Australia: Nanny State again

[Jon Miller]

The maximum sentence for a girl sending a cell phone picture message to her boyfriend of herself naked is something like 10 years and being placed on the sex offender list and 17 year olds have in fact been prosecuted for this. It is an entirely victimless crime and is a derivative of the child porn laws.

This is a problem because we treat 17 yearolds having sex the same as 8 yearolds. They are extremely different things.

That doesn't mean that an 8 yearold should be able to send a naked picture of herself to some guy/etc.

It just means that the laws detailing those who are physically adults but not mentally adults should possibly be changed a bit. (13-18 or whatever)

You are attacking the wrong bit of the laws.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Please read up on the US laws. As I recall, in some sort of preliminary hearing before the supreme court, a federal prosecutor admitted that Romeo and Juliet might be illegal under federal law.

And that is fine. Romeo and Juliet were ****ing stupid and there is a reason why we don't think teenagers should be having sex.

They aren't responsible, they aren't thinking clearly, and they aren't equiped to deal with the consequences.

JM

[Dinner]

Romeo and Juliet was a work of fiction.

[Drake Tungsten]

Juliet...

[KrazyHorse]

Dale, that's listed on the wiki site. Which implies all would be.


Anyway, I starting to think this forum is fkd up. A bunch of grown men on a website for a game kids play advocating simulated child pornography. I may have had enough of this place. I thought everyone just kinda wandered in here from the strategy forums and liked to debate. I'm starting to think otherwise.

Feel free to leave, you stupid piece of ****.

[KrazyHorse]

I'd rather have CGIs in porn that are indistinguishable from children be illegal than let people provide a financial incentive to exploit children. And I don't see a slippery slope leading much farther than that.

I doubt you feel the same way about, say, a simulated murder on film which is indistinguishable from a real murder.

If I'm correct, could you please explain the justification for the distinction?

[ricketyclik]

I've read this [the internet filter] is the result of donations to the ALP by fundamentalist Christians, which may be true, but it suits the PM who is of a puritanical bent, and it's also a useful wedge against the opposition, who will probably be forced to back it.

I've also read that something like 80% of Australians are against it, but the ALP has probably found through polling that those who are for are predominantly Coalition voters, and those ALP voters who oppose are unlikely to change their vote over it.

Another example of the tyranny of democracy (not that I oppose democracy, or have a better system - just saying).

Among other things, the filter will block beastiality

[Drake Tungsten]

Among other things, the filter will block beastiality

I should've known...

[ricketyclik]

Among other things, the filter will block beastiality

I should've known...

How's that? You've never even heard of me

[Drake Tungsten]

I should've just assumed that any Aussie has to be turned on by sex with animals.

[ricketyclik]

Fair enough.

[MikeH]

@ the logic discussion over Australian bans/not creating a rating class.

Asher, you and KrazyHorse should start a Poly Logic school here. Logic 101 with Asher and KH. Lots of posters could use it.

[Jon Miller]

I doubt you feel the same way about, say, a simulated murder on film which is indistinguishable from a real murder.

If I'm correct, could you please explain the justification for the distinction?

Only sick ****s want to see simulated children getting abused, while almost everyone wants to see simulated murder.

Probably because murder is more natural than child abuse.

JM

[MikeH]

What if it's the simulated sex murder of a child?

[Dale]

I should've just assumed that any Aussie has to be turned on by sex with animals.

But the nanny-state took my Ling-Ling.