Australia's draconian approach to the internet

Politicians in Australia are seemingly obsessed with the "internet is evil" vision of censorship. John Howard forced taxpayers to pay for all families to have filtering software at home, but for the Rudd regime it isn't good enough.

The model for Australia? China, Singapore or the UAE. Yes none exactly known for free speech and openness. The great firewall of Australia is purportedly designed to block child pornography, which of course means anyone opposing it must be suspect.

Now child pornography doesn't sit around on websites for very long, because its very nature being illegal means that websites are set up and shut down regularly. Indeed, most prosecutions for it are by people swapping personal collections via instant messaging and peer to peer networks. Not exactly a means by which a website firewall can interfere with. In fact the one point that most of those concerned about illicit material ignores is that the internet also makes it easier to track down those who produce it and distribute it.

Now there are reports that the trial firewall is blocking legal material. The majority blocked is NOT child pornography. So it is the typical sledgehammer to crack a nut.

The simple rule that should apply to the internet and all content is that the law should be involved when the material distributed is a recording of an actual crime - that means children, that means real rape and real violence. It means the recording is an accessory to the crime, not the desire to engage in wide scale social planning.

Of course the authorities and certainly politicians have no response to the fact that increasing numbers of cases are now appearing of teenagers facing legal action because they are taking photos of themselves, which happen to be illegal. The image remains of a big bad world of adults, and a world of innocence of those under 18. The truth is there is a lot going on in between all that which parents don't know about, which politicians don't want to utter and youth culture. Sexuality is changing, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle, and people's heads are in the sand.

Useless university research: men and porn

"All men watch porn" says the headline referring to a University of Montreal study.

Apparently the "study" investigated 20 something men, who appeared to all be university students, presumably in Montreal. Wow, cutting edge stuff, such diversity of men!

Furthermore:

Single men watched pornography for an average of 40 minutes, three times a week, while those in relationships watched it 1.7 times a week for around 20 minutes.

1.7 times? "Sorry dear it wasn't a "full" time, it was only 0.7 of a "watch"". Don't let your imagination go too far in figuring out what an "incomplete" watch might represent.

The study found that men watched pornography that matched their own image of sexuality, and quickly discarded material they found offensive or distasteful.

Surely not?!!?? Who'd have thought?

So was it "bad" for them?

“Not one subject had a pathological sexuality,” he said. “In fact, all of their sexual practices were quite conventional.

“Pornography hasn't changed their perception of women or their relationship, which they all want to be as harmonious and fulfilling as possible,” he added."

Or perhaps they told you this, the sample was woefully small, none would admit to liking bestiality, dp, bdsm, urophilia and other kinks, or all the before mentioned is conventional in Montreal.

Maybe a better measure is to consider how highly ranked certain particularly kinky sites are on Alexa, how many are reporting addiction to pornography, how many relationships deteriorate as a result.

Indeed, the study that appears not to have been undertaken is what it is doing to teenagers, as increasing numbers take what are illegal photos of themselves and share them with each other, and it then ends up getting widely distributed. It is change that is profound, likely to disturb many parents, and may well change views on what censorship should be. After all, what do you do when the vast majority of what is defined as child pornography producers, are the subjects of the images themselves?

So what does the DIA's software block?

The news report in the Dominion Post that ISPs can acquire filtering software from the government to allegedly "block child porn" of course all sounds good. It is voluntary, and who would oppose blocking child porn, unless you're a pervert of course.

Well, if Claire McEntee were a better journalist, she would have asked some rather pertinent questions. Here are mine:

1. What is the definition of child porn? Does the software block all "objectionable" material, which goes well beyond what people commonly think of as child porn, but also includes adults wearing school uniforms roleplaying and includes erotic stories about legal acts between adults? How focused is it? Who is really going to lobby for erotic material that is legal to be let through?

2. Isn't the bigger problem those who abuse children and in the course of that video/photograph it and distribute those images, and doesn't this do absolutely nothing to stop it (it just stops people seeing material others produce)?

3. How does DIA respond to the report in Wired that an increasing problem is law enforcement agencies finding that much "child porn" is produced by the "children" themselves with camera phones - the children being teenagers who are underage. Such behaviour is foolish and should be discouraged, but not exactly what the law should be prosecuting.

