A new on-line petition has been created @ http://www.petitiononline.com/ausphoto/petition.html
Please consider this petition carefully, as the outcome of current
discussions will effect everyone who takes pictures.
Petition Author: "We need to have as many people sign this as
possible. In a few weeks (assuming the petition is well supported) we
will arrange for it to be sent to all MPs within State and Federal
parliament. I'm sure there are a few of us that have regular contact
with politicians through work or private lives, so we need to start
using these connections.
Also, for members of other groups and clubs, please send this link to
them for their support."
Why the petition? I am glad you asked........
This appeared in the Sunday Telegraph 11 Mar 2007
Quote:
TACKLING CAMERA PERVERTS
Beaches and other public areas could become camera-free zones with a
national working committee meeting next month to consider new
legislation.
Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock said uniform laws were needed to
protect women and children at beaches, on public transport and at
sporting events.
He said unauthorised photography was "clearly a problem" and the new
laws could result in a maximum two-year jail sentence.
The reforms follow several recent well-published reports of so-called
"up-skirting".
At the Australian Open in January, three men were charged in separate
incidents for using small hidden cameras to secretly film up women's
skirts.
A man was also caught in January taking photographs up women's shirts
on Melbourne trams.
The Standing Committee of Attorney-Generals, made up of all State
attorney-generals, released a discussion paper on the need for new
laws to control unauthorised photography.
Surf Lifesaving Australia was among those who made a submission. It is
paricularly concerned at protecting its 40,000 young members.
"We have a duty of care to protect our members," Sean O'Connell , of
Surf Lifesaving Australia, said.
"There is no way of regulating how photos of children are used.
"We just want some clarity and consistency in the legislation."
Coogee beach was hit by a spate of voyeures who used their mobile
phone cameras to take photographs of female sunbathers, some of them
topless.
A 25-year-old labourer became the first man convicted of using his
phone for offensive purposes in December 2004 and was fined $500.
Some men have been spotted using digital cameras to snap topless
beachgoers.
:Unquote
Annika1980 - 11 Mar 2007 06:58 GMT
On Mar 10, 10:46 pm, m...@pixelpix.com.au wrote:
> Coogee beach was hit by a spate of voyeures who used their mobile
> phone cameras to take photographs of female sunbathers, some of them
> topless.
>
> A 25-year-old labourer became the first man convicted of using his
> phone for offensive purposes in December 2004 and was fined $500.
Can someone please explain to me how a woman going topless is not
offensive, yet a photographer who takes her photo is?
John Phillips - 11 Mar 2007 07:49 GMT
>Can someone please explain to me how a woman going topless is not
>offensive, yet a photographer who takes her photo is?
The first instance is not offensive; the second instance is a fine
example of the political correctness sh.t taking over this country.
kosh - 11 Mar 2007 12:35 GMT
> On Mar 10, 10:46 pm, m...@pixelpix.com.au wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Can someone please explain to me how a woman going topless is not
> offensive, yet a photographer who takes her photo is?
or even better... a person who makes a decision to show her bosom in
public has more rights than a person who 'sees' it!
kosh
kosh - 11 Mar 2007 12:40 GMT
> On Mar 10, 10:46 pm, m...@pixelpix.com.au wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Can someone please explain to me how a woman going topless is not
> offensive, yet a photographer who takes her photo is?
interestingly enough... I was wactching a show on tv tonight... some
kids were playing and having fun in a playground.... someone brought
along a puppy. A female photographer procedes to pull out her camera and
start capturing the moment.... the thought occured to me, if it was a
male photogrpaher he would be the one being captured by the authorities!
a bit one sided?
kosh
Graham Fountain - 11 Mar 2007 09:05 GMT
Looks like a letter to little Johnny, Ruddock, Rudd, Bleatty and the local
members is in order.
I question the value of online petitions though - I think the pen on paper
type are more effective.
