 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / October 2008Photography related news report
On the radio news today, I caught a snippet of a news story that parliament is draughting new laws banning the photography of nude children. Didn't go into much detail but said that artistic merit wouldn't be an excuse. I've had a quick look around some of the aussie news sites (ninemsn, news.com, abc) and haven't seen any further detail about this. Being a weekend, the local radio gets it's news from Sydney, so not even sure if it is a NSW thing or a National thing. I did find a frequent news article that the NSW govt is increasing penalties for pedophilia. Without knowing the actual details of the proposed legislation I guess I can't comment to much, but I do find it disturbing that they would be banning photography of nude children. Where will the line be drawn between pedophilia and art? I'd hazard a guess that pretty much every parent has at some stage taken photos of their kids in the nude. Are we likely to be treated as a criminal if we get them printed at a lab, or show them to someone else? Doug Jewell wrote,on my timestamp of 26/10/2008 10:37 PM: > On the radio news today, I caught a snippet of a news story that > parliament is draughting new laws banning the photography of nude [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > likely to be treated as a criminal if we get them printed at a lab, or > show them to someone else? Barry O'Fart is the one behind that. As usual, jumps at anything to show he's "holier-than-thou"... Would have been a LOT more useful if he had had the guts to take over the Libs BEFORE the last election. Instead of hiding behind a scapegoat and then pouncing when no one dares put their hand up for top job. Says a lot of the character of the bastard... Doug Jewell wrote,on my timestamp of 26/10/2008 10:37 PM: > On the radio news today, I caught a snippet of a news story that > parliament is draughting new laws banning the photography of nude > children. Didn't go into much detail but said that artistic merit > wouldn't be an excuse. > I've had a quick look around some of the aussie news sites (ninemsn, > news.com, abc) and haven't seen any further detail about this. Actually, not as bad as I thought it'd be: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/new-sexcrime-laws/2008/10/26/1224955838300.html In its current form it's fine and I support it. It addresses crap sites that deal in child pornography, and their users. But if Barry O'Fart gets his way ALL children photography will be banned, period. > Doug Jewell wrote,on my timestamp of 26/10/2008 10:37 PM: >> On the radio news today, I caught a snippet of a news story that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > But if Barry O'Fart gets his way ALL children photography > will be banned, period. Source? > Doug Jewell wrote,on my timestamp of 26/10/2008 10:37 PM: >> On the radio news today, I caught a snippet of a news story that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > But if Barry O'Fart gets his way ALL children photography > will be banned, period. Thanks for the link - it's NSW only so doesn't directly affect me (yet), but judging by what that SMH link says, it looks ok. Certainly increased penalties for offenders against children I support. That article says it wouldn't have affected Henson, so it obviously has very little to do with artistic photography - a bit different to the comments I heard on the radio, which said all nude photography of children would be banned. Wouldn't be the first time a journo has made stuff up for a story. Personally I don't have a problem with Henson's work, although some of the shots I've seen were possibly a bit borderline. I think what is more important than the nature of the resulting image is the effect it has on the child. If the child is happy to do it (and in my experience it is sometimes hard to get young children to keep their clothes ON), then there is no harm from it. Things like taking photographs of kids at the beach / sport etc - big deal. The child is not affected at all. If the photos end up being used by a pedo, then by all means prosecute the pedo to the limit of the law. But the fact remains the child hasn't been harmed in any way by the photography. Considering the vast majority of this type of photography would be done innocently (parents, street photogs etc), then why punish the majority for the actions of the minority. The way the media has portrayed this type of photography, it presents the photographer as being a criminal. Sure photography is a tool of the pedophile, but the government and media need to remember it is the pedophilia which is the crime, not the photography. Doug Jewell wrote,on my timestamp of 27/10/2008 10:12 AM: > children would be banned. Wouldn't be the first time a journo has made > stuff up for a story. Bingo! > Personally I don't have a problem with Henson's work, although some of > the shots I've seen were possibly a bit borderline. It's all a matter of taste, I suppose. His work is not my cuppa either but if others like it and it's not offensive or pornographic, all good. > Things like taking photographs of kids at the beach / sport etc - big > deal. The child is not affected at all. If the photos end up being used > by a pedo, then by all means prosecute the pedo to the limit of the law. > But the fact remains the child hasn't been harmed in any way by the > photography. I just had a bunfight with a local organization running