4. What is the scale, extent and main geographic sources of the real child porn problem? That means those who are underage who are abused and have images taken of this abuse and distributed. How much material circulating is decades old (when such material was sadly legal in some European countries and poorly enforced elsewhere), how much is produced in developing countries, Russia or Ukraine where law enforcement has other priorities, how much is material swapped between child rapists, how big or small is the alleged "industry"? After all, what fool would pay for illegal material online when any payments can easily be traced?

Nobody knows because nobody can undertake research on the topic without becoming a criminal, and some law enforcement/censorship agencies have institutional interests in seeking increased funding to address the problem. It is perhaps the only area of the criminal law where research is effectively closed.

Let's be clear. Laws relating to censorship should shadow those related to crime. Images of what consenting adults do (or stories) should not be a subject of the law. Real child porn - images of those under the age of consent as victims of sex crimes - is appropriately the business of criminal law, as those producing it are accessories to the crime itself. However, there needs to be some genuine open discussion about what the business of the law is, what is the extent of the problem and ensuring that measures to address the real problem,are not sledgehammers to crack a nut.

In that context, if ISPs want to purchase software to block sites, then let them feel free to do so. However, it should not be a trojan horse for censoring more than material produced in the context of a real crime.

Phones, streets and mail not safe for children

That's my reaction to the Privacy Commissioner's absurd declaration that the "internet is not safe for children".

What is?

Travel? Talking to people on the phone? Sending letters? Talking to neighbours? Relatives? Playing sports? Climbing trees? Swimming pools? Playing in the streets?

It really becomes a matter of applying your mind to the situation, and when children are involved, an appropriate amount of supervision. Smart kids manage risk, and smart adults know the extent and degree of keeping an eye on their kids.

In the scheme of things, the internet isn't dangerous. Physically it does nothing at all other than facilitate information and conversation. Of course if you let your kids take photos and send them without permission it becomes a little riskier. If your kids seek attention from strangers then maybe it is because they can't talk to you about certain things, or they are from a home lacking a parent. As much attention should be paid to those who seek out inappropriate attention, as those who respond to it.

Meeting people you only know from the internet is risky, just as risky as pen pals once were i bet, just easier. Simple rules around never meeting people without someone else present, who is an adult, is key.

This issues comes up perenially, this time because a man was luring underage girls to talk about sex with him online. He of course is now paying a price for that, the law is strict and is in itself a deterrent. However, the internet for many kids is probably far less risky than Uncle Tom, or Cousin Jed, especially if you leave them alone, they are alcoholic, and you as parents spend large amounts of time partying, or being absent. Risks need to be in perspective. The bigger risk comes from meeting people you don't know who might abuse you. These people are often brought in by adults as friends, or partners.

However, all that gets the attention of law enforcement on the internet is not the result of adults. You see the truth is that censorship laws are producing some new perverse results - according to Wired thanks to camera phones and web cams, teenagers (they aren't children and not adults) are now being prosecuted for producing child pornography. Why? Because they take photos of themselves and send them on. In one ridiculous case a teenage couple have been prosecuted because they filmed themselves having sex, and sent it to no one.

The internet is presenting new challenges to parenting, it also means taking a realistic approach to what young people do. It is more an opportunity than a risk. It offers unparalleled access to information and entertainment. It makes it far easier for young people who feel isolated and alone to explore the world, and learn about themselves and others. In short it offers far more good than bad.

Children shouldn't be exploring the internet unsupervised, but as they get older they should be allowed more and more freedom. They will talk to friends online, they may make new ones, and yes, some will explore sexuality - like they have for time immemorial. Yes, they should be protected from being hurt and harmed by predatory adults, but given the rate of teenage pregnancy far too many are experimenting with each other in the riskiest way. Wouldn't many parents rather that their teenagers sat behind a computer looking at pictures and chatting to strangers they never meet, than went out partying, getting drunk, and risking getting pregnant (or someone pregnant) or catching something nasty?

Risk is all around, it is about life. The best gift any parent can give to their children is to nurture their ability to reason, balance risk with opportunity and make informed judgments, and to be monitored, and observed as they mature with that ability.

The internet is no different.

Mickey Mouse - Satan's soldier

So says Sheikh Muhammad Munajid, a Muslim cleric, former Saudi Arabian diplomat, who according to the Daily Telegraph says under Sharia both household mice and cartoon mice should be killed. The cartoon ones, you see, teach children than mice are lovable. Mmmmmmmmmmmmm, tsk tsk.

