Posts by mark taslov
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Quickly quickly Emma! Clear the Cache!
-
It seems to me that the guilty parties will continue to find access to this stuff, no matter what, links or no links, censorship or no censorship, just like everything else in life, and personally I feel the less (involving children) that is made the better. I might get my head bitten off, but I'd feel a little more comfortable knowing that people who 'needed' it were given counselling and controlled access to old stock with consent of those involved, than prohibition forcing more DIY creations. Who are we tryng to protect? The children or the internet?
-
Nice post Steven, a number of interesting points you broach re ownership, fair use, and the disparities with the way other violent acts are represented. as you say;
"to reject all methods of communicating and understanding the atrocities of war,"
that's really the crux what is needed for significant social progress imho, communication and understanding, compassionately and without fear of being shouted out of the forum of discourse, respect.
-
And the Australian Classification Board's website has been hacked.
had a laugh...blame China...
-
I'd not ever be in favour of using real children to produce pornography in any way, no matter how manipulated the images were, for the reasons Sam stated:
Even the tamest softcore including actual adults is predicated upon the consent of the adults appearing. Minors by definition can't give that consent and goodness knows what the long-term psychological ramifications would be of growing up knowing pornographic images of you had been passed around the Internet during your childhood without your consent.
Yeah I agree with this totally Emma, although I find the line is also blurred by Hollywood children who can 'give consent', hence my dubiousness about 'the blue lagoon' with its oftcore underage sex scene. There are quite a number of films where children are cast in very iffy non hardcore roles, such as Kubrick's Lolita, Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver. And Sam Mendes American Beauty. While films such as 'the reader' are still being made, Polanski remains at large.
But what I'm really aiming at here is 'people' who are drawn from scratch, and animated, as in Gollum / Smeagol. Around the world two bit portrait artists are sitting in crowded malls making attempts that end up looking in no way simiilar to their models, and yet often they do look like people. Add some colours, blur and shadng and you have a photo realistic image (of noone), add another drawing and you have an animated photo realistic movie.
You are proposing that drawings are not necessarily blacklisted Emma, And I'm curious as how do you define drawings in this case? Or at which stage in the process do images crossover to the realm of 'harmful'?
on a side note
Youtube's been down for a week here, something untoward is obviously going on and being posted, this being the 50th anniversary year of that particular event, made me think more about section 92A, re: the uploading of copyright material, why not just do what they do here, block the site until the site removes the content. Saves everyone's Internet connections, at least with regard to uploads.
-
I can't work out what I did that was good,so now you've got me worried... :)
You didn't accusatorially question my motives.
might leave this one for the night I think. :)
yeah, fair dos.
-
Thanks Sam F
-
Like Emma said;
It'd be incredibly tricky to determine if, say, a film clip featuring a man appearing to be strangled was real or simulated, consensual or non-con. But I don't think that means that you take the easy way out like the British have and ban and prosecute simulation or consensual rough sex.
and also earlier
Likewise, we need to get the paranoia out of the issue.
Which does seem to be a considerable problem.
Which is, actually, the only way I percieve your posts leading-
and I really wonder about his motives in doing so-
-
I've had a think about that, knowing full well that there probably are pornographic images of myself as a child out there, or in a shoe box somewhere. I'd imagine the psychological ramifications would be that I would feel angry,<quote>
My apologies Steven if I seem crass in my writing, I'm not so much thinking of images of people. As images that look like people, For example Manga, or anything more realistic, Emma made the dictinction
<quote>Producers of child pornography are aggressively prosecuted. (That's actual child pornography that involves harm to actual children, not fiction or drawings.) This might sound like a no-brainer, but in Finland, if a child pornography site is detected, it's added to the black-list. The end.
No one really seemed to take issue with that. There were calls of 'Emma for teh Interweb Czar!' and I'd second that. I'm just concerned, were this to be the case, where is the line between drawing and non drawing?
-whoop de doo: I'm a poet.
I know Islander but I didn't realise you are also a digital forensics expert. How would I know that? the way you mock me, you act like it should be common knowledge that you are a digital forensics expert, but dude, I swear you never mentioned it before, what qualifications did you have to earn to have that authority?
I originally wrote this before I saw your reply Islander:
Thanks for your understanding guys, I really feel a bit iffy writing about this. But I should clarify that I am attempting to describe the implications of the 'hardcore' stuff in the digital age and the difficulty we will (if not already) soon face in delineating the real from the recreation. I'm basically making a case for necessity of digital forensics in the application of Emma's vision for censorship, based on the fact that I as a layman am increasingly unable to discern the blurred line between photography/ cinematography and manufactured reality in the visual mediums.
I find your aggressive take, a little overwhelming Islander. I merely wanted to discuss Emma's idea about making the problematic distinction between fiction and harmful material, and examine the problems therein. I don't have any illusions about my writing skill, I'm just trying to get some thoughts down. I'm truly sorry to have angered you.
-
Does mark taslov actually *know* what child pornography is?
who are you asking Islander?
It aint photos of naked kids.
It is photos/video streams of raped and otherwise molestested - frequently tortured(as tho' rape wasnt torture enough) - kids.It is photos Islander
and it is moviesAnd this is the digital age.
I spent 5 years of my life on the Indecent Publications Tribunal, and we did have contact with the visual stuff (the now-Chief Censor was also on that Tribunal) as well the graphic or written stuff.
and that's all very well, but the technology is there now. YOu can talk around me, or through me or whatever you like Islander, but the technology which enables you to do so, is the same technology, which suspends disbelief in the cinema and showed us Forrest Gump chatting with John Lennon (obviously without his approval).
In Saving Private Ryan or'The hostel' getting the actors were unharmed. And so the assumption that all visual representation resulted in harm to the models/actors is groundless. Otherwise Jar Jar Binks would be dead by now. How many kills did Peter make in Prince Caspian, and was the 15 year old Brooke Shields harmed by the making of 'Blue Lagoon', some may argue yes.
When we have solid evidence of actual harm, Then we should also prevent the making of this kind of entertainment. But as of now, when it can be produced without harm, even without actors, merely digital renditions. Then I don't think it is without wisdom to very carefully evaluate where we as societies draw the lines and with what motives, in light of the Finnish case Emma mentioned.Sam F - it seems mark taslov is making 'this case' - and I really wonder about his motives in doing so-
My motive is I'm an art history major, and I find that art receives far too much blame for the faults of humanity, while the core problems remain unaddressed.
I think we should just forget the last 3 lines of his post - they're definitely in huffdom territory.
these four lines here Islander;
<quote>By denying those unforgiveable persons the right to appease their desires with minimal harm, There is stll the nagging sense that we are but firemen licking the tip of the flame with a weak and oft misguided spray.<quote>
regard them as you will, but strangely I not under the illusion that banning child pornography is going to go far towards, stemming pedophilaa, neither am I of the opinion that incarcerating them all, will prevent them from breeding or popping up 'randomly'.