Aussie family photos ban?
p2pnet.net News:- Posting pix of children, even if they’re in family photos, might soon become a crime in Australia.
“The nation’s attorneys-general have prepared a co-ordinated strategy following the discovery of a raft of suspicious websites featuring children’s photos,” says The Telegraph, going on:
“Most states currently have legislation against sexually explicit photographs appearing on the internet. But photos of children in sporting teams, including schoolboy rowers, and young surf lifesavers, have recently been displayed and linked to sexually explicit websites.”
Photos that could be used for “sexual gratification” would be banned, although parents and community groups “could still place photos on websites”.
But, “if concerns were raised and links to pornographic websites discovered it would become a crime”.
Federal Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock supported the proposal, and called for public input into the process, says the Telegraph, quoting him as saying:
"Recent media reports of photographs secretly being taken of children at sporting events and then posted on the internet has highlighted the problem and the fact it is being facilitated by the common use of digital photography, internet distribution and mobile phone cameras.”
Public input will be accepted until October, “when the standing committee will draft legislation to be implemented in each state and territory, for a uniform approach”.
(Thanks, Alex)
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
The Telegraph – Internet ban on children photos, August 10, 2005
August 10th, 2005 at 3:59 pm
There is a better way to handle this. Just kill the child molesters and those that sell kiddy pr0n.
August 10th, 2005 at 6:00 pm
How clever ! What about killing the self-titles rulers of the world, like Bush, Gates, Poutin, the bitch-queen of UK and so on ?
You’re a moron and you don’t know what you’re talking about so shut the fuck up.
August 10th, 2005 at 9:12 pm
no i think you are the moron who resorts to such childish responses
August 10th, 2005 at 9:21 pm
Sorry, maybe I am dumb, I just don’t get this or the need to control family photos. I in no way support child porn or child molestation. If you are going to go this far, just because a photo shows a kid, fully clothed I might add, then you just as well ban the camera and all possible ways of taking pictures and images.
We not talking posed shots for the benefit of sick individuals. We are talking daily activites that people (including kids) do during life. By this sort of thinking just as well ban all calendars that feature women selling any sort of product, ads and commercials that attempt to use sex appeal to promote their product. You know the bikini and skimpy clothed models. After all, some teen will have unclean thoughts over such pictures.
They are attempting to ban what is in every other country a legal activity of recording family events because some twisted individuals “might” get off on it. Does that make sense? How in the world do you legislate morality? No government yet has discovered a permenant solution to this one short of death, in all the recorded history of mankind. Somehow I doubt that Austrialia will be any more successful in this aspect. This looks like no more than jerk knee reactions of politicans trying to get name recognition off of meaningless law passage. That’s a hallmark of the US and honestly it is one of those things I wish I could kill in the making. Alas, I have not that sort of power…
August 11th, 2005 at 7:24 am
LOL you’re talking about a govt that’s already passed legislation allowing ppl to complain about “obscene” websites to the australian police who then check it out and send a takedown notice…
Which of course, has no legal merit or authority outside australia!
Don’t make the mistake of thinking australian politician’s have anything resembling a clue. I’m positive they have them surgically removed before entering politics.
August 12th, 2005 at 9:24 am
This is just absolutely ridiculous! Do they have any clue what a ghuge can of worms they’d be opening to use a term like ’sexually gratifying image’ in a law? Sexually gratifying to who? Some people get off on the oddest things. Would it be that I couldn’t post things that were sexually gratifying to myself or am I going to have to guess what tittilates others? The bottom line on all of this crap is that “Protecting Children” has become one of the mantras for the right-wing (in many nations) to restrict or constrain one’s civil liberties and human rights, just like the DoJ did with the so-called ‘revised’ 2257 record keeping requirements for producers of ’sexually explicit adult entertainment’. Producers now have to keep stringent records includin photocopies of ID of the performers and alot of other administrivia or possibly face charges. This is set up as a REGULATION (much less review) to implement the section of the law. The main reason for this ‘revision’ was stated as ‘protecting children from being exploited by the adult entertainment industry.’
But guess what? I’m certain that NONE of the reprehensible cretins who produces kiddie porn has EVER kept such records nor are they going to start now.
Oh, by the way. Better burn that JC Penney catalog before the cops raid your house and find that you’ve been looking at the boy’s underwear section.
–WRU
August 16th, 2005 at 12:38 am
Perhaps we should also ban all TV shows, movies and any magazines that include children as someone might gain ’sexual gratification’.
I also suggest that all children should be dressed in a respectful manner like Islamic women – parents who disregard this should be arrested as someone might get ’sexual gratification’ from seeing their children in T-shirts and shorts.