He said in an Arab language TV broadcast:

"Even creatures that are repulsive by nature, by logic, and according to Islamic law have become wonderful and are loved by children. Even mice.

"Mickey Mouse has become an awesome character, even though according to Islamic law, Mickey Mouse should be killed in all cases."

Ahhh Islam can be such fun. Though I love the quote about what he said about the Beijing Olympics:

"Last month Mr Munajid condemned the Beijing Olympics as the "bikini Olympics", claiming that nothing made Satan happier than seeing females athletes dressed in skimpy outfits."

Well, given that Mr Munajid is such a fun fellow, you can be sure that anything that most in the world considers fun is immoral to him - but when did he last rally against female circumcision?

More girls kissing

Because it is Friday...

Why the Family Party is just so wrong

From a press release:

"Family Party Candidate for Northland, Melanie Taylor, is concerned over The Edge FM competition being held nationwide at 4.30pm today.

The station is encouraging girls to publicly kiss for about 20 seconds, with one girl/girl couple winning a trip to Melbourne to see Katy Perry, singer of the hit song "I kissed a girl and I liked it."

This follows this report in the Press about the contest.

Shouldn't the Family Party care about actions where people really get hurt?

No it shows itself to be oppressed, shame filled and judgmental.

Some simple points:

1. It is not a crime for two girls to kiss in New Zealand, never had been. It is not sex. It is not dirty, it is an expression of affection and love.

2. Most men (especially when you exclude gay men) and quite a few women like it. If you don't, then look away.

3. Why do you think it is acceptable for young children to be smacked in public but not for young women to kiss in public?

4. Many families believe that kissing is acceptable and positive, just because you teach that it is shameful and that children should grow up feeling shame about their bodies, doesn't mean the rest of us should buy into this abusive philosophy.

Leave peaceful people alone, let women snog in public and get concerned about something that hurts people you busybody ayatallohs!

Offensive but legal boobs

So the breasts will be bared. It has provoked a number of responses across the blogosphere.

Pacific Empire has understandably taken the view that it is not for the state to regulate women baring themselves. Nobody has a right to be protected from being offended. It’s a view I largely sympathise with, although I don’t see Steve Crow as a hero. He produces material that I don’t like. I’ve seen it – I once bought one of his films on pay per view with Saturn TV when I lived in Wellington – it was money spent poorly indeed. Kiwi accents, the sound of a car alarm going off in the background, off the set and clearly unplanned and distracting – it was amateur, but not in the good sense of the word.

Having said that, each to their own, but it isn’t to my taste. He has every right to produce the literature he does, and indeed it should be legal to produce literature that depicts any legal act. It isn’t at present, which makes it legal to participate in a wide range of extreme sexual activities, but not to write about it or take a photo. This is absurd. Steve Crow offends many, and his business thrives on this sort of controversy, it also thrives on those wanting to see womens’ breasts. If breasts were not seen as dirty, offensive or naughty, his business may not be as brisk.

Idiot Savant of No Right Turn on the left sees it as putting men and women on a similar footing, and a victory for freedom of speech.

As he says “ if people want to parade around topless, that's their business, and I don't see any reason why the government should give a damn”

He also supports countering the event with protests, which of course is again each to their own. He says “this is a far more appropriate response than the Auckland City Council's hamfisted attempt at censorship”, and I agree. I wouldn't protest, I'd simply rather not watch.

I’m personally intrigued as to why men can bare breasts (they do have them) and enormous hairy bellies, which are far more offensive to many (not all), but women cannot bare breasts. Can someone explain that?

NZ Conservative not unexpectedly takes a difference course, seeing this is a matter of standards. A standard which treats the display of womens’ breasts as offensive – in a particular context. Lucyna says that “it draws large crowds of men to leer at topless women” and because it is linked to the erotica expo, it is linked to pornography. Pornography is legal of course, although that doesn't mean you need to like it. I have mixed views about it, but I would never ban it.

Now lots of things are linked to pornography. There is a whole genre dedicated to seeing women wearing socks, not showing genitalia at all. To those fetishists women wearing socks causes them to “leer”.

She also says “Leering at topless women is using those women for your own gratification”. Leering at clothed women, or men, or animals is doing the same – and the gratification is what, smiling at something you like looking at?

So what is the problem? Is it that the women have chosen to bare their breasts? Why? Why should you care if someone wants to be leered at? People dress to be seen all the time, to be leered at and noticed. Exposing breasts is likely to provoke the natural reaction of looking, unless breasts are of no more interest than a lamppost to you.