futsal. According to them I wouldn't be able to take photos of my son playing because it might be "misused in a web site". Never mind I'm the father, it's my photos, they are not used in "websites" and the kids are FAR from naked when playing futsal, anyways: talk about over-reaction! In fact, anyone likening kids playing futsal to nude photos is the one that needs treatment, IMO. And urgently! Moral of the story, after a few complaints to Attorney General's and Football NSW: of course I can take photos, if other parents do not specifically ask me not to. And I'm OK with that. > Considering the vast majority of this type of photography would be done > innocently (parents, street photogs etc), then why punish the majority > for the actions of the minority. Absolutely! One thing is pornographic photos. Another COMPLETELY different one is parents taking photos of their own kids, in public venues: the two things could not possibly be more apart, except in the heads of lunatic "law-makers" and stupid media! > The way the media has portrayed this type of photography, it presents > the photographer as being a criminal. Sure photography is a tool of the > pedophile, but the government and media need to remember it is the > pedophilia which is the crime, not the photography. Couldn't agree more. And I'll keep reminding do-gooders of that, rest assured! <snip> > I just had a bunfight with a local organization running futsal. > According to them I wouldn't be able to take photos of my son playing > because it might be "misused in a web site". Its just SO bizarre, that medieval style mentality. I simply cannot understand the thinking at all. Where did it come from?? It just seemed to emerge from out of nowhere a few years ago, shortly after 9/11. > it's my photos, they are not used in "websites" and the kids are FAR > from naked when playing futsal, anyways: talk about over-reaction! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Football NSW: of course I can take photos, if other parents do not > specifically ask me not to. And I'm OK with that. Well done, really. It was a relief to hear that you stood your ground. I'm glad it wasn't me in your shoes, because this sort of thing really, REALLY angers me. I'm not sure if I could respond 'appropriately' if directly faced with those kind of people. Imagine how much worse it'll get if these aberrant freaks hold even more sway politically. > Imagine how much worse it'll get if these aberrant freaks hold even more > sway politically. It's just these sort of morons who like to control other peoples lives, that run for political positions unfortunately. Local Councils being the worst IME. MrT. >> Imagine how much worse it'll get if these aberrant freaks hold even >> more sway politically. > > It's just these sort of morons who like to control other peoples lives, > that run for political positions unfortunately. Local Councils being the > worst IME. Councils... I'm getting my first taste of councils right now. I bought this property last July - I've had 5 bills already from the local council, theyve since increased the value of the property (gee, what a surprise). They also closed the local tip last week and now we are supposed to do a 52KM round trip to dump rubbish. Oh yeah, sure, no worries... However - on this last point - I am in the midst of a guerilla campagn of sorts. Jeßus wrote,on my timestamp of 28/10/2008 9:40 AM: >> It's just these sort of morons who like to control other peoples lives, >> that run for political positions unfortunately. Local Councils being the >> worst IME. > > Councils... > I'm getting my first taste of councils right now. Hehe! Mine hates me since I exposed their "rain water recovery" campaign as a scam of the worst kind... ;) > I bought this property last July - I've had 5 bills already from the > local council, theyve since increased the value of the property (gee, > what a surprise). Wrote a letter to mine this year: property prices have been going down in this area, yet they raised my land valuation! I just wanted to know who their "valuer" was so I can introduce them to my bank... If prices go down, so MUST land valuations: simple as that. What's good for the goose... > They also closed the local tip last week and now we are supposed to do a > 52KM round trip to dump rubbish. Oh yeah, sure, no worries... > However - on this last point - I am in the midst of a guerilla campagn of > sorts. Oh, but they raised their rates? nice... Ombudsman folks love that sort of attitude. >If prices go down, so MUST land valuations: >simple as that. What's good for the goose... Makes absolutely no difference to rates if they all go down in value, since the council first sets the amount of income they want, then calculates the "cents in the dollar" rate to provide that amount. If you can prove your property is worth less than others in the area, you can challenge their valuation whenever one is made. >> They also closed the local tip last week and now we are supposed to do a >> 52KM round trip to dump rubbish. Oh yeah, sure, no worries... >Oh, but they raised their rates? >Ombudsman folks love that sort of attitude. How? I've never heard of them doing anything about councils ability to set their rates. We had a 20% increase a couple of years ago, and they blow their own trumpet whenever it is less than 5% *ABOVE* CPI (usually *much* more than that). I sure wish my income matched the increases in council rates, as does everyone else I know! MrT. Mr.T wrote,on my timestamp of 29/10/2008 6:08 PM: >> If prices go down, so MUST land valuations: >> simple as that. What's good for the goose... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > property is worth less than others in the area, you can challenge their > valuation whenever one is made. Their main justification for increasing rates is that land valuations have gone up. I simply challenge that assertion, given the well known and very real drop in prices, and will start challenging the local rate rises from next year. And let me tell you: it ain't just me. There is a very large group of residents here who are gonna do exactly that as well. >>> They also closed the local tip last week and now we are supposed to do a >>> 52KM round trip to dump rubbish. Oh yeah, sure, no worries... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I sure wish my income matched the increases in council rates, as does > everyone else I know! In NSW there is a cap on how much councils can raise their rates. Look it up. They are trying to abolish it but that won't fly. And if it does, there will definitely be an adjustment to land valuations. > >> If prices go down, so MUST land valuations: > >> simple as that. What's good for the goose... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Their main justification for increasing rates is > that land valuations have gone up. At least ours takes trouble to point out overall land values have NO affect on overall rates, which is a simple fact. > I simply > challenge that assertion, given the well known [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is a very large group of residents here who > are gonna do exactly that as well. I'm glad you have time to waste, since it will get you nowhere. You can however challenge the valuation when the next one is made. Fact: council costs are not linked to property prices. The *only* things that govern council rates (or any tier of government taxation) are how much they can get away with, and how much demand for services there are. How they are actually calculated is pretty ad-hoc with some councils charging for Land Value, some for Capital Improved Value, and some with a degree of user pays (ie garbage collection etc.) Fairness is not even an after-thought for most, let alone a real consideration! > In NSW there is a cap on how much councils > can raise their rates. You're lucky then. Not interested in ever living in NSW though. >Look it up. No point, I'll take your word for it. MrT. Mr.T wrote,on my timestamp of 30/10/2008 2:35 PM: > You're lucky then. Not interested in ever living in NSW though. ya don't know what you're missing... ;) (been going down the tubes for a looong time...) > Jeßus wrote,on my timestamp of 28/10/2008 9:40 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > campaign as a scam of the worst kind... > ;) Good to hear :) >> I bought this property last July - I've had 5 bills already from the >> local council, theyve since increased the value of the property (gee, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > property prices have been going down in this area, yet they raised my > land valuation! Yeah, funny that! > I just wanted to know who their "valuer" was so I can introduce them to > my bank... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Oh, but they raised their rates? No, not exactly. They just decided to 'revalue' the property I bought back in July - in their favour, of course. They sent me a bill for $2- something. I've had 3 or 4 bills from the council since July - mostly for small amounts, but very annoying. Why could they not just stick it on next years rates... > nice... > Ombudsman folks love that sort of attitude. Hmm, maybe. Not sure how hot they'd be on councils? I'm not finished with 'em regarding the local tip, however... Jeßus wrote,on my timestamp of 31/10/2008 7:47 AM: > I'm not finished with 'em regarding the local tip, however... You get stuck on them! ;) > Jeßus wrote,on my timestamp of 31/10/2008 7:47 AM: > >> I'm not finished with 'em regarding the local tip, however... >> > You get stuck on them! > ;) Well, I'm sure certain councillors will appreciate the garbage dumped in their driveways. >> Jeßus wrote,on my timestamp of 31/10/2008 7:47 AM: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Well, I'm sure certain councillors will appreciate the garbage dumped in > their driveways. Just make sure you don't have any envelopes in there. Otherwise they'll be taking 8x10 glossy colour photographs and adding circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back. (Just to bring it back on topic.) Jeßus wrote,on my timestamp of 27/10/2008 7:09 PM: > Imagine how much worse it'll get if these aberrant freaks hold even more > sway politically. A big part of the problem is the ignorant media looking for anything to hype up mass histeria reactions. Goebbels would be proud of the media we have nowadays: most of the techniques used come straight out of his teachings! Those who ignore history are forever condemned to repeat it... >Those who ignore history are forever condemned >to repeat it... Just ask the bankers. MrT. > Jeßus wrote,on my timestamp of 27/10/2008 7:09 PM: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > teachings! > Those who ignore history are forever condemned to repeat it... You're preaching to the choir here Noons. I moved into here last July and I still don't think I've actually connected the TV antenna to the TV, and I have no plans to do so at this stage. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.