His name needs to be out there.

Does anyone know if the penalty for breach of a suppression order has been increased from $1,000?

I would be tempted to name this guy – not on this forum though.

The public have a right to know if the Judge Grant Frazer knew the offender socially.

Yeah there is little those guys wont do to push the boundaries of offending. Personally I fast forward that and the extended vomitting scene because its really only funny (if at all) once.

The demand is a psuedo arguement in a way.
Whether you would buy their pictures or not they would still make them as a paedo.
It is a trophy so they make them anyway.
That they can sell them is a bonsela – (bonus)!
They give them away to their intimates just like they share their “conquests”.

But you are correct in that it is more about what he has done first which should be the emphasis.
The fact that he can and might (will) go on to touch is an add on merely to close off any stupid wishy-washy feelings for his circumstances, social or otherwise.

(s3 goes on to give further examples – eg: use of defecation/urine, exploitation of children etc)”

Crikey. I bought my copy of “Team America:World Police” from Amazon so it is the uncut version, with the full sex scene of simulated puppet coprophilia (sp?) and whatever the pissing equivalent is. I gather this is probably illegal?

If “progressive” means having progressed beyond being ideologically blind, deaf and dumb then I’m all for it.

Which is also quite a stupid comment as it has EVERYTHING to do with the state. It is the state that imposes the criminal sanctions that go with the STATE defining publications, images etc as objectionable. If the state is intending to reflect societal values then good on it but it is still the state imposing those values (which seem to be more 1950s than current – for better or for worse) on the citizens.

Now, to recap for the slow learners. A question was asked as to what was porn. I gave an answer with reference to legislation and personal experience. I noted that objectionable is not all about kiddy porn (keeping up?) and that some people might be suprised as to what amounted to objectionable. I then gave an example as something that is defined as objectionable but many, including me, are uncomfortable with the state defining criminal sanction on it.

How on this Green Earth that makes me a progressive I do not know. And other than insults you haven’t actually defined what your problem is? Do you think the objectionable material laws are too loose? Should we be burning Lady Chatterly’s Lover in the streets?

Or do you just vent for the sake of it? Perhaps you might feel more comfortable over in the sandpit with the Standard group?

I am always stunned at the absolute stupidity of the causal arguments for and against child porn. It is so irrelevant that it beggars belief.
It is the simple self delusional pseudo intellectualizing that idiots who think they are smart and want to impress get’s into. The question is surely not what the porn leads to (perhaps maybe who knows…) But what has happened to create it.

An innocent, vulnerable child or childre was damaged, hurt and abused in the production of the porn. Who gives a shit if this bastard MIGHT interfere with children? The fact is he allready has. Without the demand there will be no child porn, and that means he is directly responsible. His name needs to be out there.

left and Danyl, I do not care about what he might do, he might not. I care what he did do.

He is most definitely not a progressive. Now you just take that back and say sorry!

Nice try. Your declaration is horseshit. You’re a progressive. This issue has nothing to do with the “state”. It is about societal mores – not the state – that keeps civil society together. (but a true conservative would know that)

Try reading Gramsci (not Keith) sometime. Might give you an idea on political theory.

“Most of what is illegal wouldn’t worry most of us but it is a surprisingly prudish system.”

Subjective bullshit. With a bit more encouragement, you’d consider any raised eyebrows to the escapades of Armin Miewes “prudish”

Burt. – you bragged about your number of “conquests” vs Cactus on this site a few weeks back. Real class and humility. How many children have you fathered ? Man, you libertines are boringly predictable.

Anyway, I have a suspicion that, given his occupation, GPT1 knows very well what the legal definitions of ‘objectionable’ are. I have an idea, also, and can agree that there are many times when I have felt that the legal definition does not accord with society and its modern views.

I should make it clear that the reason objectionable and illegal wouldn’t worry most of us is that most people are unlikely to have it/find it “titallating” but (notwithstanding the fact it is not to the majority taste) the system is surprisingly prudish. Anyone who had forwarded the ‘joke’ Simpson’s cartoons with Bart and Lisa doing inappropriate things has technically ‘supplied’ objectionable material for example. In my view a classic example of something that doesn’t increase the sum total of human endeavour but is hardly the same class as sexual exploitation of children.

I should also make it clear (for those who want to put words in my mouth) that I am making general observations in relation to a question raised above and not in any way commenting on the PN case specifically.

Angus is a good example of objectionable but he in no way helps us define it. Your message was succinct, beware objectionable under the law is not necessarily objectionable to a reasonable person. Cheers.

So did you have a contribution to make or did you just want to sound off for the sake of it?

The real problem is with progressives like yourselves. Desensitizing, equivocating and condoning.

A serious question.

The question is more what is objectionable images as defined by the Films, Videos and Publications Classifications Act. The short definition is:
Meaning of objectionable
s3 (1) For the purposes of this Act, a publication is objectionable if it describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good.

(s3 goes on to give further examples – eg: use of defecation/urine, exploitation of children etc)

Images are then classified by the Classifications Office who decide on what is and isn’t injurious to the public good. They can either deem it objectionable (ie illegal) or age restricted.

You might be surprised by what is classed as objectionable AND illegal. Most of what is illegal wouldn’t worry most of us but it is a surprisingly prudish system. There is a massive difference between the nasty exploitative type pictures that most of us would imagine when thinking of objectionable material (ie kiddy porn) and some of the stuff that is defined as objectionable. As a High Court judge recently remarked during submissions in a case I was involved in the images were or a kind that he could walk into any magazine store and save for some plastic covering see much worse. But our friends in the Commission said they encouraged ‘wrong thinking’ (I paraphrase to be fair) so objectionable. (There was no artistic merit that I could see but each to their own).

As an aside the trap for Joe public is that as long as they are aware of the nature of images (that they are sexual/violent etc) then there is no defence that they did not know they were objectionable. In the more serious cases that should be a given (who on Earth can think a toddler being raped is legal?) but that is at the extremes. Until I dealt with this kind of stuff (in a professional sense I note!) I would never have believed what would be defined as objectionable.