Or is it the gratification? Should we not gain pleasure at looking at another person’s body? Why is this a bad thing? It is when it invades privacy, which is why you can’t go peeking into windows – private property rights pretty much can protect most of that, and implied privacy in contracts can as well. Is it wrong when someone sees someone they find attractive and gains “gratification” from it, as long as the other person isn’t violated? What sort of a thought crime IS this?

Now Lucyna says it affects how people relate to each other, and yes, at an extreme it can. Someone addicted to pornography or sex will be affected because they are looking for instant gratification to fulfill a “need”, but does a man seeing a woman baring her breasts willingly change how he treats other women and men? Unlikely. Even if it does, why is this a criminal matter? Advertising does this, conversations do this, literature does this.

Apparently “to reduce it down to breasts being offensive is to be narrow minded and obtuse”. Yet this is exactly what we are talking about. Men can bare themselves, and conservatives care not a jot – even though many people find it offensive and a few find it arousing. Indeed people can wear many different items of clothing that draw attention to themselves either sexually or in humour. Is making others laugh or aroused by what you wear something the law should get involved in? No. So why breasts?

Indeed, if a woman wants to flaunt her breasts in public why do others want to criminalise her for doing so? Why is her choice less legitimate than your choice to wear a burkha, or wear hotpants?

I.M Fletcher follows up saying that he doesn’t like Steve Crow. Fine, but saying “We don't want you in Auckland Steve - we don't even want you in our country.” Raises the “who is this “we”” issue. I’d rather Graham Capill was sent away, or indeed many others. In fact there are thousands upon thousands of abusive and neglectful (not criminal) parents who are far more vile than Steve Crow. I think Steve Crow is rather tasteless, but he runs a business of consenting adults, selling products to consenting adults. He isn't living off of the compulsorily acquired earnings of others, like beneficiaries or government employees or state subsidised businesses.

The law clearly appears to be that women and men can leave all of their anatomy unclothed, except their genitalia, in a public place. Some find that morally reprehensible, I find the counterfactual offensive. The appropriate responses for those who don’t like it are to:

- Turn away and avoid women they see bare breasted; and

- Peacefully protest against women being bare breasted.

Much as is the case when men show hairy beer bellies, Muslim women wear burkhas and anyone dresses in bad taste. It is not for the criminal law to dictate what people wear in public places.

I’d suggest that if anyone has children and they see a woman with bare breasts, explain the same about seeing a man showing his belly and chest, or a woman wearing tiny hotpants. It isn’t dirty or offensive “per se” but natural – it is your mind that interprets the harmlessness of the human body as being less than that. Breasts are good - and the energy spent in suppressing them and publicising this event may have been better spent focusing on something largely ignored but should be offensive to us all.

It continues to astonish me how so few point and raise awareness of this true Nazi/Stalin type horror that occurs today, given that it is only by raising this tirelessly that there is a chance it will stop.

Breasts offensive?

It will be a fine day in New Zealand when city councillors find their own enthusiastic willingness to makes other people pay for projects that people wouldn’t choose to pay out of their own pocket more offensive than women showing their breasts in public.

Trying to prosecute women exposing a part of their body which should not be seen as offensive (they feed children and please many men, and some women) is simply fascist. It is curious that the feminist left (in the form of the bizarre councillor Cathy Casey) and the conservative right both think womens' breasts are so appalling that it should be a crime to show them - like the Taliban and Iranian mullahs think of breasts.

The NZ Herald reports: Ms Casey is also threatening to lie across Queen St with friends to stop the parade.

I don't want to see this parade, but Ms. Casey? Get a real job - who gives a rat's arse if you are offended by breasts, how can you possibly bathe everyday seeing such offensive parts of your body? Leave peaceful people alone.

Family First National director Bob McCoskrie not to be outdone says it is "sexualised nudity in a public street that is offensive to many people and completely inappropriate for young people and children to view"

What this means is that it risks turning him on. Bob, your organisation is offensive to many people too, should we ban it? Breasts seem to be ok to feed babies from, but you don't want to explain to young people that there are part of women's bodies and what their purpose is?

Of course, it's the best publicity Steve Crow could ask for, it makes it far more interesting to people than it would be otherwise. After all if bare breasts were not an issue in New Zealand culture, then it wouldn't have the potency that it currently does. My suggestion to those who find it offensive is simple - don't go.

