Australian Visitors Must Declare Illegal Porn To Customs Officers

Australian Justice Minister Brendan O'Connor has advised visitors to take a better safe than sorry policy when it comes to their porn stashes, and declare all porn that they think might be illegal with customs officers. From the article: "The government said it changed the wording on passenger arrival cards after becoming aware of confusion among travellers about what pornography to declare. 'People have a right to privacy and while some pornography is legal and does not need to be disclosed, all travellers should be aware that certain types of pornography are illegal and must be declared to customs,' Mr O'Connor said."

Comments

What????

[gagol]

Next thing, they will want you to declare the illegal drugs you carry...

Re:What????

[zill]

No, you have to decleare all the drugs you carry.

After sampling each one, their customs officer will tell you which ones are illegal.

Re:What????

[Monkey-Man2000]

Next thing, they will want you to declare the illegal drugs you carry...

That is just about as logical as this. FTFA, "Making a false statement to a customs officer carries a fine of up to $11,000 dollars while bringing in objectionable material, such as child pornography, can incur a fine of up to $275,000 and 10 years' jail.".
What kind of moran will declare ANY material with that kind of deal?

Re:What????

[HAKdragon]

The same kind who need to get a brain?

Re:What????

[MichaelSmith]

After sampling each one, their customs officer will tell you which ones are illegal.

They are welcome to my epilepsy medication but I don't think they will enjoy not being able to stand up for the next twelve hours.

Re:What????

[howdotheydothat]

A (law)Breaker Moran

Re:What????

[Bill Dog]

An Erin Moran?

Re:What????

[Kinky Bass Junk]

That sounds kinda fun, actually.

Re:What????

[MichaelSmith]

Believe me its not, but then I hated ketamine too.

Re:What????

[ElderKorean]

After sampling each one, their customs officer will tell you which ones are illegal.

They are welcome to my epilepsy medication but I don't think they will enjoy not being able to stand up for the next twelve hours.

Likewise with the eyedrops that I have to deal with my cataracts then they won't be going outside (or looking at any bright things) either.

Re:What????

[quenda]

At least Australian customs does not ask if you are (or even have been) a communist, terrorist, or participated in genocide. (Sorry Mr Pot, entry denied.)

Re:What????

[rubycodez]

they'll look funny after the fourth or fifth Viagra

Re:What????

[beav007]

Declaring to customs != bringing in. If you declare it, the customs officer checks it, takes what's illegal, and you continue on your way. If you don't declare it and the customs officer finds it, it's an $11,000 fine. If you don't declare it, get it through, and then get caught with it, it's up to $275,000 and 10 years jail, and possibly the $11,000 for not declaring it on top of that.

Re:What????

[ScrewMaster]

Next thing, they will want you to declare the illegal drugs you carry...

That is just about as logical as this. FTFA, "Making a false statement to a customs officer carries a fine of up to $11,000 dollars while bringing in objectionable material, such as child pornography, can incur a fine of up to $275,000 and 10 years' jail.". What kind of moran will declare ANY material with that kind of deal?

It is logical. That's why the U.S. Internal Revenue Service has questions such as "Do you have any illegal income to declare?" on tax return forms. It's for just that purpose: catching morans, I mean, morons. They do bag a few that way each year. In addition, if you are later nailed for having criminal income, they have you on tax evasion charges. That can be some serious shit: just remember how they took down Al Capone.

Re:What????

[karnal]

They'll probably FEEL funny too after that. You know. Down There.

Re:What????

[zill]

Everyone FEEL funny down under.

Re:What????

[akayani]

They can tell if there is porn on your computer using the 'smell' machines that detects where your hands have been before touching the keyboard.

Re:What????

[drcheap]

with the eyedrops that I have to deal with my cataracts then they won't be going outside

Just wait until this lady travels there!

Re:What????

[Stooshie]

So you are saying that if someone has some really offensive material and declares it, they can't be charged with possessing it and that they can only be charged if it is not declared and then found later? IANAL but I suspect if someone declared offensive material, they would be charged with it.

Re:What????

[AG the other]

Believe it or not that was the way marijuana laws in the US were written up until several years ago.
In order to import marijuana you were supposed to pay a, very high, tax. If you paid the tax you were arrested for importing the marijuana. If you didn't pay the tax you were arrested for not paying the tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States#Marijuana_Tax_Act_.281937.29

Re:What????

[bernywork]

I hate people that take drugs, like customs officers....

Re:What????

[beav007]

Not in customs, no. The only things you might get charged for in customs is Kiddie Porn or explosives. As with weapons (including lasers) and food, customs recognise that what the Australian Government calls "Extreme Porn" is legal in other countries, and as long as you hand it over on the way in, it's all good.

The whole point of customs is to stop the stuff coming into the country - that's all. As long as you declare it and hand it over, that's as far as it goes.

Re:What????

[Yvan256]

Know what I mean? Nudge-nudge!

Re:What????

[Yvan256]

I think so Brain, but then how do you get your USB flash drive out of your body?

Re:What????

[Yvan256]

just remember how they took down Al Capone

With a 16-ton weight?

Re:What????

[Lucractius]

customs recognise that what the Australian Government calls "Extreme Porn" is legal in other countries, and as long as you hand it over on the way in, it's all good.

[ Citation Needed ]

Yes office,

[BRSloth]

"I have some bestiality on my computer, but you can see clearly that the girl is ENJOYING IT!"

Re:Yes office,

[Dyinobal]

what about the beast?

Re:Yes office,

[Sponge Bath]

He has to declare his illegal porn as well.

Re:Yes office,

[hoggoth]

> The girl is moot, she's being paid for it, she doesn't have to enjoy it. But think of the dog!

Girls, dogs, sex, porn...

and now you've dragged Moot into this. I've got a bad feeling about this!

Re:Yes office,

[BlueParrot]

You know what. I personally think it does say a lot by our society that it's acceptable to slaughter adolescent animals simply because we think they taste well, but if you let one of them lick your naked body it's somehow animal abuse even if the creature in question suffers no ill effects.

Damn will my karma burn for saying this, but while people like to pretend zoophilia is bad because it hurts animals, the real reason it's considered unacceptable is because we have freaking problem with sex. Food does not cause the same reaction, and thus few people care that we are raising animals with the intent to kill and eat them.

Similar complete failure of logic is seen in the anti stem-cells crowd, many of which will happily eat eggs, bacon or chicken, while at the same time declaring IVF and embryonic stem cell research as unacceptable attacks on the sanctity of life.

Now go on, try to justify it. All the usual arguments basically boil down to "it's ok to kill animals because they taste nice", which does make it seem rather hollow when the same people condem zoophilia.

As it happens, I'm not actually a zoophiliac. Merely a vegan who finds it a bit twisted that we seem to consider it worse to let an animal have sex with you than it would be to kill it.

Re:Yes office,

[boesOne]

So, mister Parrot, choose wisely now... Would you rather be eaten or will you bend over?

Re:Yes office,

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be willing to bet they don't consent to being killed and eaten either.

Re:Yes office,

[Hylandr]

Animals can bite, and Animals can kick - Don't tell me they can't say no...

- Dan.

Re:Yes office,

[TubeSteak]

Damn will my karma burn for saying this, but while people like to pretend zoophilia is bad because it hurts animals, the real reason it's considered unacceptable is because we have freaking problem with sex.

We don't let adults have sex with minors.
All the same reasons apply to sex with animals.

It's not so much about harm as it is about consent.

Re:Yes office,

[Applekid]

I remember seeing a sex therapist talk about how he was invited to discuss beastiality on a talk show of some kind, and there was a guest who had "married his horse." One of the points the guest tried to explain is that, if a horse didn't consent, you'd be dead.

(Perhaps more interestingly, the punchline of his story was that he asked the guest if it was a female horse, and the male guest was extremely offended at the suggestion that he might have been gay.)

Re:Yes office,

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh what kind of idiot are you? Have all the animals in line at the slaughter house given consent to be killed? Do you have trouble distinguishing the difference between humans and animals? :rolleyes:

Re:Yes office,

[BlueParrot]

Then why is it ok to kill and eat them? Are you saying they can consent to having their lives ended in adolescence? Can a hen consent to living its life on an area less than that of an A4 paper ?

It's hypocrisy no matter how you try and twist and turn it.

Re:Yes office,

[aix tom]

>Ever seen a frog and a pig getting it on? No, because that would be disturbing

Welllllllllll...............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVE60zwXx1k

Re:Yes office,

[BlueParrot]

So, miss Parrot, choose wisely now... Would you rather be eaten or will you bend over?

Fixed that for you.

Re:Yes office,

[guyminuslife]

We don't let adults eat minors.
All the same reasons apply to eating animals.

It's not so much about harm as it is about consent.

FTFY

Re:Yes office,

[guyminuslife]

it's acceptable to slaughter adolescent animals simply because we think they taste well, but if you let one of them lick your naked body it's somehow animal abuse

Herr Rothstein, you are under arrest by order of the Grammar Nazi Party!

If you slaughter an animal and eat it, it tastes good.
If you let one of the lick your naked body, it tastes well.

Re:Yes office,

[Nadaka]

...Try reintroducing some protein into your diet...

DOH! Unable to complete joke... My employer monitors my activity...

Re:Yes office,

[GodfatherofSoul]

I don't know about you, but I don't want to eat any adolescent animals that have been running around licking people's privates.

