Protest against Internet Censorship in Australia

[squirmelia]

In Australia, the government want to introduce compulsory internet censorship. More details can be read here: Stop The Clean Feed and here: No Clean Feed.

Next Saturday, 13th December 2008, there will be protests across Australia against this. The Melbourne protest will be at midday, outside the State Library: Facebook Event.

[Poll #1312155]

Comments

[modulatorium.livejournal.com]

I too agree that there are worrying developments afoot, but I don't think there are laws currently in existence which cover what you're referring to. I don't know anything about the Sam Fox example, but are you sure that wasn't to do with exploitation of a minor on the part of the Sun, as opposed to prosecution against people for owning any pictures that might later have been published?

[fides.livejournal.com]

IANAL:
The Sam Fox example was the American's fault. At the time the photo was taken and published the definition of a child for 'child pornography' in the UK was 16 and in the US was 18. Therefore in the UK the papers could legally have page 3 girls who were 16. On one memorable case on her 16th birthday. And that was not child porn by the definition of the law in the UK (although it would have been child porn in the US). I believe the arguement was that if you could consent to having sex then you could consent to taking a picture of it.

The US pushed for a change in the rules so there was international standardisation to help with dealing with availablity of porn online (at least that was the excuse) and the law in the UK was changed to define a minor for the purposes of child pornography as being of persons under 18. This change in law was publisiced (ha ha) so that anyone in posession of pictures that were at that time legal but which were about to become illegal would have time to dispose of them. In much the same way that the current 'extreme porn' law is being publicised so that anyone owning pictures that are currently legal will have the oppotunity to dispose of them before they become illegal. Just nobody is totally sure which those are.

It should be noted that while some things are blatently illegal, other things may or may not be covered by covered by legislation (where there are shades of grey for interpretation) and so may or may not be illegal and that must be determined in a caught of law. Non-sexual nudes and non-photo realistic images may, or may not, fall into this category. For example there have been cases recently where a exhibit has been investigated and the CPS (or whoever) have decided that the images of naked children were not porn. Had they decided to prosecute then the defense would have argued that they were not porn and the court would then have decided if they were illegal or not.