Googling sex: Adventures in tabloid journalism online
August 24, 2009 – 12:23 pmby Geordie Guy
Today’s Online Opinion features Abigail Bray, a post-doctoral research fellow at the University of Western Australia. Her article, available at http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9344, unfortunately doesn’t seem to draw on what we’d assume is a depth of experience and qualification.
She writes how a “couple of weeks ago”, which I’ll presume is some sort of modern parlance for the “in a reproducible experiment performed under controlled conditions” we expect from academics who submit articles for publication, she went looking for pornography. Astoundingly she found it.
The three paragraph diatribe that continues after this setup explains how she typed the word “sex” into Google and clicked on the first hit, being presented with a website which seems focused on depicting porn actors who are very drunk to the point of being passed out. Of course I typed sex into Google to attempt to untangle what it is that Ms Bray was talking about and I got the Australian Human Rights Commission’s sex discrimination page, followed by Your Sex Health.org, then same-sex reforms at the Attorney General’s website, then sex education for teens, then Cleo, then the Australian Sex Party. But I guess that’s because I ensure that I have my settings for that search engine set so that the most relevant searches for me are displayed.
Ms Bray then talks about how these depictions are entirely legal, and then in the very next paragraph tells us there are 220 stills from videos of very young women being tortured and raped. It would appear that not only is Ms Bray unfamiliar with the Google I use, she has her very own preferences set for her reading of the Commonwealth Crimes Act and the various state acts and criminal codes.
This entire experiment is of course a 6:30pm tabloid television walk-up in the guise of academic writing for a journal. It’s no different to television stories entreating us that crime is out of control by showing an undercover investigative reporter pretending to stagger up Kings Cross at three in the morning waving his wallet, and filming the results.
When I read this article I was of course expecting the next cry to be one to censor the Internet, perhaps with reference to a 6 year old poll showing that parents want something different, perhaps with rhetoric about silver bullets and comprehensive plans and noisy minorities. Thankfully a saving grace of the article is that the author doesn’t call for this, only alludes to it by waffling about ISP responsibilities and explaining how she rang the Internet Industry Association what to do and was told that she could purchase a product to filter her personal net connection for between $50 and $80. Ms Bray dismisses this, expressing her disdain for paying a “corporation” to give her a product which empowers her to avoid the trauma inflicted upon her by child sexual abuse images.
One has to wonder if she is also reticent to pay the gas company just so she can avoid smelling terrible by having a hot shower, or if she indeed refuses to pay for her car to have registration safety checks just to allow her to drive safely on the road. I’m honestly surprised that someone doing post doctoral work continues to conflate rights with “things that other people should give me for free so that I can live my life the way I choose”.
The rest of the article has all the usual hallmarks of someone whose grasp of the issue has not given them pause to investigate beyond a single Google search before putting pen to paper, and it’s very, very frustrating. The debate about regulation of ISPs as a solution to perceived social problems has been thankfully continuing in the absence of Dr Clive Hamilton for some while now; and it would appear that at least one protégé is stepping up to the plate. A new doctor at OnlineOpinion is filling Hamilton’s role of undermining their credentials by using weasel words like “general agreement amongst experts” (what agreement? How general? Most importantly, which experts?), and pointing the finger at Internet Service Providers for obstinately refusing to leave their objective of providing Internet connectivity; to do the police and law enforcement agencies’ job of arresting and charging those who use the Internet for illegal activity.
Here’s hoping that those in the community who correctly expect the police, the legal profession and the judiciary to protect Australians from crime online dismiss Ms Bray’s article for what it is; a play with pseudo-investigative journalism which was sold with the credentials of someone who should know better. Someone, I’ll add, who’s admitted on the Internet to viewing online material that depicts a person who is, or appears to be, under the age of 18 involved in sexual intercourse.
Disclosure: I haven’t actually seen the site that Ms Bray has written about; I likely don’t have the stomach. Besides, to view it (if it as she says it is) would be illegal in Australia.
21 Responses to “Googling sex: Adventures in tabloid journalism online”
It’s fairly obvious that she disabled the safe-search which is by default fairly strict, so her article is fairly flawed on that point alone.
By Anthony on Aug 24, 2009
Second
By Jack Tar on Aug 24, 2009
I have it turned off. I happen to like porn
By Steve on Aug 24, 2009
I also have it turned off.
Some porn I like. Other porn I don’t.
It’s usually quite easy to tell which links go to the sorts of stuff I don’t like to see. And it’s ridiculously easy to – *gasp!* – NOT click on those links.
And in those rare cases I misjudge, there’s this wonderful new invention called a “back button.”
By Toejam on Aug 24, 2009
Fancy writing an entire article demonstrating complete inability to use a computer or the internet with any competence and then publishing the article with your name on it. Another Clive Hamilton?
Academic? Research?
