Comments on: Googling sex: Adventures in tabloid journalism online

By: Sex Toys, Adam & Eve

Sex Toys, Adam & Eve — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:20:36 +0000

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: Danny

Danny — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 23:59:33 +0000

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: Sheila (@stinginthetail)

Sheila (@stinginthetail) — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:47:17 +0000

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: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:48:25 +0000

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: Bob Bain

Bob Bain — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 03:29:58 +0000

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: Geordie Guy

Geordie Guy — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 02:10:41 +0000

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: Bob Bain

Bob Bain — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:28:57 +0000

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

Bob Bain — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:23:44 +0000

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: Denis

Denis — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:13:10 +0000

“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: Max T

Max T — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:12:24 +0000

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?