Who is TVNZ scared of offending?

Blair Mulholland posts on a music video TVNZ wont show, because it depicts kids drinking milk in an adult party environment. Go have a look and see if you find it more corrupting than anything else TVNZ shows kids. Ask yourself whether the state owned broadcaster should be making those decisions.

Ask yourself why there should be a state owned broadcaster at all!

Embassy gets offended

The Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is upset that the Wellington Film Festival is showing an animated film called Persepolis, which clearly offends their sensibilities.

According to the Dominion Post it says the film is ""full of lies and unreal fantasy", "exploitative and unfair" and "anti-peace and insulting".

Iran should know, since its leader called for Israel to be wiped off the map, since it is Iran that has been testing old missiles in a show of "mine's bigger than your's" and Iran that hosts a holocaust denial conference. It is Iran where men are routinely executed for being homosexuals, teenage girls who have been raped may get executed and girls are imprisoned who defend themselves against rapists.

So to the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran quite simply - go fuck yourselves. You have no moral ground to claim over the Wellington Film Festival. If you can represent a misogynistic bigoted violent government and not be offended by that, then your opinion isn't worth spitting on. The world will be a better place when you're mindless filthy twisted bigoted bloodthirsty terrorist breeding regime is overthrown.

Who are the perverts?

Australian PM Kevin Rudd is in a squawk because of Art Monthly magazine publishing a picture of a girl of 6, nude, on its front cover. It isn't child pornography, in fact it isn't even erotic - well unless you count the fact that MANY things are erotic to a tiny minority who have specific fetishes. The range of human fetishes is almost infinite, but by no measure was a crime committed in having her pose in this non provocative, non revealing pose.

However it is telling when both the Australian PM and the conservative Liberal opposition both join the same chorus of outcry at the image, including wanting to ban taking photos of naked children. Expecting fully a witch hunt of the girl and her family. The girl in the photo is now 11 and yet doesn't feel exploited. You see her mother, Melbourne photographer Polixeni Papapetrou took the photo.

The girl clearly has more courage than Rudd or the vile little weasel who leads the opposition, Brendan Nelson, by saying SHE is offended because Rudd said "he can't stand" the image of her. Too right. The image is rather beautiful in its own right/

A picture of her today with her family, and the photograph in the background is here, courageously on the Sydney Morning Herald website.

The image is not sexualising her - the naked human body is not, by its very nudity, an invitation to be sexual. The understandable fear parents have of their children being abused has been exaggerated to a phobia about children being seen. It is a phobia that means teachers are thought suspiciously if they give an upset child a hug, especially male teachers. It is a pernicious blend of an ultra conservative belief that the naked body is by nature sinful, and feminists who see exploitation and rapist men at every corner.

The image wont incite a child to be abused. How many children who have been abducted were naked at the time? The people sexualising Olympia Nelson are Mr Rudd, Mr Nelson and the henpecked Hetty Johnston, whose minds are filthy enough (or politically corrupt enough) to have decided that this little girl is a corrupting influence that needs covering up. Next there will be calls to make it illegal for fathers to see their daughters naked, or adults to be alone with any naked children (I mean parents here, after all there is plenty of evidence that much child abuse happens at home!).

Olympia hasn't been exploited, by her or any reasonable objective measure - it's about time that politicians and do gooders shut up and left her family alone. There is plenty of real child abuse going on in Australia, it's just not as easy to find, not as easy to "ban" and not as easy to get outraged about.

T shirt banned by NZ censors

Warning content below may offend - seriously don't read any further if you are easily shocked....

*

The tshirt concerned is from the band "Cradle of Filth" and depicts a woman dressed as a masturbating nun, with the words "Jesus is a Cunt". The woman concerned appears to be enjoying herself and her breasts are bare with her genitalia concealed only by her hand. I haven't placed a copy of the image here out of respect of Christian readers, because I want them to at least understand my point - and besides, Google will enable anyone to find the tshirt within minutes.

*

The Office of Film, Video and Literature Classification (OFVLC) has deemed the tshirt is now banned. Yes banned. It is "grossly objectionable due to its obscene content" and so is injurious to the public good. Yes you can face imprisonment for possessing that tshirt now, whether or not you knew it was objectionable. You could also face imprisonment for selling it, giving it away, letting a child see it - in fact, that's it. You see "objectionable" places the tshirt on a par with child pornography - so a tshirt of a piece of art is cross the threshold of unacceptability like a video of a child being raped and murdered.

