[LINK] "Greater certainty" for Internet users, thanks to Govt.
Wed, 06 Sep 2000 20:09:42 +1000
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000 18:45:00 +1100, Danny Yee wrote:
>I repeat (using one of the few examples we have): how many people think
>http://www.teenager.com.au/hub.html is sufficiently offensive that
>it should be banned? It may be tasteless, but you can buy raunchier
>material than that in pretty much any newsagent in NSW.
A few messages ago I mentioned that there were well over 1,000 new
messages in the "alt.binaries.pictures.ll-series" USENET group, much of
which appears as though it could point to child pornography. One of the
postings pointed to a web site in the header (visible to all) I wouldn't
contemplate approaching, and that is www.lolitalove.org.
Given the wording of the New South Wales Crimes Act in relation to
child pornography I'm amazed that the Minister for Communications
believes the legislation he has introduced is working. (some 90 to 100
items deemed offensive - in how many months?) This evening there were
over 700 new messages in the binary newsgroup mentioned above alone, and
this from an Australia Internet Industry Association Server ("self
regulation" - which is "working" ?), and seemingly subject to
controversy in relation to an ABA ruling.
Some of the headers this evening suggest postings along the line of
"Little 15 - ...." jpg. I have no idea if this is child porn. I
wouldn't dare look given the penalties for simple possession of such
There is no avenue for those who may wish to complain, as they cannot
willingly access such material with a view to complaint. I'm not
permitted at law to investigate whether such material is or isn't
offensive/illegal. The only people who can do this are New South Wales
law enforcement officers and then only in the performance of their
duties. (Crimes Act - New South Wales).
The censorship laws are working ? ??
P.....A..... they are !!!
Bob Bain. Sydney Australia