Re:Yes office,

[the_hellspawn]

Very true sir!

Re:Yes office,

[BlueParrot]

I know this is slashdot, but I do prefer to be called "miss" .;)

Re:Yes office,

[smellsofbikes]

The therapist you saw speak was Dan Savage, who writes the sex advice column Savage Love. He's fond of telling that story when people ask him what's the weirdest question he's ever been asked. Savage is largely known for popularizing a sexually offensive neologism, 'santorum' (I'll let you look it up) to the point that it's now the first hit on google, rather than the target of the satire, ex-senator and likely 2012 presidential candidate Rick Santorum. Savage's current big publicity project is the It Gets Better Project, trying to encourage gay teenagers to not kill themselves because of abuse; it's been getting a fair amount of news attention in the last month.

Re:Yes office,

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Because they're animals. You can kill them, but you aren't allowed to torture them.

Re:Yes office,

[DreadPiratePizz]

You know what. I personally think it does say a lot by our society that it's acceptable to slaughter adolescent animals simply because we think they taste well, but if you let one of them lick your naked body it's somehow animal abuse even if the creature in question suffers no ill effects.

Damn will my karma burn for saying this, but while people like to pretend zoophilia is bad because it hurts animals, the real reason it's considered unacceptable is because we have freaking problem with sex.

I can't believe you can't see the difference here. It is pretty much agreed upon that sex is only acceptable when both parties consent, and that both parties are capable of giving said consent, that is, able to understand their actions and are not coerced. I think it goes without saying that an animal is unable to give consent, therefore any sex with animals is going to be unethical. Killing for food is quite different, as that is required by both us, and many other species in order to survive.

Re:Yes office,

[c6gunner]

I don't know about you, but I don't want to eat any adolescent animals that have been running around licking people's privates.

Ever gone down on your girlfriend?

Re:Yes office,

[icebraining]

Young animals' meat is more tender, in general. Veal, for example.

Re:Yes office,

[Bahamut_Omega]

Who employs you, the Department of Homeland Sanitization?

Re:Yes office,

[icebraining]

By that order of thought, posting on /. is not natural (ever seen an animal do it?), yet females eating the males after having sex is.

Or maybe that argument is bollocks because the correlation between "natural" and moral is not strong at all.

Re:Yes office,

[oldspewey]

As the public service ads inform us: "Baaaahahah means no."

Re:Yes office,

[oldspewey]

So, mister Parrot, choose wisely now... Would you rather be eaten or will you bend over?

If you were a Praying Mantis you wouldn't have to decide between one or the other.

Re:Yes office,

[oldspewey]

I know dozens of people who have survived for many decades without killing a single animal for food.

Killing for survival is a lifestyle choice. Discussing sex with animals as a lifestyle choice is taboo.

Re:Yes office,

[Bill Dog]

Vegans should be allowed to have sex with any animal they're willing to kill and eat afterwards! ;)

Re:Yes office,

[AlamedaStone]

Ever seen a frog and a pig getting it on? No, because that would be disturbing. (Especially for kids.)

Of course if they're married it's fine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ChbqaTIs8

Re:Yes office,

[Macgrrl]

In Australia sexual violence is illegal, making the vast majority of BDSM porn illegal, even a small amount of spanking is considered illegal.

Depending on the jurisdiction you are flying into , the quantity of vanilla porn can of itself be illegal, there is a limit in Victoria of 50 titles. While the law was written in the time of films and video cassettes, I wonder how it copes with internet downloads.

Re:Yes office,

[Artifakt]

What happens if you draw the line by some other standard? If you test by whether the animal is undergoing pain or distress, three things will happen:
1. People who have sex with non-mammals will claim that their species has less awareness of suffering, or doesn't really feel pain as 'higher' species do, and courts will have to rule repeatedly on that issue. Do you think such rulings will take any real science into account?
2. Women will win a selective right to have sex with male animals, whose behavior more typically appears consensual, and then men will sue for unequal treatment under the law and the courts will have to rule on that. Do you think such rulings will take reason itself into account?
3. Every accused will claim that the animal gave consent, and the court will have to infer the facts from ... Well what exactly? The animal's testimony? Indirect behavioral cues that can be explained in many other ways? A dowsing rod and Oueja board?

Re:Yes office,

[Guppy]

and now you've dragged Moot into this. I've got a bad feeling about this!

No, it's perfectly okay. Moot wishes to be teh little girl, so that counts as consent.

Re:Yes office,

[Grapplebeam]

It's weird to have sex with food.

Re:Yes office,

[IndustrialComplex]

As it happens, I'm not actually a zoophiliac. Merely a vegan who finds it a bit twisted that we seem to consider it worse to let an animal have sex with you than it would be to kill it.

No, you are pretty much correct. I'm no vegan (far from it) but I think you are spot on correct. The whole concept is just our fear of anything relating to sex.

Think of it this way:

Carefully touch a bull's testicles and derive some pleasure from it: People will flip out at what a horrible crime it is.

Take a sharp knife, slice open the scrotum, remove the testicles, bread them and saute them and call them rocky mountain oysters and eat them. People will give you money for them.

Re:Yes office,

[IndustrialComplex]

And then people will marry turtles.

Re:Yes office,

[shutdown -p now]

I think GP's point is that we don't routinely butcher 14 year olds. Though the idea is intriguing.

Re:Yes office,

[shutdown -p now]

What about other animals' privates?

(some animals do that you know - ever seen dogs mate?)

Re:Yes office,

[Alsee]

OFFICIAL BALLOT - GENERAL ELECTION
November 4, 2012

Complete the oval ( ) at the left of the name you want to choose. You may vote for a person whose name is not on the ballot by writing in the person's name and municipality of residence in the write in space and completing the oval at the left. If you make a mistake you may ask for a new ballot. DO NOT ERASE.

NATIONAL
_________
UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Your vote for the candidate for United States President shall be a vote for the elector supporting that candidate.
VOTE FOR ONE:

( ) Rick Santorum
( ) Bill Bukakke
( ) ____________

-

Re:Yes office,

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

Ever seen a frog and a pig getting it on? No, because that would be disturbing

Sir, you've proven his point.

Re:Yes office,

[masmullin]

Eating animal flesh is natural. Fucking a goat is not. I'm surprised you didn't implicitly understand this concept.

Re:Yes office,

[masmullin]

It's not about consent at all. It's about natural law.

Re:Yes office,

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

I don't agree with the guy much, but if you're going to stretch it that far, then most any action organized by humans is considered "unnatural". Chances are, you understood his point and are now twisting it, just as I am yours. I think the most logical line that can be drawn here is that each species has its own practices natural to its kin. Take from that what you will, but do understand this; many cross-species... erm... relationships, have bad results(Ligers and Tiglons are good examples). Health deficits and deformities are not uncommon in that arena. Now I don't believe that any human has given birth to their horse-lover's baby, but there's no reason to consider something like that as natural. As for moral, one man's "moral" may be different from the next. There's no victory to claim there.

Re:Yes office,

[psithurism]

Because they're animals. You can kill them, but you aren't allowed to torture them.

Well, in the context of what we are discussing: We are allowed to have dogs chase them down tear them up in an already unfair fight before we come in and shoot them until they are too wounded to keep running from us, then knife them to death, video tape the whole thing including the after death humiliation of skinning and impromptu sports games with non-tasty body parts. It's fine to show these videos to your kids, actually your kids were probably there to see daddy being a man. However, if these animals were to enjoy some peanut butter off your nuts, not ok: torture.

Re:Yes office,

[Nadaka]

pretty close. I should have made the joke anyway. This whole thread probably set off flags.

Re:Yes office,

[oldspewey]

You seem to be assuming (or insinuating) that only self-righteous hippies are vegetarian. Hundreds of millions of people - most notably those of certain communities on the Indian subcontinent - live long, healthy, balanced lives without ever consuming a scrap of meat. In their case it is a religious choice, but it flies in the face of your assertion that humans need what meat supplies.

I choose to eat meat, but I recognize this as a choice I make.

Re:Yes office,

[bicon]

The reason we don't allow humans to have sex with animals is that they lack capacity. It's the same reason we don't allow adults to have sex with children. There would be no meeting of the minds. It still wouldn't matter if they allegedly were unharmed, they don't have the capacity and the other party can't make that decision for them.

This also explains why you can't have sex with people when they're unconscious, no matter how careful or safely you do that, or how unharmed they are from the event. They did not consent, as they are in a state of diminished capacity.

As to the argument of weather or not it's wrong to eat animals, it's a different argument altogether.

I don't however think that anyone is arguing that animals are consenting or unharmed by eating. Nevertheless, I'm still going to eat animals, and I don't mean that way.

Re:Yes office,

[speedlaw]

This is slashdot...he hasn't. Just read the wikipedia entry on it.

Re:Yes office,

[mdmkolbe]

Similar complete failure of logic is seen in the anti stem-cells crowd, many of which will happily eat eggs, bacon or chicken, while at the same time declaring IVF and embryonic stem cell research as unacceptable attacks on the sanctity of life.