*

Hmmm.

*
I can see why some would be upset by the tshirt. The words on the tshirt would shock and offend any Christian - but then if there was a tshirt that said the same about Charles Darwin, Ayn Rand or myself, I might be shocked, but I wouldn't want it banned. I'd think less of the person who might wear it, but that's it. Hardly a reason to make it criminal. Words on a tshirt that are not defamatory (sorry Christians, Jesus isn't alive by any objective legal definition) should not be banned - they are words, they offend but do not harm. The Society for the Promotion of Community (of Christian Fundamentalists') Standards (SPCS)said the words are "grossly obscene and blasphemous language directed at the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is worshipped, adored. praised and revered as the central Person of Christianity". As Stephen Fry once said "so you're offended? So fucking what?"
*
I am offended daily by the vileness of the actions and words of individuals and governments, I'm offended by people who don't wash and use the tube, I'm offended by foul mouthed yobs at 1am shouting outside our flat randomly, I'm offended by the BBC wasting money it took from me by force to pay exhorbitant salaries to people on commercially oriented programmes, I'm offended by restaurants that don't give me what i ordered. The world does not exist so governments can protect you from being offended.

The question I want to know, is that if it is illegal to have those words on a tshirt, is it illegal for me to even have them on this blog? Well US law protects me I expect given the hosting of this site - but if you can't write that phrase, then it has serious implications as to where the line is drawn on offending people through writing!

So what about the image? Was the woman in the image (I believe it was a photograph) forced to pose that way or reveal herself? If so, then there is an issue of assault and she would be a victim. If not, then let's think carefully - could she pose like that in someone's premises legally?

The answer is yes. There is no crime in a woman dressing as a nun, exposing herself and masturbating assuming she consents and is of age, which appears to be the case. So again, we are just talking about people who would be offended by the image. So let's deconstruct this. The person depicted on the tshirt isn't offended. The person buying or owning the tshirt isn't offended, but others not involved at all in the tshirt, except seeing it - are.

So we are to protect people from being offended from seeing an image that, in real life, would be perfectly legal to copy. This is rather unlike child pornography, where you are in serious criminal charges for attempting to undertake those activities in real life.

So why ban it? Well it appears the OFVLC is protecting Christianity and chastity, which seems rather strange as I didn't think it existed to do that. SPCS quotes this statement from the decision:

"The injury to the public good that is likely to be caused by the availability of this T-shirt originates from the manner in which it associates an aggressive and misogynistic meaning of the “harsh, brutal and generally unacceptable” word c### with Jesus Christ, and depicts an image of a chaste woman engaging in sexual activity. A fair interpretation of the messages conveyed by this T-shirt is that Christians should be vilified for their religious beliefs, and that women, including chaste and celibate women, cannot stop themselves engaging in sexual activity."

So there is injury to the public good simply by using a rude word with Jesus Christ? What if I say Kim Il Sung is a cunt? That will offend millions, but so fucking what?

The "image of a chaste woman engaging in sexual activity" is a curious description of something "bad". For starters the woman may not have been chaste, but was simply a model for the t-shirt. Secondly, the first sexual activity of all women is presumably when they are "chaste".

Does the tshirt say or imply Christians should be villified? Hardly. It is anti-Christ (careful use of the word), and depicts nuns as being sexual - which undoubtedly some are, and funnily enough the law doesn't criminalise them if they do or don't. However it isn't seeking oppression of Christians, it offends their primary prophet, but it is a stretch to say it villifies them. Does it imply that women cannot help themselves engaging in sexual activity? Well it implies the one on the tshirt can't, maybe some nuns can't, but then again, so what if it does? Would a tshirt that says "slut" and depicts a woman masturbating without wearing nun gear be criminal? Would a woman wearing a tshirt that says "i'm a slut" be criminal?

Let's be clear. I wouldn't wear this tshirt, I wouldn't listen to this band. I wouldn't be impressed by someone who did wear it, but the idea that you can be imprisoned for wearing it is frankly absurd and offensive.

I know many Christians will cheer this decision - but some of them wouldn't cheer if they faced the same offence for a tshirt that might say "gays carry AIDS" or something else that reflects their own beliefs but offends others.

Censorship law should simply not exist because people get offended, it should only exist to protect victims of real crimes. No crime was committed in the production of the tshirt design, so it should be nobody else's business.