By GW on Aug 24, 2009
For those of you unimpressed with Dr Bray’s ill-informed writing, shoot her a polite email:
Rm 1.38 Arts Building
phone 61-8 6488 2434
fax 61-8 6488 1030
abigail@cyllene.uwa.edu.au
http://www.chloe.uwa.edu.au/staff/dr_abigail_bray
Here’s another good rebuttal: http://libertarianchimp.blogspot.com/2009/08/googling-sex-returns-sex-videos-o-oh.html
By Brian Houston on Aug 24, 2009
It isn’t illegal to view CP in any jurisdiction as far as I know.
Laws relating to CP (apart from importation) fall under State legislation and in the case of the State in which I live (NSW) the Act that governs this is the Crimes Act 1900 as amended.
The appropriate section with regards to production, dissemination and possession of CP can be found in SECT 91H
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s91h.html
Repeat as far as I know it is not illegal to view CP. A person may be in a position in which CP material is displayed but it is not illegal to view it. It is illegal in New South Wales to produce, disseminate or possesses it.
It is also a defence under Section (5)
(5) Defence to possession of child pornography It is a defence to a charge for an offence under subsection (2) not involving the production or dissemination of child pornography that the material concerned came into the defendant’s possession unsolicited and the defendant, as soon as he or she became aware of its pornographic nature, took reasonable steps to get rid of it.
===================
Having read this article I typed the word “sex” into the google search box and as the writer of the “googling s*x” article stated pornhub is the first entry displayed possibly due to the google ranking system. A google search on the term “passed out pussy” results in 586,000 results the first result being a domain of that name. Clicking on the URL for that domain results in the line
“Warning: Unknown: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in Unknown on line 0″
I note that google have cached the site and it may be possible to view the content of the site at the time google cached the content.
Herein lies the danger for casual surfers who seek information on the popular subject of “sex”.
“passed out” and “pussy” have a number of meanings but in the results displayed I see items such as “tiny teens” and wouldn’t for the life of me click on a link such as that. Given the fact there are about 586,000 results on that term I believe a filter if it is to be effective has to distinguish between those sites that possibly refer to CP and those that refer to the second most popular item on the Internet – cats (!) such as
http://itscupid.com/humor/drunk-pussy.htm
Love Related Jokes and Relationship Humor Archive
Poor Little Drunk Passed Out Pussy Cat!
The link marked “Back to Cupid Pussy Files” is probably safer than pictures of animals suffering from an overdose of alchohol (which I’m sure will upset animal welfare groups)
By Bob Bain on Aug 25, 2009
Bob that is hopelessly wrong. The criminal code includes Sections 474.14 – 474.25 “Using a carriage (telecommunications) service for child pornography material or child abuse material”. Each state has their own criminal code or crimes act which also make it illegal to access the material (although in some cases the access/possession issue is in an explanatory memorandum). Tasmania explicitly forbids access and attempts to access, WA forbids display. We’ve also ratified the U.N. Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, which makes producing, distributing, disseminating, importing, exporting, offering, selling or possessing for the above purposes child pornography [as defined in article 2].
You could not possibly be more incorrect.
By Geordie Guy on Aug 25, 2009
Regulations to the Criminal Code Act 1995
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cca1995115/sch1.html
474.14 Using a telecommunications network with intention to commit a serious offence
474.15 Using a carriage service to make a threat
474.16 Using a carriage service for a hoax threat
474.17 Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence
474.18 Improper use of emergency call service
474.19 Using a carriage service for child pornography material
474.20 Possessing, controlling, producing, supplying or obtaining child pornography material for use through a carriage service
474.21 Defences in respect of child pornography material
474.22 Using a carriage service for child abuse material
474.23 Possessing, controlling, producing, supplying or obtaining child abuse material for use through a carriage service
474.24 Defences in respect of child abuse material
474.25 Obligations of Internet service providers and Internet content hosts
However it is still NOT an offence to VIEW CP material. For instance if I am in a room in which a person interested in such material accesses CP material then I am NOT in breach of any criminal code by viewing the material.
The word you used Geordie was “view” and in that respect you could not possibly be more incorrect. This was covered in the EFA STOP Censorship list some years ago – during the years in which I posted regularly to STOP Censorship list and this was discussed in relation to underage girls producing material that could be deemed to CP material and inviting boys in their group to view it and indeed to take possession of it. The boys did not take possession of it and thus having only viewed the material were NOT in breach of any regulation or law of Australia that I am aware of.
By Bob Bain on Aug 25, 2009
It may be useful to refer to Inhope in relation to the issue of CP material
https://www.inhope.org/
On the following page regulations regarding various countries are listed – inlcluding Australia which is a member of Inhope.
https://www.inhope.org/en/content/details.php
Inhope has been referred to in Parliamentary debates on this issue.
By Bob Bain on Aug 25, 2009
Post-doctorate research fellow, eh?