People aren't objecting to animal stem-cells, they object to the killing of a living human individual(*) that is a necessary part of embryonic stem cells. The logic is simple on the one hand killing people is wrong and if embryos are people then killing them are wrong. If there is no such prohibition against killing animals then there is no problem with eating eggs. You may think embryos are not people or may think some other list of traits qualifies an entity as something that it is wrong to kill, but that is not a failure of logic on the part of those against harvesting embryonic step cells. That is a failure on your part either to understand your opponents position or to acknowledge the differing assumptions that you both bring to the table.

It isn't a "failure of logic" when someone starting with different assumptions arrives at different conclusions. Abusing terms like that muddies the debate and makes it harder for people to honestly discuss, engage those with differing opinions and perhaps even change their own minds based on rational insight.

(*) By any scientific measure embryos are both alive and human. Their DNA is unique which makes them an individual. The central point of debate is whether that or some other list is enough to qualify one for moral personhood. (I mean person as a technical term that is not exclusive to humans.)

Re:Yes office,

[bicon]

Yeah but while they can kick and bite, they generally don't, as adults have a coercive influence over them, and they lack capacity, as they don't know any better, and as mentioned, aren't in control.

And while domestic animals can kick and bite to protest what they don't want, too, they often don't either, unless they're wild animals. Generally they do whatever we tell them, because we are the master. Simply that they comply doesn't mean that they've chosen with free will.

This puts children and domestic animals in a vulnerable class.

We're the master of wild animals too, although typically by force.

Re:Yes office,

[mqduck]

I just assumed that BRSloth was saying that the beast is the girl. "You like that, don't you, bitch? Good girl!"

Re:Yes office,

[AvitarX]

I don't believe females lurk here, but I know there is an invisible pink unicorn.

Re:Yes office,

[bicon]

The reason we eat animals is not that it's "okay" but because we were designed to. It's essential to eat some meat. You can get by with eating mostly vegetables, and eating more vegetables is good for you too, but we need some meat too. It's just a fact you vegans don't want to live with. So be it, but the rest of society has decided if we're going to eat something it might as well be a lower species and not ourselves.

But one thing is for sure, having sex with animals is not essential for survival, and it's a vector for disease.

But what I'd like to know, call it hypocrisy or whatever, but why do vegans think it should be forbidden for humans to eat animals, but it's totally okay for animals to eat the hell out of each other? Are vegans against animal carnivores? Should they be stopped too?

Re:Yes office,

[Vlado]

The problem with zoofilia is that it can cause continuing harm to an animal (think a guy and a duck). While if you breed an animal for food it will be (in theory) treated decently and then killed in a quick, painless and "humane" way. I say in theory, because we all know that in practice it is more often not like that and the animals in question actually do suffer throughout their existence.

The sexuality problems that people have of course exacerbate the condition to the next level. But there is an honest desire to protect the animals.
Where I live there was recently a huge story in the news that involved a man getting mauled to death by his dogs (couple of bull mastiffs). As it turned out the animals had signs of long-term sexual abuse.

Animal cannot say "no" to a thing it doesn't like.

Re:Yes office,

[bicon]

We are designed to hunt just like other animals are, as we're designed to eat meat, as a part of a healthy balanced diet. It's not like other animals hunt in a humane way. They just do it. They do it in front of their children and family too, and they all remember it and learn how to be hunters too. We just have more sophisticated ways of remembering it.

We also have more sophisticated ways to hunt too, which does make the fight unfair. I'd agree we have some responsibility to respect animals, and to avoid torturing them beyond what is reasonable, if that's what you're actually getting at and not just animal sex. Obviously hunting could be done nicer, but I don't think it's all that unreasonable to use dogs to hunt animals. And hunting more humanely is typically more difficult and costs more.

As for the sex with animals thing, I don't think it's reasonable. It's not inherently required like eating is, and it spreads disease. And it doesn't follow that because hunting animals is extremely unpleasant for them, that having sex with them, something obviously less traumatic, is therefore okay.

The whole philosophy about sex is not just that we're uneasy about sex, it's more to do that we expect a greater deal of respect for our own bodies, sexually. When people are sexually violated the majority of them become severely disturbed and traumatized. We also recognize vulnerabilities in children who lack the capacity to consent, as we recognize it in animals. Therefore we've deemed it going too far to have sex with animals, and yet deem it acceptable to eat them because we're essentially part carnivore and hunter.

Re:Yes office,

[furgle]

It's hypocrisy no matter how you try and twist and turn it.

In my mind its only hipocrisy if you discard motive, and purpose.

We all complain that Hens are in cages, but never stop to think that without humans that hen would not be alive at all. Further more if chickens(Or any other animal for that matter) were the dominant species on this planet they wouldn't think at all about treating other animals worse or even sending them all to extinction.

The normal counter argument is: we can be better; What by fucking them? two steps forward, six steps back. :P

Re:Yes office,

[furgle]

The vegans I know hate that they are happy and animals aren't, and because they can't make the animals happy in any significant way, they punish* themselves so they can feel more happy. I find my brain isn't cleaver enough to process that kind of thought to be happy. I just do things I like to be happy its far simpler

*punish - they don't eat animal products somehow honey is OK to eat. They know bacon and other products taste good, they've eaten it before their enlightenment. They also keep bitching about how expensive it is to be a vegan.

Re:Yes office,

[furgle]

Animals can bite, and Animals can kick - Don't tell me they can't say no...

Children can bite, and Children can kick - Hell they can also say no. So is it OK to have sexual relations with a consenting child?No a child is not smart enough to make that decision.

A child of the age of 5 we would probably think of as smarter than a smart dog, or a horse. Does that make them smart enough to consent to sex? No they aren't developed physically yet there sex organs aren't ready.

How about a child of the age of 13 is that child old enough to consent to sex(see Richie Rich)? No. why not? all the criteria i have seen here in this discussion to decied whether you are allowed to have sex says go for it

There is an element to the problem that I'm missing. I'm not sure what it is, but we can't say that aware consent is enough to allow sexual relations between any two beings.

Re:Yes office,

[Hylandr]

because we are the master.

I am ok with this. I really think we have gone off the deep end sometimes when we attribute human level emotions and feelings to animals. With some observed exceptions, Dogs, Dolphins, Etc.

But we are the master. We feed them, keep them warm, cleanse them in a manner they are incapable of and generally keep them healthy. It's not to hard to expect a certain level of service in return.

Now, that said, I am not condoning immoral behaviour, but it's an animal. If it's ok to kill and eat it, you should be free to enjoy yourself as long as the recipient isn't in pain.

Additionally, Forcing animals to mate is just as much rape as any human performing the act.

- Dan.

Re:Yes office,

[Phopojijo]

To be fair -- in your comment between eggs and embryonic stem cell research... ... we don't eat human eggs.

That said, I very much agree that our problems with bestiality stems from our problems with sex... especially since it occurs to various degrees in just about every instance of sex... from masturbation through to furries... homosexuality to pornography. (IMO -- all four listed subjects are perfectly healthy for those who genuinely enjoy it... among many other taboo topics)

And the worst part is -- it's entirely counter-productive. Promoting self-expression in the long run and on average promotes the best citizens. Obviously I'm not saying that everything should be legal or sponsored by the Government... ... nooo... ... but (creating or studying) artistic expressions of said acts should not only be legal... but should be promoted.

It's like how the crime rate typically drops when the death penalty is revoked in a given jurisdiction... ... threat of legal recourse regardless of how severe is still a form of advertising. Almost no publicity is bad publicity.

Re:Yes office,

[tehcyder]

if these animals were to enjoy some peanut butter off your nuts

I think some people need to be protected from themselves.

Re:Yes office,

[tehcyder]

Why should anything be illegal?

Other than child rape, I don't think there should be any kind of porn that is illegal

The second sentence rather destroys the argument of the first.

There are genuine reasons to oppose many forms of pornography, you just happen to believe in only the "anti child rape" ones.

Re:Yes office,

[Ginger Unicorn]

Not all unicorns are pink you know

Re:Yes office,

[elmodog]

That is a wonderful description of the difference between "good" and "well". :)

Re:Yes office,

[Yvan256]

As long as you don't call yourself invisible too, because then it's heresy!

Re:Yes office,

[Yvan256]

And that's why so many male mantis are atheist.

Re:Yes office,

[Yvan256]

And here I was expecting a Muppet Show clip of some sort...

Re:Yes office,

[IICV]

What if you wait until the animal has been slaughtered (which is, in this hypothetical example, what eventually will happen to it) and then have sex with it? At that point it's an object, and consent doesn't matter, right?

So by that logic, zoophilia totally okay if you add in a side order of necrophilia.

Re:Yes office,

[bicon]

I don't think they're as sophisticated as humans, but having similar albeit basic human emotions isn't really a stretch. Those very driving forces keep them alive. It's not about that though. The problem with deciding that things don't have the same level of understanding or emotions, and therefore it's okay to do whatever we want to them, is that that would also apply to anything that lacks capacity, including children, and that doesn't make sense.

Forcing animals to mate is for a reason that isn't as selfish as having sex with them though.

I do however think it's insane when people attribute human emotions to boiled or microwaved lobsters though. The crusade against eating lobsters makes peta look like a bunch of radical pansies.

"marine biologists ... do agree that there really is no humane way to kill these sensitive and unusual animals." "The best way to help put an end to this cruelty is to switch to a vegetarian diet." --peta

Re:Yes office,

[Hylandr]

Or we can switch to eating members of PETA.

- Dan.

