[LINK] Censorship, protest marches, OT & this list
Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:47:39 +1100
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 07:27:15 +1100 (EST), Howard Lowndes wrote:
>I have to say that IMO the subject of censorship is more on topic for this
>list that the subject of protest marches.
>I have tried to follow Bob's narrow focussed campaign, but to me, as it
>appears to be to others, it is becoming a bore and is losing its edge.
>So, there is a small amount of corruption out there with illicit
>pornography being marketed with impunity, but in my view that is a far
>smaller problem than, say, smoking in public (which I hate) and hard drugs
I have no problem with smoking in public. I have no problem with
soft drugs if people wish to take them. I have never smoked, nor
taken soft or hard drugs.
I have no problem with the availability of pornography either and am
not involved in any campaign against it (heaven forbid). I'd prefer a
situtation where the pornography on sale was broader in scope as it
fails to represent the sexual diversity of society.
I am not, nor have I ever been, on a campaign against pornography and
anyone who suggests I am or have been is not reading me correctly. The
pornography on sale in Sydney is indicative of the standards of the
community in which we live and censorship is meant to be based on
I am at present following a court case which involves New South Wales
originated "adult material" on the Internet. It hasn't (as yet at
least..) made it to the press and possibly never will. If convicted
the alleged offender will almost certainly be silently jailed. I am
however concerned that there are differing standards applied by the
police force in the State of New South Wales.
On the one hand they prosecute someone with a web site based on
various sections of criminal law (which could result in a long term of
imprisonment) but seemingly ignore (let's not say "ignore" lets say
"selectively enforce") other laws.
The law should be clear and precise. I mentioned pending New South
Wales laws relating to Internet content to the person now being
prosecuted. He said it was just "regulation" and a businessman
(photographer) he regard(ed) such regulations as simply fluff that can
be ignored. He's now faced with $70,000 in legal fees and possible
It would appear that three charges have been dismissed but material
has been submitted to the OFLC by police, who have explained that
although his sexual preference is of little interest or conern to them
the material itself cannot be sold or marketed in this country or in
That's the fate of an individual.
Same law. Different resutls.
As I mentioned to the Hon Jackie Kelly "selective enforcement" is
I'll curb my anger (for the present).