You can ban anyone from your own property from wearing the tshirt and I have no objection to a mall owner or any other private property owner telling someone to leave if they wear the tshirt. That should be your right. However, to ban possession of the tshirt generally, across the board is absurd.

So in New Zealand, wearing this tshirt in your own room is a crime. However you can have a woman doing exactly what is depicted in this tshirt and it is wouldn't be.

By the way this tshirt caused an issue in Perth, WA recently. A 16yo has been charged with "offensive behaviour" for wearing it. Yes, the Police have their priorities right, and of course the Christian right is cheering on the prosecution.

Don't believe for a moment National would change this, or even ACT. Yes I know there are "higher priorities", but think about it. If someone in your family had criminal charges for owning this tshirt, buying it off Ebay and it being intercepted by Customs and the like - and presumably even downloading the image from the internet - would you still not care?

oh and what's to be banned next?

Hattip on this case to no less than the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards, forever cheering on the suppression of tshirts with dirty words and bare breasts.

Yes legalise smacking, but also stories about it

For the reasons I outlined when this was a major debate, I am very torn about this issue.

I don't like smacking. However, it is on a long list of other bad parenting behaviours that are not criminal. Poor nutrition, not giving your kids affection, ignoring them, inviting convicted criminals into your home in their presence, smoking at home with the windows closed, having all adults in a home intoxicated while you have small children. The list is long, and smacking is like that. It isn't good behaviour, but it is not bad enough to give someone a criminal record.

That is a legitimate libertarian position.

However, I don't think owning an erotic story about spanking is bad enough either, but that doesn't get the conservatives concerned about that being illegal. See they'd find it vile that I want to remove a lot of censorship about extreme consensual adult sexual material. It is strange, but some conservatives are arguing that it be legal to commit the very act on children that it is ILLEGAL to write a graphic erotic story about involving adults.

You see the law says:

"In determining, for the purposes of this Act, whether or not any publication is objectionable ... particular weight shall be given to the extent and degree to which, and the manner in which, the publication...Describes, depicts, or otherwise deals with...Physical conduct in which sexual satisfaction is derived from inflicting or suffering cruelty or pain"

So, I suspect, some conservatives are saying it is ok to actually inflict pain upon children for correction, but writing or reading or downloading a story about adults enjoying inflicting or suffering pain, should remain a crime. Libertarianz argued during the review of censorship law a few years ago that New Zealand should follow the line of the United States, which allows written free speech that includes any erotic stories for consumption by adults. David Cunliffe simply responded like a prick saying "Oh why should we follow America?" sarcastically - because the Minister of Communications can't figure out that there are many such erotic story websites on the internet that are legal in the USA and easy to access in New Zealand (you don't need help finding them), so chasing up everyone who accesses those sites (and many stories on them wouldn't be illegal) is a nonsense.

Of course Parliament voted to INCREASE penalties for producing, distributing and possessing erotic stories about sado-masochism (you see child pornography comes under objectionable, but then so do a lot of things, so nobody was keen to narrow objectionable to just child pornography, as they should've).

So you see, I'll support the smacking ban being overturned - but I wont cheer it, because I don't want to encourage the behaviour. Indeed it is the same reason why I'll support ending censorship of any written matter that isn't defamation (which isn't censorship, just compensation for damage to reputation), it simply isn't the business of the state to criminalise.

The man who helped defined censorship in the US, dies

George Carlin never meant to become the centre of a court case on freedom of speech in the USA, but he did with his famous "seven dirty words" which wikipedia summarises rather well (and yes the words are there). In fact the whole famous monologue is in a transcript here (at a law school website no less).

They form the basis of the seven words that are prohibited from US BROADCAST television (i.e. over the airwaves, not cable) and even today two of those words are not an issue during "adult" broadcast hours.

However, George was about being funny, and provocative. He sought to highlight the absurdity of offence being drawn purely about words, rather than context. I heard him often in the 1980s on Radio Active's (in Wellington) comedy show on Thursday evenings (back when regulated radio offered few choices), and he was sometimes shocking but more often just hilarious. Yes he was leftwing, he was no objectivist at all. However his challenge on free speech, he deserves some applause and besides, if all anyone with leftwing inclinations did was make jokes we would all be in a better world. He passed away yesterday of a heart attack.