Re:Yes office,

[commodore64_love]

I can't think of any reason to outlaw porn. Period.

The reason I make the exception for child rape, is for the same reason I don't think children should be able to drive. Or join the army. Or vote. They have not reached maturity yet to give their "consent" for these things.

Re:Yes office,

[commodore64_love]

But BDSM porn doesn't involve real violence. It's just actors faking it, the same way Jack Bauer fakes slitting open someone's throat.

Furthermore what Australians do in the privacy of their bedrooms (chains, leather, whatever) should be none of the government's business. They are not the damn Catholic church. They are not suppsoed to be imposing christian morality like the pope.

Re:Yes office,

[plcurechax]

I think it goes without saying that an animal is unable to give consent, therefore any sex with animals is going to be unethical.

So, if you let your farm or domestic animals reproduce, without the written consent of both age of majority* participants, that's animal abuse?

You did say, any.

*) I don't know if dog years is appropriate to mention here.

Re:Yes office,

[soren100]

It's not so much about harm as it is about consent.

How does an animal about to be slaughtered for food give consent?

Re:Yes office,

[Fumus]

Where do you draw the line on what is natural?
I sure as hell am not going to believe crows used to drop walnuts on dirt. Yet, through their 'smarts' they have figured out that dropping walnuts on a street or hard pavement will often break it open. If that is natural behaviour, then whatever we humans come up with is also natural, because we are part of nature.
 
Fucking a goat is of course the "she did not consent!" argument, but what argument can you possibly have to say the dog does not want to fuck you when it actively humps anything it can grab?

Re:Yes office,

[Fumus]

We don't let adults have sex with minors.
All the same reasons apply to sex with animals.

It's not so much about harm as it is about consent.

It is never about consent. Why?

Animal breeding footage is legal. You can even see it on youtube and it has millions of views. What does that have to do with anything? Most of the footage shows (let's use horse sex in this case) a restrained female (for her own good, yeah!) being bred by a stallion. You cannot be sure she consents. She has her hind legs tied, her tail moved to the side, she can't protest at all. That is to protect the stallion from any harm and also to make it easier because she can't be moody, she's just here to get fucked.

Artificial insemination footage is also legal. A lot of zoophiles can get off to that, and it's still legal porn, despite the females not being able to agree whether they want to be probed and inseminated.

Re:Yes office,

[masmullin]

The line is drawn well before goat fucking. Do you people seriously not know this shit?

Re:Yes office,

[masmullin]

Mules are unnatural, dolphins in captivity are unnatural, homosexuality is natural and has nothing to do with this convo (only a homophobe would bring up the point).

Re:Yes office,

[Linux_ho]

As it happens, I'm not actually a zoophiliac. Merely a vegan who finds it a bit twisted that we seem to consider it worse to let an animal have sex with you than it would be to kill it.

I used to mourn when I ate animals, so I switched to vegetables. Then I started mourning when I killed any form of life. It's all so beautiful, isn't it? I think you have insufficient compassion for vegetables. Simply because they are a more alien form of life than people or animals, you think it's moral to eat vegetables, but not to eat animals. Can you really justify that? I found I couldn't.

Then starvation kicked in, and I realized that the universe is more morally complicated than I had previously imagined. I love all life, and now I kill and eat many forms of it, appreciating its beauty while acknowledging there is also beauty in the predator. Plus bacon tastes really good.

Re:Yes office,

[bicon]

You can't get b12 from vegetables. If you haven't noticed, Indians are short, and often have squint eye, a lot of them have HIV and TB. They may survive without proper nourishment, but zinc and B12 are hard to get from vegetables alone, and they're essential. That is to say, without them you can die, and with deficiency, you have a deficit in your immune system and healing.

So you can choose to avoid meat, but it's something you're designed to eat, and you need some animal protein.

Re:Yes office,

[bicon]

The mind has to do with sex because people have a right to choose who they have sex with. That's what society decided, and I'm glad for that. Otherwise I'd be forced to have sex with people I don't like and there'd be nothing to stop that. That's why you have to have a mind to consent. And that goes for children too.

Also, keep in mind that when sex is forced on the unwilling, the unwilling develop PTSD and psychological problems. It's well documented.

And yes, when you have sex with someone under the influence, you've technically not acquired consent, as one can not consent to something in a state of diminished capacity. So you are opening yourself up to criminal liability to put yourself in such a situation.

It's not to say that you will be automatically convicted. A jury of your peers is usually a bunch of judgmental morons. They even let this serial-rapist psychopath go who deliberately drugged and raped women, although I think the judge ruled otherwise, I think:

"Plenty of women were attracted to [Jeffrey Marsalis], but this guy was aroused by the very idea of nonconsent."

I guess it could be argued that animals lack the mind and never will have the mind to either consent or be harmed from the experience. I'm not so sure about that. They really don't have a say in the matter, so it's unfair, and selfish to jump to such conclusions as to what they enjoy.

Yes, it's considered taboo, but, there's also a logical reason why it's mostly wrong, which derives itself from consent, which we value so dearly. Therefore, I think it's going to stay that way, because it simply makes sense.

Humans are animals too but that's not what was meant by 'animal', making that equivocational fallacy.

And by the way, didn't the "two guys one horse" thing result in no convictions because they couldn't prove the horse was harmed? Although the guy who got fucked died. Perhaps he'd have faced charges. I'm not a legal expert on bestiality, so I'm not sure what the ramifications are exactly.

I don't think trees care, but no one cares about tree sex.

Re:Yes office,

[sjames]

The point though is that the animals are unlikely to consent to slaughter either, but that's not seen as a problem. Meanwhile, killing humans of any age even WITH consent (or even if they're pleading to be killed) is illegal.

More honestly, sex with animals is illegal because most people find the very idea repugnant.

Re:Yes office,

[donscarletti]

There are guys out there that like to fuck sheep. Personally, although I would not encourage it, I don't think the sheep has much idea what is going on. Yet, for all the sheep that are screwed in this world, it is not a common subject in pornography for a man to screw a sheep and for the audience to watch and fantasise of being in sexual union with the sheep themselves.

What one does see a lot of in bestiality porn targeted for men is women being penetrated by dogs, pigs, etc. In this case, what is going on I believe is more focused around the sexual degradation of the woman, rather than the sexuality of the animal. In fact, I do not think rationale behind Australia's restriction of this kind of pornography focuses on animal cruelty in the slightest. I do not believe that sexual or other forms of extreme degradation, consensual or otherwise can be part of a healthy relationship, which are built on mutual respect in and out of the bedroom. I do not believe that men being able to access pornography that features animals penetrating women is as a whole beneficial to society and I support the Australian government in its effort to censor such things.

I have seen the sort of dominating, cruel and misogynistic arseholes who like this kind of stuff. Personally, I do not feel that depriving them of this is a bad thing. You can argue for this to be protected a free speech all you like, but I am glad that both the law and public opinion in Australia stands against this kind of media.

Re:Yes office,

[Hognoxious]

// to do: add witty comment about flogging a dead horse.

Re:Yes office,

[Hognoxious]

I'm a cavalryman, so I have to worry about other privates' animals' privates.

It's a safe bet that sheep-shagging smut is OK

[Anonymous Coward]

Just saying.

Re:It's a safe bet that sheep-shagging smut is OK

[mister_playboy]

That joke applies more to New Zealand than Australia.

Re:It's a safe bet that sheep-shagging smut is OK

[tehcyder]

I think it's more compulsory than illegal.

That's Australia for you.

[synthil]

Too much fucking censorship here.

Re:That's Australia for you.

[zill]

fucking censorship

A word caution: even non-fucking porn can be banned in Australia.

Trust me, I found out the hard way during my trip down under.

Re:That's Australia for you.

[Dunbal]

Amazing, considering Australia was founded by thieves, murderers and whores.

Re:That's Australia for you.

[terraformer]

Amazing, considering Australia was founded by thieves, murderers and whores.

Apparently even thieves, murderers and whores have standards. Who would have thought it.

Re:That's Australia for you.

[wootest]

It's worse than that; I believe they were British.

Re:That's Australia for you.

[Terrasque]

<_kr4m3r> so many fucking criminals, its bullshit
<foniks`> heh, if we sent all the criminals to some empty continent and just left them there to die
<foniks`> and showed up like 50yrs later like, "sup?"
<foniks`> whatd u think they'd say?
<FoSZoR[bg]> something along the lines of, "G`Day mate"

Source

Re:That's Australia for you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank goodness the US got the puritans. From what I can tell from our politicians they are still searching for their standards.

Re:That's Australia for you.

[xav_jones]

And I *still* think we got a better deal than some other country that was founded by Puritans.

Re:That's Australia for you.

[WarmBoota]

...I was going to post "Well at least you can distill alcohol legally" and then I remembered that's New Zealand. You guys really *ARE* screwed.

Re:That's Australia for you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Better than being founded by slavers, murderers and warmongers.

Re:That's Australia for you.

[YoshiDan]

Don't forget SBS, I class a lot of the stuff on that channel as soft porn... I know an American bloke and he always says how amazed he is at how uncensored Australian TV is compared to America.

Re:That's Australia for you.

[mjwx]

Amazing, considering Australia was founded by thieves, murderers and whores.

Actually, the murders and whores stayed in merry old England where the whores were getting murdered.

The kind of people transported were petty criminals, people in debt and Irish (as Irish nationalism was a crime, read: displaying an Irish flag).

