

That’s worrying for a country on the verge of Internet censorship and fighting for an R18+ games rating.

Even if you dislike the ads (or the penis piano ads on television, or the late night SMS ads), supporting a decision to remove any form of media because you or someone else found it ‘confronting’ or offensive sets a dangerous precedent.

If we follow that logic there’s reason to ban everything. Science books, the bible, celebrity magazines, pornography, violent films, computer games. Everybody finds something offensive.

All of these games have offended or outraged family groups and concerned parents at some point. Would you support them being banned because others find them inappropriate?

Some people accept it as the cost of free speech, but others believe it is their right not to be offended, as if it were a crime. They are of course judge, jury and executioner, deciding what’s a breach of their moral code. A code they believe should be followed by you and me.

We’ve all been offended at some stage in our lives, probably every week. If not, it’s likely we aren’t confronting issues we should be. Imagine if every time you were offended by something you could stop it from happening. Would you, even if it meant restricting another persons free speech?

Think of how many times you’ve offended someone or confronted them with a topic they may not have liked. Imagine if they had the right to restrict what you could say. Few of us would let that fly.

It’s hard to stick up for erectile dysfunction (pun intended), but as net censorship looms and gamers fight for their right to play uncensored video games, allowing any form of censorship to slide will only help those who see to have our rights restricted.

Terms like sexualisation and protecting children are being thrown around when we all know the real agenda is far from being in the best interests of children.

If we accept these excuses now and say one form of censorship or suppression is fine, than those excuses will continue to be used again and again, but with more weight.

- Mike

About 10,000 Victorian children aged 10 to 14 have been cautioned by police, arrested or ordered to appear in court in the past year, as a surge in youth crime continues.

Victoria Police say the escalation in juvenile crimes ? ranging from break and enters to drug offences and assaults ? is being fuelled by children’s growing exposure to sexual and violent images on the internet.

[...]

The head of the police youth affairs office, Inspector Steve Soden, said too many children were viewing inappropriate content on the internet and this, coupled with boredom due to a lack of community services on Melbourne’s fringes, was behind the alarming rise in youth crime.

No evidence of a causal relationship between the two or proof that youth crime is even rising necessary; Just the word of one Inspector. The media never forgets how fun a witch hunt can be.

This little man (or man of below average height) is causing big outrage.

Alcohol ‘education’ groups and Government bureaucrats are up in arms over a dwarf pouring free alcohol into the mouths of bar patrons. They say it’s an offensive example of our binge drinking culture, but readers of News.com.au want the fun police to mind their own business.

Angela Conway from the Australian Family Association told the media that the offer was promoting a “booze-drenched culture” among young people and it and it encouraged people to “get caught up in having casual sex with little consideration of the consequences.”

Yeah, Ang. I dunno about you, but most people don’t need a free condom for encouragement. Heck, I’d say a good majority of people aged between 18 and 30 (male and female) carry one in their wallet or purse anyway.

Let’s be realistic: Alcohol often leads to sex. If we can get a condom into the hands of consumers (even as a tacky marketing ploy) the chances of some fool catching an STD or becoming involved in an unplanned pregnancy is probably that little bit less. It’s certainly doing no harm… or is it…

Independent Distillers Australia says the promo was not authorised by them and was the work of one salesman. They’ve now pulled the plug on it.

There is a big fear factor here. It’s the coming of the railways, it?s Elvis shaking his hips. It’s cars going over 25 miles per hour and making people explode, he said.

The same misplaced moral panic that greeted rock’n'roll as Times Online puts it. Well worth a read.