Ultimate dumb porn law showdown

[ManaUser]

You've got 60 days to dispose of any "extreme" porn you happen to have.

If you're unsure what to do with it, just send it to me and I will make the appropriate arrangements. Thank you for your cooperation.

[Xero]

what a bunch of useless cunts
if you don't know what you're doing fucking step down

[Wipperwill]

Morons. Fascism or communism, why is the world going to either one? What happened to moderation?

[ManaUser]

Well at least they're not planning to filter the whole internet.

[Aeridus]

Ugh, I'm so glad attempts like that in the USA were eventually shot down.

[TellTaleHeart]

The article has a link to this pic, I wonder how many people have right-click-saved it.

Fortunately the law includes this part:

(5) So, for example, where—
(a) an image forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of images, and
(b) having regard to those images as a whole, they are not of such a nature that they must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal,
the image may, by virtue of being part of that narrative, be found not to be pornographic, even though it might have been found to be pornographic if taken by itself.

This means that your copy of A Clockwork Orange is perfectly legal, despite the fact that it shows a violent rape that eventually leads to the death of the victim. However, if you have an excerpt consisting of just the rape scene, that could get you prosecuted.

What amuses me is this part:

Defences: general
(1) Where a person is charged with an offence under section 63, it is a defence for the person to prove any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2).
(2) The matters are—
(a) that the person had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the image concerned;

If you are an anti-child pornogaphy crusader, it appears that you will be allowed to possess child porn.

(the full law can be found here)

[ManaUser]

Okay, Australia wins

It seems a man was recently charged with "accessing child abuse material, downloading child abuse material and uploading child abuse material with the intent to distribute" for a video he found online and posted to a popular video sharing site.

There's some debate about whether it's really abuse, apparently the kid looks pretty happy, one comment on the news story even says "My uncle used to do that to me, and I loved it so much I remember it 40 years later."

So what was depicted in the video? A baby being swung around by his arms. (To be fair, it does look unsafe.)

See for yourself (unless you live in Australia).
Or read the news story, which I assume is safe even for Aussies... but you never know.

[Churba]

There's only one, Kevin Rudd! (and he's a cunt!) X10

[Aeridus]

Well, the baby certainly seems old enough to have proper neck support already, and seems ecstatic (and just a little bit dizzy) after the "performance"...

Even still, he was swinging that baby around awfully fast... I was cringing a bit.

[ManaUser]

Not to be outdone, British ISPs are now censoring Wikipedia. At issue is the infamous Virgin Killer album cover. Most of them have blocked the text of the associated article as well, and did the filtering in a way that has interfered with the ability of their users to edit any page on Wikipedia.

[Aeridus]

Ugh.

[Heart]

This is probably the most media exposure the Scorpions have had in years.

[Churba]

This is probably the most media exposure the Scorpions have had in years.

Hey, don't forget about Little Nicky and Guitar Hero 3, both of which featured "Rock you like a hurricane" Pretty prominently.

[ManaUser]

Oz regains the lead. Not only has U.K.'s IWF has backed down on the Wiki article ban, but a judge from Down Under has confirmed that, yes, rule 34 on the Simpsons is illegal child porn.

[Churba]

I am incredibly ashamed on behalf of my entire nation that one of our Judges basically just gave cartoons Human rights.

[Heart]

This opens the door for people to claim their Simpsons DVDs as dependents and to apply for government assistance.

[Aeridus]

Looks like I can't take that Lisa Simpson blow-up doll with me to Australia now. Darn.

[Churba]

Looks like I can't take that Lisa Simpson blow-up doll with me to Australia now. Darn.

Shit, why do you think I left?

[Kittyboymuffin]

Ah, stupidity. Where would we be without you.

(Scott Adams once, during one of his "philosotainment" moments, suggested that if God exists, he must have created humanity to amuse him with how stupid we are.)

[ManaUser]

Okay, I've been remiss in keeping you up to date on this insanity. No doubt there have been other impressive attempts in the mean time. But it looks like Australia may have finally gone too far.

Apparently the official Aussie censors board (or whatever) has decided to start rejecting any porn featuring small-breasts, on the grounds that obviously only a pedophile would find that attractive, or something.

And this hasn't got as much press, but apparently they're also down on female ejaculation. Why? Because it's "abhorrent".