The reason murderers were kept in England was because after a sentence was completed, convicts were given a parcel of land that they could work. You don't give murderers an enormous open land they can hide in.

Re:That's Australia for you.

[Grumbleduke]

A common misconception; Australia was, in fact, founded by prison wardens. Once you remember this, it all becomes a lot more understandable.

ok, i'll be dumb enough to ask

[nopainogain]

who travels with porn?

Re:ok, i'll be dumb enough to ask

[Faatal]

Porn star?

Re:ok, i'll be dumb enough to ask

[paeanblack]

who travels with porn?

Customs officers that collect images from their backscatter X-ray machines

Re:ok, i'll be dumb enough to ask

[nopainogain]

so you're saying that the immense breadth of character they employ while doing their job in front of the camera requires reference material?

Re:ok, i'll be dumb enough to ask

[SmackTheIgnorant]

Who doesn't? C'mon, you're on a flight, several hours long, how can one POSSIBLY go that long without their dose girl-on-goat action??

Re:ok, i'll be dumb enough to ask

[Stregano]

The better question would be: who doesn't travel with porn. Now I need to check up and see what Australia counts as illegal

Re:ok, i'll be dumb enough to ask

[Abstrackt]

I was once on an international flight in Europe and the gentleman next to me was reading Playboy. To his credit, he was pretty discreet about it though.

Re:ok, i'll be dumb enough to ask

[boristdog]

Who among us (people on /. that is) does not IMMEDIATELY search for all images when someone we know asks us to repair their computer?
Especially if that someone is a reasonably attractive female.

Oh, I've had some amazing discoveries there.

And you learn a lot about people by the type of porn they keep.

Re:ok, i'll be dumb enough to ask

[PsyciatricHelp]

That type of porn can come back to haunt you when your wife of 3 years find shit you downloaded back in high school. Lucky for me my wife found it amusing and currently jokes the hell out of me.

Re:ok, i'll be dumb enough to ask

[The Wild Norseman]

That type of porn can come back to haunt you when your wife of 3 years find shit you downloaded back in high school. Lucky for me my wife found it amusing and currently jokes the hell out of me.

Lucky for you, your wife found it amusing and doesn't know how to check time/date stamps on files downloaded "back in high school."

Don't worry, your secret is safe with us.

Re:ok, i'll be dumb enough to ask

[ElectricTurtle]

My wife of three years jokes about the pr0n I downloaded last night. But then I give her crap for the pr0n she downloads too, so it all evens out.

Hint to all those married or thinking about it: if your significant other can't come to grips with the fact that one other person cannot embody the totality of somebody's sexuality, you have settled and in the process are doomed to denying part(s) of your true self for the duration of your relationship. I love my wife as deeply as I do in no small part because she doesn't use "morality" as a cover to be an irrational, paranoid, hyper-jealous ass like so many people do.

Re:ok, i'll be dumb enough to ask

[Anonymous Coward]

I do the opposite. I was recently helping a friend recover some misplaced files and the easiest way to do it was by searching for all files modified with a certain range of dates/times -- that can be a lot of files, including browser temporary files and all sorts of things. I specifically asked them if there was "any file pattern we should make sure is excluded in the search filter" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). It saves everyone a lot of grief.

Re:ok, i'll be dumb enough to ask

[Red Flayer]

Who among us (people on /. that is) does not IMMEDIATELY search for all images when someone we know asks us to repair their computer?

Those of us who respect the privacy of our friends/acquaintances?

Seriously, what kind of asshole are you that you'd dig through someone's personal files without asking their consent?

Hell, I may be *curious* about what images/vids they have... but to actually go through with it and snoop on them? What a dick you must be.

Re:ok, i'll be dumb enough to ask

[MichaelSmith]

I have porn on my laptop and the times I have traveled with it I have moved it all off but of course the content remains on the HDD and traces in the browser cache, etc. So it may be difficult to delete your entire porn collection and you may forget as well.

Re:ok, i'll be dumb enough to ask

[AHuxley]

re IMMEDIATELY search for all images when someone we know asks us to repair their computer?
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Feb/05/ln/ln01a.html
"FBI asks computer shops to help fight cybercrime"

Re:ok, i'll be dumb enough to ask

[ergean]

I run a small computer service... I'm must say I was tempted to do just what the other poster said. But hell just because of that temptation I just make a small script to grab anything relevant from C: dump it in D: or whatever storage the client wants it and never look at anything they have in there. If they have and explicit request I go find the files and sort them, but only if they ask.

I once had to recover some pictures from an SD... the client was a bit strange in her request, she wanted to assist all the process. Seeing this I just showed here how to undelete the files and how to move them to her thumb drive and never even looked at what she recovered. She was so happy about this that I still have her as a client after 3 years.

Re:ok, i'll be dumb enough to ask

[YoshiDan]

Err, people who buy it cheap overseas to bring home.

Re:ok, i'll be dumb enough to ask

[Geminii]

Exactly. There are scripts for that kind of thing; don't waste hours doing it manually!

Re:ok, i'll be dumb enough to ask

[ElectricTurtle]

Congratulations on following a religion where self-loathing is a prerequisite. That's totally healthy. I was raised by fundamentalist, literalist Baptists and studied the Bible and commentaries/analysis thereupon for nine years straight. By the end of that time I realized that it was a crock of inconsistent bullshit that caused people to hate themselves and others and be thankful for the privilege. It sickens me to realize how much personal progress was retarded by all those wasted years where I could have been learning things I could use beyond trashing religious twits on the internet.

Re:ok, i'll be dumb enough to ask

[fussy_radical]

If you let Jesus in you it can't be gay, right?

Glad to comply

[hansamurai]

Is there some kind of catalog or web site I can browse to see examples of what's legal and not?

Re:Glad to comply

[Sonny Yatsen]

I think it's better if you don't know, since the law only require you to declare porn if you THINK it's illegal.

Re:Glad to comply

[zill]

Is there some kind of catalog or web site I can browse to see examples of what's legal and not?

www.australia.gov.au

...and not?

Pretty much everything else on the internet.

I'm pretty sure they've outlawed "ridiculing Australian censorship laws" a few years ago, so this post is a prime example of what's not legal.

Re:Glad to comply

[MightyMartian]

Please declare your Slashdot at the border.

Re:Glad to comply

[Rude Turnip]

It's called The Internet. You should Google it sometime!

Re:Glad to comply

[thegarbz]

Safe to assume everything is. If one person got their way naked pictures of women with A cup breasts would be illegal, because ... think of the children.

Re:Glad to comply

[Dabido]

http://webcast.aph.gov.au/livebroadcasting/ This site contains a large group of masturbators showing the sort of thing you shouldn't bring into the country.

As well as declaring all...

[Dahamma]

...recent murders committed, houses burgled, cars stolen, heiresses kidnapped, parking tickets ignored, and Australian ministers ridiculed.

Re:As well as declaring all...

[medcalf]

Oh, I didn't realize a criminal record was still required before going to Australia.

Re:As well as declaring all...

[TapeCutter]

"Oh, I didn't realize a criminal record was still required before going to Australia."

No worries mate, if you don't have a criminal record one of our customs officers will give you one at the border.

Re:As well as declaring all...

[Geminii]

Heroines tried to train tracks, moustaches twiddled, heroes taunted...

Re:As well as declaring all...

[Geminii]

Gah. TIED to train tracks!

Re:As well as declaring all...

[xtracto]

That reminds me of the questions asked by the USA immigration office (in the form of the immigration form), something like:
Have you been a member of a terrorist group?
Do you plan to make a terrorist attack in the USA?
Do you plan to introduce illegal drugs to the USA?

I have always wondered why to they aim to achieve with these sort of questions...

Re:As well as declaring all...

[Ann O'Nymous-Coward]

The Oz govt's giving out criminal records? And here I thought Steve Garrett left his muso days behind when he became a Minister.

I foresee great conversations at the customs booth

[Anonymous Coward]

Passenger: So, I read that I have to declare illegal pornography.
Officer: Yes, indeed.
Passenger: Well, I do have something on my laptop, but I don't know whether it's illegal. Would you mind having a look and telling me what you think about it?

something like this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aussie Customs officer: Do you have any illegal porn?
British tourist: I did not know you still need do illegal things to get in here!

Re:something like this?

[Baby Duck]

BRILLIANT!

Re:something like this?

[bakdor]

Aussie Customs officer: Do you have any illegal porn? British tourist: I did not know you still need do illegal things to get in here!

I heard of a newly arrived British tourist replying similarly when asked whether he had a criminal record. Apparently he was replying to a customs officer who was having a bad day, as he soon found himself on his way back to the UK. In other words, DON'T SAY THIS! It may not be as funny as you think.

Re:something like this?

[Uzik2]

OMG! Too funny. If I had mod points right now you'd get all of them.

Expectation of privacy

[WarJolt]

Americans have an expectation of privacy. I doubt you'll have an American declare his/her porn.
Little tip for those who want to reinforce their expectation of privacy. Encrypt your document folders.
Most customs techs won't know how to crack it and if you have a good password it could take years.

Re:Expectation of privacy

[gfreeman]

Not a valid defence in England

Re:Expectation of privacy

[maxwell demon]

"This file seems to be encrypted. I suspect you want to hide something illegal there. Please give me the password, otherwise I cannot let you pass."

