Slashdot Mirror
Australian ISPs Required To Report Child Porn
rolling_or_jaded writes "As of the 1st of March 2005, Australian ISPs and web hosts will face fines of up to $55,000 if they can be used to access child pornography and do not refer the information to the police. Yikes. How on earth are the ISPs (and web hosts -- like my own very small-time and humble company) supposed to enforce this?"
Yeah, so I"ve got no clue.
If _looking_ at child porn is illegal (presumably because it gives the viewer an uncontrollable urge to go out and rape little children), why not make it illegal to look at dead people, too (because, as you know, looking at dead bodies turns you into a murderer)? Then we can also start fining TV stations if they insist on showing images from battlefields. Maybe that way, if we hide child porn and war footage, no children will ever be abused and no-one will die in wars. And maybe we can also make it illegal for people to say "AIDS" or "cancer" on TV. After all, hiding problems is the best way to solve them, right?
Close. Bush asks for $FOO, Australia bends over. If we don't, bush slaps tarifs on our farming exports (while subsidising US farmers), and our economy keels over. Of course everybody not in power likes to complain about the liberals being "america's lackeys", and to act like they'd be in a position to do something different if they were in power.
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Damn religious zealots in damn government bureaucracies! If only you didn't have them, then you could enjoy your child porn in peace, eh? I hope you're caught and sent off to A-Lifetime-Of-Ass-Rammings, San Francisco Correctional Facility.
One easy way to help bring about social conservatism's death is to just ignore whatever legislation it's forces pass. If your under 18, take pictures/movies of yourself and/or your sexual partner in the act. Give the pictures to your friends, host it on your homepage, or upload it to kazaa/emule. Hey....I did it when I was a minor (insert joke about lack or quiality of slashdot member's sexual history here). Fucking is fun....our geekyness already limits us from enjoying it, let's not let stuckup reactionary assholes keep us from even seeing pictures of it. Discriminating by age is as bad as discriminating by race or gender. All censorship is immoral. Fuck the corporate police state and resist any restriction on the free flow of information.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
My point is that societies, as a whole, define acceptable behavior for the members of that society. Who cares what you, or I, think about child abuse, child porn, marriage age, or whatver? Our opinions only have significance insofar as they are tiny components of the collective opinion formed by the entire society.
Logic and reason, you may have noticed, have nothing to do with this. Machines operate according to logic and reason, people do not.
I've no requirements to define child abuse or child porn. That is irrelevant. If I commit an act that society says is abuse and I don't agree, guess who wins?
As for "Middle-Easterners" and western women: I've lived in the Arab Mideast and I told them they were entitled to their opinion but that, in my opinion, they were wrong.
So get a clue and some backbone: When someone disagrees with you, it doesn't always mean you are wrong. Respecting the opinions of others doesn't require you to abandon your own beliefs.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
What we're talking about is whether such a law is just...
I'm not. That wasn't the issue that provoked my original response. I was provoked because I understood the original poster to argue against child abuse/pron -- as a category of criminal behavior -- because difference societies define it differently.
An individual's disagreement with a societal consensus does not absolve him of responsibility for violating that consequence. I.e., "your opinion" doesn't count. The original poster, as I understood, was attempting to defend child abuse and porn on that basis. That is, he disagreed with society's definition, therefore he should not be punished for violating the prohibtion on child abuse/porn.
I've not given my opinion about child abuse/porn law or its definition, or even if consider the current laws to be just or unjust. None of that has any bearing on my argument.
Several people have responded with comments that address something I did not, in fact, say. That is common here on Slashdot.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"