>A new on-line petition has been created @
>http://www.petitiononline.com/ausphoto/petition.html
[quoted text clipped - 66 lines]
>
> :Unquote
David Fairbrother - 11 Mar 2007 09:31 GMT
> Looks like a letter to little Johnny, Ruddock, Rudd, Bleatty and the
> local members is in order.
> I question the value of online petitions though - I think the pen on
> paper type are more effective.
Print 'em out and send them.
I'm surprised at Ruddock. I thought he had more common sense.
Lionel - 11 Mar 2007 09:51 GMT
>> Looks like a letter to little Johnny, Ruddock, Rudd, Bleatty and the
>> local members is in order.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>I'm surprised at Ruddock. I thought he had more common sense.
Common sense has nothing to do with it, the prick's always looking for
another excuse to increase governmental control over we rabble.

Signature
W "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
. | ,. w ,
\|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
mail@pixelpix.com.au - 15 Mar 2007 21:58 GMT
Now the freedom of the press is under attack! :-(
.........................
Australia's press freedoms lag
March 15, 2007 04:00am
Article from: AAP
http://www.news.com.au/... .../story/0,21985,21385591-5005961,00.html
INCREASING police and government intervention in the media has dragged
Australia's press freedoms below those of many former Soviet bloc
countries, according to the international journalism watchdog.
The Australian branch of the Commonwealth Press Union has been told
Australia is ranked 35th on the Reporters Without Borders 2006 Index
of Press Freedom, down from a ranking of 31 in 2005.
"Australia's slide into a state of secrecy accelerated in 2006,"
Warren Beeby, chairman of the CPU Australia section, told the union's
annual general meeting.
Mr Beeby said regular incursions by the Australian Federal Police into
newsrooms to unearth journalists' sources and Federal Government laws
to gag the media and intimidate public servants were alarming.
Reporters Without Borders cited several reasons for Australia's poor
ranking on press freedom, which it said put it "well behind a raft of
former Soviet bloc countries and less developed nations like Bolivia,
Costa Rica and Namibia".
The list included the convictions of Herald-Sun journalists Gerard
McManus and Michael Harvey for contempt of court for refusing to
divulge the source of a story, reporting bans under anti-terrorism
laws, a ban on journalists interviewing refugees and the High Court's
failure to support Freedom of Information laws.
Mr Beeby said Federal Treasurer Peter Costello's successful action to
prevent The Australian newspaper publishing details of taxation
"bracket creep" and details of the first home buyers' scheme
exemplified the Government's obsession with secrecy.
"The crackdown is seen not only as an attempt to deter journalists
from breaking news out of Canberra, but also as a bid to intimidate
public servants," said Mr Beeby, News Limited's group editorial
manager and a director of AAP.
"At the same time, federal and state governments employ spin doctors
in their hundreds to ensure only approved versions of stories see the
light of day and to keep reporters off the scent of adverse or
controversial stories."
He also said suppression orders and restrictions on media access to
court documents help make Australia's legal system "one of the least
transparent in the developed world".
"In further potential blows to investigative journalism, the
Australian Law Reform Commission is reviewing the media exemption in
the Privacy Act, despite there being no major concerns about its
operation,and the federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, wants bans
to be imposed on the taking of photographs in public places."
Mr Beeby also warned media companies to be wary of a trend among
sporting bodies to sell exclusive web and mobile phone rights to
sponsors.
"Some sports are also selling official photographic rights with the
apparent intent of eventually excluding newspaper photographers from
games, so that only approved pictures will be issued for publication,"
he said.
"It is a problem that newspaper companies will have to monitor closely
as the football season gets under way."
Mr.T - 16 Mar 2007 07:08 GMT
> "Some sports are also selling official photographic rights with the
> apparent intent of eventually excluding newspaper photographers from
> games, so that only approved pictures will be issued for publication,"
> he said.
Since these sports rely on publicity as much as the papers rely on sports
coverage, I would think simply ignoring coverage of any sport that refuses
to supply photographer passes should bring them to their senses eventually.
MrT.