Re:Expectation of privacy

[Jorl17]

Americans have the expectation of privacy in some issues. In others they have an interesting culture. It is common for Americans to talk to strangers as if they were family, because it is in their culture. I am not talking trash about them, I admire this type of culture. A friend of mine went to America and she said there was always someone talking to her -- she even had a little child come to her and say "Will you believe how this cheese is expensive".

That kind of thing is considered rude for us in here, because it violates our privacy. So you see, in crucial issues like these, Americans have an "expectation of privacy", but with the Western European definition of privacy, they only expect it when it is good for them. I do enjoy that they can be such an open-minded people in this type of thing...but I am sad they are so close-minded with respect to other issues...

Re:Expectation of privacy

[BassMan449]

The simplest solution is to have an encrypted file that doesn't look like an encrypted file. Jpg with a TrueCrypt archive attached at the end is never going to be detected unless someone is explicitly looking for it.

Re:Expectation of privacy

[matfud]

I don't know what wierd world you live in but it has been a very long time since anyone has had any "expectation of privacy" when going through customs.
Customs routinely search all your belongings and if you are not careful your orifaces too

Re:Expectation of privacy

[SleazyRidr]

Ignoring the discussion about whether that's even still true in the US, once you leave your own country you can't keep relying on your own laws, you've gotta put up with whatever laws the country you're in has. If you decided to make a big stand about it you'd probably find yourself not allowed into the country.

Re:Expectation of privacy

[thynk]

Whereas when I was living in Germany, it wasn't totally uncommon to have someone sit at an empty chair at your table in a restaurant. That sort of thing would cause the manager of the restaurant to be called to have the person ejected from the premises if it happened here in the US. Different things are "rude" to different folks.

Re:Expectation of privacy

[SydShamino]

There are cultural ways to indicate that you don't want to be talked to. Your friend just didn't know them.

Re:Expectation of privacy

[tverbeek]

US courts have specifically ruled that the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply crossing international borders.

This expectation of no-privacy going through customs has even been used to justify warrantless searches of someone who is merely near an international border.

Re:Expectation of privacy

[JonySuede]

make that an avi, a 4gb jpg is a little suspicious

Re:Expectation of privacy

[DrgnDancer]

More to the point it's asking for trouble. "Gosh, I wonder what's in this giant encrypted blob on this guys hard drive?" Just zip all your porn into a file, and rename it to something innocuous and approximately appropriate in size. Anything over about 600 MB you could probably just rename "RedHatLinux.iso" or something. You think they're doing deep inspections of every lap top that comes in through customs? They probably do a search for some subsection of the normal graphic and video file extensions then browse the thumbnails for anything that looks wrong. Anything more than that would slow down the inspections to crawl.

You're not dealing with an MIT forensics teams here, these guy have been taught a very simplistic procedure and will follow it to the letter. Most likely they don't even *care* if you have porn, they just have to check every 5th laptop to keep the boss happy.

Re:Expectation of privacy

[MichaelSmith]

I wouldn't risk my freedom on those assumptions. If I had to take my porn collection across an Australian border I would transfer it with scp.

Re:Expectation of privacy

[Jorl17]

Meh, my friend was really just shopping when, out of nowhere, a little kid comes by and says that. It is obvious that his mind is still being constructed, but this demonstrates that his values contain the information related to "talk to people nicely, even if they are strangers". And this happened to other people from my country as well, they all got that feeling that the Americans were so kind and open to conversation.

Re:Expectation of privacy

[DarwinSurvivor]

The comment was about AMERICANS visiting AUSTRALIA.

Re:Expectation of privacy

[matfud]

Thanks, I don't know US law precident in this but "Americans have an expectation of privicy" just made me chuckle wrt customs&immigration.
It may be why US customs are some of the worst in the world I have been through (although it may just be low paid grumpy staff). Actually most cutoms are pretty bad but US is getting silly. UK ones are great (but I'm a from the UK). The same holds for mot nationals entering thier home country.

Re:Expectation of privacy

[oldspewey]

Not if you're into plumpers

Re:Expectation of privacy

[Artifakt]

Just reprogram the orbital death ray lasers to burn it all to something appropriately sized, i.e. the surface of Uluru (Ayres rock), before you get there, like any normal Slashdotter.

Re:Expectation of privacy

[matfud]

No you would probably find your self arrested, interogated, strip searched and then bent over a table with a pre-used latex covered finger being stuck in you...if they were being nice. Then you may be allowed you buy the next flight home. Or you may by chucked in gaol or Gitmo.

Re:Expectation of privacy

[matfud]

If it is US customs then they probably use clean gloves and not latex either as that may cause rashes on the users who have to probe each day. But Gitomo, finger printing and asking for stupid amounts of pre-flight info is a problem. And fucking stupid grumpy ignorant customs officers. Mind you your are better than others as you could get your hands cut off, your head cut off, stoned to death in other places.
I'm really not sure if sarcasm works.

matfud

Re:Expectation of privacy

[tehcyder]

Anything over about 600 MB you could probably just rename "RedHatLinux.iso"

Computer savvy Customs Officer: so how come this alleged Linux iso file is 496 GB then?

Re:Expectation of privacy

[DrgnDancer]

OK, so realistically I was thinking it wouldn't get much bigger than 4 GB or so. I think I forgot where I was.

Re:Expectation of privacy

[gknoy]

I suspect customs entry is a hassle in the US not because of our expectation of privacy, but because much of our policy is driven by irrationality and fear.

self-incrimination

[tverbeek]

I'm guessing that the Australian constitution doesn't include something equivalent to the US's Fifth Amendment?

Re:self-incrimination

[Zeek40]

It's a prison colony, you need to declare the crime you committed to gain entry.

Re:self-incrimination

[Anonymous Coward]

You think the US is any different?

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch12.html#en_US_publink1000172062

Form 1040, line 21 is where you are to report your earnings from illegal income.

Re:self-incrimination

[skelly33]

I thought you were BSing, but I finally found it when I scrolled down far enough. That's laughable/pitiful:

" Illegal activities. Income from illegal activities, such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Form 1040, line 21, or on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040) if from your self-employment activity"

Re:self-incrimination

[SydShamino]

Think mobsters from the 1930s, who were only ever convicted of tax evasion. If you can convict them for not declaring it, there has to be a way to declare it....

Re:self-incrimination

[ceoyoyo]

I hate to tell you, but US customs doesn't have anything equivalent to the US's fifth amendment either. Nor any of the others.

Typical Exchange

[Itesh]

Visitor: So, are Pantyhose Clad Lesbians getting Fisted by GIMP Midgets ok?
Security Officer: Crikey...
Visitor: Well, is it ok or not?
Security Officer: Well, it's not on the banned list...
People standing in line: "FML" "OMG, how disgusting" "What a pig"
Visitor: What....what?!?!

Re:Typical Exchange

[snspdaarf]

Split-crotch pantyhose, of course!

Why is everyone looking at me?

Re:Typical Exchange

[AtomicOrange]

People have no imagination or depravity these days, sheesh. Good on you.

Re:Typical Exchange

[Macgrrl]

But I don't want to think of the friction rash if the denier wasn't fine enough.

Someone isn't very smart

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of a job application I filled out once. It actually asked you whether or not you were taking any illicit drugs, and how often. I'm not sure who was stupider: the person who created the application form, or the druggie moron who would answer truthfully. At any rate, if you had porn you though was illegal, WHY would you tell them so!?

Re:Someone isn't very smart

[LoyalOpposition]

It's so they can fire you for lying on your job application.

~Loyal

Re:Someone isn't very smart

[Abstrackt]

I think the person creating the application form was actually quite clever as two positive (for the company) things happen this way: 1) it weeds out the idiots who admit to taking illicit drugs with some regularity and 2) it makes it much easier to fire someone for lying on their application if the employer finds out they are on illicit drugs.

As for customs, when you enter the US there is a section that literally asks if you're a spy. I hope they're not catching too many idiots that way but it does create a situation where someone who is a spy can be convicted for lying to the government. I figure the same idea applies to declaring illegal porn.

Re:Someone isn't very smart

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a marihuana smoker (in a country where this is "depenalized" - meaning it is still illegal, but no punishment for using it), and if somebody asks me about that during a job interview I am open about it. I used to work for a US software/consultancy company which had clients such as NSA and CIA - the company policy was: if we ask you to go to such customers and you're a drug user, tell us. They would not fire us, they would just send another consultant.

Re:Someone isn't very smart

[SleazyRidr]

I like the question about whether I was a member of the Nazi Party of Germany between 1933 and 1945. I was so tempted to tick yes, but I actually wanted the visa...

Re:Someone isn't very smart

[dgatwood]

Particularly appropriate if you were born after 1945.

Re:Someone isn't very smart

[SydShamino]

Not only can lying on that one restrict entry, if you lie on that and then later become a citizen they can use it to go back and strip your citizenship and eject you from the country.

Re:Someone isn't very smart

[Mal-2]

For a fine example of this, one should listen to or watch Frank Zappa/Ensemble Modern's most excellent Welcome to the United States.

Re:Someone isn't very smart

[fotbr]

I love the question asking if you're planning on overthrowing the government.

I am tempted to write in "I regularly vote for a different set of idiots than those currently in office".