If you are easily offended then don't read further, for below is a segment of his famous monologue - it's about the word that really isn't the most obscene in the English language, but isn't far short. Yes it is childish, yes it is unnecessary, but I really don't care.... you have been warned, don't read any further....


The big one, the word fuck that's the one that hangs them up the most. Cause in a lot of cases that's the very act that hangs them up the most. So, it's natural that the word would, uh, have the same effect. It's a great word, fuck, nice word, easy word, cute word, kind of. Easy word to say. One syllable, short u..... Fuck.... You know, it's easy. Starts with a nice soft sound fuh ends with a kuh. Right?....A little something for everyone. Fuck. Good word. Kind of a proud word, too. Who are you? I am FUCK. FUCK OF THE MOUNTAIN. Tune in again next week to FUCK OF THE MOUNTAIN. It's an interesting word too, cause it's got a double kind of a life -- personality -- dual, you know, whatever the right phrase is. It leads a double life, the word fuck. First of all, it means, sometimes, most of the time, fuck. What does it mean? It means to make love. Right? We're going to make love, yeh, we're going to fuck, yeh, we're going to fuck, yeh, we're going to make love. we're really going to fuck, yeah, we're going to make love. Right? And it also means the beginning of life, it's the act that begins life, so there's the word hanging around with words like love, and life, and yet on the other hand, it's also a word that we really use to hurt each other with, man. It's a heavy. It's one that you have toward the end of the argument. Right? You finally can't make out. Oh, fuck you man. I said, fuck you... Stupid fuck....Fuck you and everybody that looks like you..... man. It would be nice to change the movies that we already have and substitute the word fuck for the word kill, wherever we could, and some of those movie cliches would change a little bit. Madfuckers still on the loose. Stop me before I fuck again. Fuck the ump, fuck the ump, fuck the ump, fuck the ump, fuck the ump. Easy on the clutch Bill, you'll fuck that engine again.

and for those of you for whom this isn't enough, here is 2443 dirty words.

Censors allow suicide but not those obscene boobs

It is positive that, according to the Dominion Post, the Chief Censor has allowed the New Zealand distribution of the book by Philip Nitschke's The Peaceful Pill Handbook - which is about voluntary euthanasia. It is rated R18. Jim Anderton, who to be fair has close personal experience of the tragedy of suicide, is concerned it will encourage young people to be suicidal. However according to Chief Censor Bill Hastings the law limits what can be done:

"when grading material that depicts or expresses suicide, or any activity which could cause harm if imitated, censors could only restrict material. They could not ban it."

The book is aimed at the elderly or those with terminal illnesses, it is only fair and right that this well intentioned publication be allowed to circulate. Let's not forget that one of the most widely circulated books in society has as its central theme human sacrifice.

Meanwhile the Dominion Post reports the Australian Classification Board is concerned about magazine Rushh Australia which apparently has topless photos of a 16yo New Zealand girl called Zippora Seven (above) (if you dare you can see one of the topless shots here and it is hardly pornographic) in the magazine.

.

Although the girl could legally go to any private premises she likes and bare her boobs for the hell of it (and can consent to letting people do as they wish with them), apparently she is a "minor" for censorship purposes as nudity of anyone under 18 is banned. The legal status of the magazine will be interesting, if it is deemed objectionable then it would be a serious criminal charge for the magazine, and everyone who sold it and everyone who bought it as producing, distributing and possessing an objectionable publication is a strict liability offence. You don't need to know whether an image is objectionable to be convicted of possessing it.

.

It's always been a curiosity of Angl0-Saxon culture that womens' breasts are obscene. This restriction is no doubt caught up in concern about child pornography, of which the real stuff is so far removed from this case to indicate that the law has been drafted to apply the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut. Of course, anyone arguing any different would be deemed a "pervert" because "who wants to see a 16yo girl's breasts". I'd argue that those getting so worked up about the exposure of a young woman of legal age perhaps need to look in the mirror, and perhaps ought to consider that there are probably more young women doing this online by choice with webcams (and umpteen websites dedicated to this) than ever any legitimate magazines. Remember if this law is meant to protect them, then you'd wonder why it is ok to let men of any age fondle any willing 16yo girl's breasts, but not ok to buy a magazine that depicts them. Oh and if you're concerned about the sexualisation of young girls (nobody is ever too fussed about boys which is an issue in itself), then looking at 16 year olds is not the place to start, you might look at Bratz dolls instead for those half that age!