What in?
Stupidity?
Where was she when the brains were being passed out?
And why was such a piece of unmitigated crap allowed to be published?
By Max T on Aug 25, 2009
“It is illegal in New South Wales to produce, disseminate or possesses it.”
“For instance if I am in a room in which a person interested in such material accesses CP material then I am NOT in breach of any criminal code by viewing the material.”
you are in breach if your friend is browsing on your PC. the information is in your PC’s cache… therefore you are in possession of Child Porn.
I understand the point you are trying to make… but the laws really are quite vague when it comes to determining what constitutes possession… and what even constitutes child porn. under many States laws it is illegal to possess depictions of child porn, that includes pretty much all hentai and even Simpsons porn.
By Denis on Aug 25, 2009
Denis viewing material can never be the same as being in possession or accessing it ! Yes indeed if a friend is browsing on a PC which belongs to someone else then he/she would be accessing the material which as stated is illegal under the Criminal Code.
By Bob Bain on Aug 25, 2009
Max T Firstly the article being referred to appears to be quite accurate. Secondly being accurate doesn’t make it crap simply because you do not like the issue being debated BUT and MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL I take issue with the statement
“And why was such a piece of unmitigated crap allowed to be published?”
Remember this. We are (at least some of us) defending freedom of speech and not stifling that speech simply because we don’t like the subject matter !
Who do you propose ban the article in question and if so under what guise do you pretend to be a believer in freedom of expression especially if the article in true ?
By Bob Bain on Aug 25, 2009
Bob,
Using the phrase “view child pornography” in any vernacular means to cause it to be displayed for yourself, by yourself; to possess and look at printed material or to operate a computer in such a way as to display it. To then turn around and say “Oh but if someone near me was doing it and I saw”, or “if someone erected a billboard of it and I drove past.” is disingenuous and frivolous at best if not entirely pointless.
By Geordie Guy on Aug 25, 2009
Using the phrase “view child pornography” in any vernacular means to cause it to be displayed for yourself.
========================
I thought I provided an example where viewing isn’t for oneself. As I stated if you are in a room with a person who has an interest in this kind of material and you happen to view material that this person displays on a screen then it isn’t done for personal gratification.
To suggest that the phrase can be construed to mean only for oneself in any vernacular takes great liberties with the English language.
BTW: It is a defence under the Criminal Code if access is for the public benefit…
474.21 Defences in espect of child pornography material
(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence against section 474.19 (using a carriage service for child pornography material) or 474.20 (possessing etc. child pornography material for use through a carriage service) because of engaging in particular conduct if the conduct:
(a) is of public benefit; and
(b) does not extend beyond what is of public benefit.
In determining whether the person is, under this subsection, not criminally responsible for the offence, the question whether the conduct is of public benefit is a question of fact and the person’s motives in engaging in the conduct are irrelevant.
================
It appears to me that the author of the article in question did so with the public benefit in mind and it is extremely unlikely that a defence will be necessary as the author is unlikely to be prosecuted.
By Bob Bain on Aug 25, 2009
I wonder how the broadcasting act relates to all of this.
What if I just stream illegal material as opposed to having it downloaded onto my computer as a permanent file, on which all this stuff seems to be based?
I mean, there are plenty of pay-per-view sites around these days.
Is that illegal too? Or would that just fall under the system where a complainant has to go to the broadcaster and if they don’t get a satisfactory response from them then you go to ACMA? Like the recent Kyle and Jackie O incident for example, where ACMA couldn’t act until the complainants had complained to 2DAY-FM who gets 60 or 90 (?) days to respond etc. etc.
Is streaming on the internet broadcasting or narrowcasting anyway?
By Daniel on Aug 26, 2009
she’s a graduate in literature and women’s studies, far as i can tell – this course is well known for providing a coherent scientific background, and she will have done a decade of rigorous study, research, and fact checking. Erm, ok, so it doesn’t, she didn’t, and the word FUCKTARD springs to mind when she blames the ISP’s for internet content.
And then goes off on her own little rant damning the MAN – aka big corporations, for making her buy a filter – she could have had one for free if she’d only used a computer 2 yrs ago, when Howard etc were handing them out. Or she could get the techie who switched Safesearch off for her to switch it back on again, and she could disappear safely up her own post-modern arse for the next 20 yrs.
By Sheila (@stinginthetail) on Aug 26, 2009
After reading that Abigail Bray’s comments, I had the sudden urge to to slam my palm to my face.
It is so disheartening that we have morons like her in Oz.
Plus I don’t mind porn. Just not the shit eating stuff.
By Danny on Aug 28, 2009
It’s unfortunate that Ms. Bray’s academic foray into Google and ‘sex’ wasn’t as thorough or extensive as others wished. A serious inquiry looking into the topic would prove most interesting.
By Sex Toys, Adam & Eve on Dec 2, 2009