Of course, if your answer to that one really is that you intend to do so, and you lie, do you really care about being charged with lying? It seems to me that you'd either be hoping to succeed, in which case it wouldn't matter, or you wouldn't care much anymore after failing and probably opening yourself up to much more serious charges.

Re:Someone isn't very smart

[aiht]

It's so they can fire you for lying on your job application.

If they found out, couldn't they just fire you for using illicit drugs?

I would say...

[ltcdata]

No, my computer is clean. But you got to erase all the dirty memories in my head, and all the dirty things i will do to the aussie chicks here!

What defines import?

[Roobles]

So does this only apply to content that you physically bring with you on a hard drive? 99.9% of my media is stored on a server. If I access my data over the Internet while in Australia, does that fall under the same "import" restrictions? What about data left over in a browser cache? Where are the lines drawn on these issues, and in what ways does intent play a role?

Re:What defines import?

[MichaelSmith]

If I access my data over the Internet while in Australia, does that fall under the same "import" restrictions?

When it comes to downloading its only CP which seems to be illegal here. People have been charged with possession, not importation when caught with that material.

Re:What defines import?

[compro01]

When it comes to downloading its only CP which seems to be illegal here.

For extremely loose definitions of "CP" which include things such as "fictional cartoon characters" and "adult women with small breasts".

Re:What defines import?

[MichaelSmith]

When it comes to downloading its only CP which seems to be illegal here.

For extremely loose definitions of "CP" which include things such as "fictional cartoon characters" and "adult women with small breasts".

Accused people seem to plead guilty in shame. It would be interesting to see somebody take these laws on in court.

Re:What defines import?

[compro01]

Haven't heard anything about the small breasts policy in court, but the law won with regards to the cartoon characters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7770781.stm

Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

1. I'd like to declare some illegal porn.
2. What do you have?
1. A copy of Going Rogue by Sara Palin.
(Officer proceeds to beat 1 senseless. A passer-by starts taking video).
3. I'd like to declare some illegal porn.
1. What do you have
3. A video of somebody with a copy of Sara Palin's Going Rogue being beaten with a billy-club.
ad infinitum

is tub girl illegal?

[TiggertheMad]

Makes me want to load up a laptop full of shock-pr0n images, just to I can show them all to some unfortunate customs worker, under the guise of 'declaring' them...

Hope the customs workers have therapy coverage on their health care plans....

Re:is tub girl illegal?

[ElectricTurtle]

This an awesome idea. Make sure you pick up as much Japanese guro/scat manga/anime as possible. Bonus points if you can make them vomit.

Re:is tub girl illegal?

[oldspewey]

Bonus points if you can make them vomit.

That seems to be the motto of the Japanese guro/scat manga/anime porn directors.

Re:is tub girl illegal?

[enoz]

That would be extremely dangerous, as under Australian law cartoon or fictional characters could get you convicted of Child Porn if they appear underage. See the Simpsons ruling: http://www.theage.com.au/national/simpsons-cartoon-ripoff-is-child-porn-judge-20081208-6tmk.html

Australian visitors, or vistors to Australia

[gfreeman]

Grammar nazi walking here, move aside.

Re:Australian visitors, or vistors to Australia

[ben_kelley]

All travellers arriving in the country have to fill this card in, regardless of nationality, and regardless of whether they are staying. Most countries have a similar card. e.g. The American one that asks you if you are a terrorist. (Answer carefully!)

Re:Australian visitors, or vistors to Australia

[bckrispi]

Grammar Nazi walking here. Move aside.

FTFY :P

Re:Australian visitors, or vistors to Australia

[gfreeman]

*tip of hat*

I have long argued for this

[TeriMaKiChooth]

It is about time National Geographic and other wildlife magazines stopped posting pictures of Australian men molesting wild animals.

Why?

[SpaghettiPattern]

Why do I instinctual click on this topic just to lay back and enjoy all the comments rated "Funny"?

Sorry Aussies but today it's your turn. Bring the ridicule on!!!

I like the cut of your jib

[Weaselmancer]

Yes...it's a good idea. Much fun. But if you really want to creep the guy out - go mental with it.

Tell the customs worker that you have a lot of porn on your laptop and you'd like to declare it. Then show him hundreds of pictures of feet. Just feet. Nothing else. And while he pages through them to determine their legality, act like you are fighting becoming aroused. Moan. Drool a little bit.

For bonus points make it something really odd. Bell towers or Volkswagen bugs or cigar smoking women cutting into birthday cakes.

Remember kids - what's porn for one person may not necessarily be porn for another.

Re:I like the cut of your jib

[Crypto Gnome]

For bonus points make it something really odd.

Er, so you mean more odd than feet?

Last time I looked, "foot sex" was still considered to be a fetish rather than mainstream.

Re:I like the cut of your jib

[Interoperable]

No, you really don't want to fuck with customs officers. Be civil and try to ignore violations of your rights because you will only make your situation worse.

If you want to dick around with customs officers make damn sure you have absolutely nothing that you can't import and have declared everything that you need to (did you declare the bag of peanuts you got on the plane and have in your bag?) and that you have nowhere to be for a day or so.

Re:I like the cut of your jib

[IndustrialComplex]

No, you really don't want to fuck with customs officers. Be civil and try to ignore violations of your rights because you will only make your situation worse.

Yes I agree. Ignoring violations of your rights will only make things worse.

Re:I like the cut of your jib

[Alsee]

Make it photos of customs inspectors examining luggage and other articles.

And proceed to take photos of him while he inspects your porn collection.

-

Re:I like the cut of your jib

[kingturkey]

Nope, that one would get you arrested. You can't take pictures at Australian customs and immigration. They even told my friend to turn off his phone and put it away one time when he was sending a text message!

Re:I like the cut of your jib

[mjwx]

Tell the customs worker that you have a lot of porn on your laptop and you'd like to declare it. Then show him hundreds of pictures of feet. Just feet. Nothing else

Nice way to waste customs time.

Secondly, foot fetishes aren't illegal.

But they'll take 3 seconds to look at it and think your full of shit and wasting their time. AQIS isn't staffed by the same power mad morons that the US hires.

Re:I like the cut of your jib

[Weaselmancer]

Yeah, what AC there said. A foot fetish is odd, but fairly common as far as these things go.

Here, read this. An entire country with a foot fetish.

Re:I like the cut of your jib

[Geminii]

For extra-disturbing - have your lappy set up to quietly snap a shot of the customs agent as they open the clamshell, and then automatically 'shop it into all the images as they're launched.

Re:I like the cut of your jib

[tehcyder]

what's porn for one person may not necessarily be porn for another.

I think the Australians have made it clear what they consider to be illegal porn., regardless of whether you agree with their definition or not. Child pornography is illegal, pictures of Volkswagen bugs aren't.

Re:I like the cut of your jib

[frenchbedroom]

Where's the +6 Funny ?

Re:I like the cut of your jib

[gknoy]

Not screwing with customs officers, even though we might think they are Doing it Wrong, will certainly make it easier on you as a traveler on this particular trip. Many people are jaded enough that they don't feel like jeopardizing their personal safety in order to /maybe/ effect some change later which /might/ lead to less rights-abuse for other passengers in the distant future. Especially when the courts will likely A-OK such absues as perfectly within the duties of customs because it's not considered technically inside the country (among other reasons).

Similarly, not pointing weapons at police officers who break into your house by mistake is much more conducive to your safety, despite having just had your rights (mistakenly) trodden over. It's basically the difference between pragmatism and idealism. I'm not so idealistic about my rights that I want to endanger my immediate family. (Yes, I've basically admitted that I'm less American than our founding fathers. I do feel a little shame about that.)

Just mail it to yourself before you board

[kaptink]

This is so easy to get around its not funny. Just like the proposed internet filter. Just take any porn you have and either post it to yourself before you leave or if its on your computer, just encrypt it. Customs officers are by no means nerds and I have my doubts as to what this stupidity will actually achieve. My guess is this legislation was a nice big candy apple for the religous nutters that seem to be taking over this government in a bid to enforce the hard word of jesus while the real sick pedo weirdos run a muck.

Re:Just mail it to yourself before you board

[ceoyoyo]

You know customs goes through international mail right?

Oscar Wilde quote

[tverbeek]

"I have no porn to declare but my self."

Use the effort where it matters

[sosaited]

Why is there not this much effort and news coverage on trying to stop the production of illegal porn in the first place.? If any of this hurts someone, it is at that stage. All these type of stupid laws do is invade normal people's privacy and in some cases put an innocent person in unwanted trouble. BTW, TFA doesn't mention if this applies to just hard-copies or laptop too? And what about PC Hard Drives? You can't enter in Australia without customs scanning and searching all your personal data?

Re:Use the effort where it matters

[edjs]

But what's illegal in Australia is not necessarily illegal in your point of origin. If the porn is produced legally elsewhere, Australia can't reasonably do anything about it until it reaches their borders, where they can be as unreasonable as their electorate will allow.

On the next "Border Patrol"

[WinstonWolfIT]

If snitch the nosy beagle detects illegal porn, he'll mount the bag.

Reminds me of a Federal form I had to fill out...

[sirwired]

I was applying for Federal security clearance back in college, and the form gave dire warnings of the consequences should they find out I was lying on the form. Some of the sample questions:
- Do you currently deal illegal drugs?
- Are you a member of an organization dedicated to the overthrow of the United States government through unconstitutional means?
- Are you a terrorist?

If you answer "No" to these questions, and they later find out you lied on your form, I have a funny feeling lying on your form is going to be a rounding error on your eventual prison sentence.

Re:I foresee great conversations at the customs bo

[T Murphy]

If that happens, it would only take a few days before goatse becomes illegal... there might be some benefit to this!

In Japan...

[s4nt]

When I travelled to Japan last year, a customs officer asked me if I had any illegal (uncensored*) porn.
They had a full picture book with photos of illegal items you could not bring to the country (firearms, drugs, porn, etc)
In the porn case they had a couple of pictured some porn DVD covers LOL

* As you may know, Japanese porn has censoring over the genital area...

Re:In Japan...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

And if that wasn't enough to put you off, the guys are just absurdly creepy - can't really get excited about some suffering girl getting molested by an ugly dude.

Re:In Japan...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Just try to enjoy porn where the girl doesn't want to be there and the guy is unengaged and creepy as fuck. I'm sure some people go for that, but not me.

How about

[Vinegar Joe]

Photos of kangaroos with small breasts?

Re:If you have not notice by now...

[Merls the Sneaky]

European dark age churches have taken over the state (government).

Re:Mr O'Conner, here's

[dbIII]

Not really, and this has been going on for at least five years so he didn't start it.

ESTA form

[Animaether]

You can see some of these questions on the ESTA form on-line:
https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/esta.html?_flowExecutionKey=_cAA87A45D-BB10-BD69-546C-3A6C110CDB26_kC5D1910B-3EF3-ABDD-96D4-8BFFE65F97A5

This replaces the I94 (Visa Waiver) form that you'd fill out on the flight / at arrival.

For the privilege of filling it in online now, you pay $4 administration costs (by credit card only... you're welcome to have the info, Uncle Sam)... and an additional $10 if the application has been approved*, which is used to promote tourism (Travel Promotion Act) to the U.S**.

* of course it's only the application that's been approved.. if the border-control-person is having an off day and you look at 'm funny, they'll still send you back after a little chat.

** not charging and getting rid of the security theater might promote tourism better, eh? But the act is loved all-around as it practically costs U.S. taxpayers and businesses squat.. seeing as previous visitors effectively end up paying a good chunk of it. Well played!

The questions start after the two "yeah, yeah... I understand I must bend over.. take me to the form" pages.
I wonder what happened to the questions of whether or not the person has been to any farmland/soil recently. Come to think of it.. maybe that was Australia.

Wow

[roc97007]

Think of the massive porn connection Australian customs officials must have. I wonder if there's a waiting list for the job.

Oh ho ho ho!

[Greyfox]

I think I'm going to buy a ticket to Oz and see if I can drive a customs officer insane!

This Japanese tentacle rape porn... is that illegal? How about this collection of furry gay porn? These pictures of some guy doing a dolphin? How about this homoerotic fanfic featuring Optimus Prime and the leader of the Megatrons? Be sure to read the whole thing now! Naturally I'll be happy to delete anything they declare illegal prior to entering the country (Though in truth I'll just turn around, come back across the pond and do the same thing to a customs officer on this side...)

Muahahahaha!

"Officer, here's the illegal porn. They start...

[swschrad]

in the bus, groping and clawing at each other. The driver pulls down his shade. A little old lady leans in for a better look... ."

Are they hiring?

[ITI_guy]

How do you word a job description when searching for an 'Expert Customs Porn Reviewer'? Does it include any training? Are you even paid?

the title is a little misleading

[powerspike]

I am Australian, and have read quite a few stories press releases etc on this subject. The BIG problem with these cards is, illegal to "import" and illegal to "posses" in australia is different. Meaning while it might be legal to own some types in Australia, it's illegal to bring them in (ie import) into the country, and they don't tell you what is what, This is one of the main reasons there has been a large uproar over the issue down under.

There's two set's of rules, they aren't telling you which one is which, and don't give good examples, it's basically a trap

Re:the title is a little misleading

[Drakkenmensch]

"Just tell us everything you do all the time, and if something in there is a crime, you'll know it because you'll be arrested."

Re:The list of stupid questions grows larger

[powerspike]

Well 1/2 the issue with customs cards is they use the word illegal and don't give you the definitions etc, If you ever have watched the "customs" shows you'll see that 95% of the people don't believe they are doing anything wrong, let alone aware of it...

me

[psithurism]

who travels with porn?

Sometimes you can't find what you need in that country; sounds like Australia is pretty repressed, I don't think I could get enough of a fix there.

From the horses mouth...

[Barny]

Publications will be classified ‘RC’ :
(a) if they promote or provide instruction in paedophile activity;
or if they contain:
(b) descriptions or depictions of child sexual abuse or any other exploitative or
offensive descriptions or depictions involving a person who is, or appears to
be, a child under 18 ;
(c) detailed instruction in:
(i) matters of crime or violence,
(ii) the use of proscribed drugs;
(d) realistic depictions of bestiality;
or if they contain gratuitous, exploitative or offensive descriptions or depictions of:
(e) violence with a very high degree of impact which are excessively frequent,
emphasised or detailed;
(f) cruelty or real violence which are very detailed or which have a high
impact;
(g) sexual violence;
(h) sexualised nudity involving minors;
(i) sexual activity involving minors;
or if they contain exploitative descriptions or depictions of:
(j) violence in a sexual context;
(k) sexual activity accompanied by fetishes or practices which are revolting or
abhorrent;
(l) incest fantasies or other fantasies which are offensive or revolting or
abhorrent.

Now, some of these I agree with, some are worded badly, some are just wrong, and some leave things way too open to interpretation by the person who is judging you.

(k) sexual activity accompanied by fetishes or practices which are revolting or
abhorrent;

For instance, will stop you looking at any pictures of a girl ejaculating, because by the Classification Boards ruling, that is urination and "water sports" are abhorrent...

Yes, the laws are fucked, we are all doomed.

Conroy does down under

[wasabu]

Picture of Senator Conroy threatening to forcibly penetrate the Australian public with his massive NBN. Legal or not legal?

Too much....

[hesaigo999ca]

>Do you have any p0rn to declare sir?
>Yes...I have a donkey show on my camera, with clowns
>Next!

>Do you have any p0rn to declare sir?
>Yes...I have migets, with kittens being juggled, and a boa constrictor...
>Next!

>Do you have any p0rn to declare sir?
>Yes I have my mother and sister naked on my bed..
>Next!

>Do you have any p0rn to declare sir?
>I have a picture of Barry Manilow semi nude in Las Vegas....????
>Hands up against the wall, maggot, you think this is funny.....oh boy, you are going away for a long time pal!!!

Make Them NOT Want To Ask.....

[IHC Navistar]

I would say this calls for the Passive-Aggressive approach. There are several ways of implementing this: Physical Discomfort: 1. Carry a girlie mag in a bad filled with dirty laundry. Not just clothes you've worn for a day, but the truly nasty, revolting stuff, like a T-Shirt from a keg party (or 5) that was also used as a wash rag, or briefs full of skid marks. Bonus points for any of the following: Condoms with egg whites inside, year-old unwashed socks, or hand-cuffs. Super Bonus Points if you throw in a few pairs of ladies panties with a drop or two of fish oil on them (for that extra "WTF?!" factor). 2. Carry a thumb drive with "2 Girls - 1 Cup" on it. If you can, max out the drive with as many videos from that genre as you can. 3. Clean off your desktop, except for 1 folder labeled "XXX". Put in lots of photos of chicks posing with *lots* of guns and the American flag. 4. Lots of photos from the genre "World's (blank)iest (blank)". Mental Discomfort: 1. Nothing but sex toys. Include a copy of "Asset Allocation For Dummies". Give your occupation as "Smuggler". 2. Nothing but girlie mags, preferably from the '80s and '90s. Glue pictures of Margaret Thatcher over the faces of all the women. 3. A duffel bag with nothing but extra-large condoms. When they ask you if you are visiting for business or pleasure, fake an orgasm. 4. A duffel bag full of photos of kangaroos and condoms. Include a book on Animal Husbandry. Honestly, the best way to get someone to stop asking questions is to make them sorry they did in the first place. In high school, my buddies and I would sneak out and to stay up all night and pull pranks, go trash can bowling, play video games, and swill soda pop like there was no tomorrow. The next day, when I was red-eyed and incoherent, my mother would ask me what the hell I was doing all night and accuse me of sneaking out to do drugs. Whenever I told the truth, she'd angrily say I was lying, doing drugs, and sniff around trying to smell pot (which I didn't smoke). Finally, I told her we were sneaking out to sell mustard gas and C-4 to Ghadafi and his bunch of Libyan nationalists who were going to help us take over Europe. The inquisition stopped then and there.

Jake the peg

[ciaran_o_riordan]

They can try my megaviagra*, if they don't mind walking in tripod mode for the next twelve hours.

(Who'd a thunk it, the spam is all true!)

Re:The only way to change this

[petrus4]

Watch them also handcuff you to a chair, and throw you in solitary while they do it.

You won't be laughing by the end of that experience; and the law won't change.

Laws will start changing when and only when the public don't spend the majority of their time purely in front of TV, and whatever small amount of it is left, defending the government or police to anyone who would dare criticise their actions.

Until that happens, nothing will change.