It’s been a heck of a start to the year for our family. I’ve been slogging my way through a job which has allowed me to categorically state that the most boring place in the country is Clive. Sorry, Clive. Incidentally, we’ve discovered the way in which hunting down and then bagging, tagging and weighing a house consumes your entire existence. And then you look at a calendar and think, “Oh my goodness gracious me*, we leave for Foo Camp in two days!”
And you know, I’d had such good intentions for being useful, and what I foresee happening now is, “Hi, I’m… wait, I know this one. Does anyone know a good moving company?”
Public Address has been working its arse off lately, so it’s only fair that somebody lets the side down. So I apologise for the way I have neglected Up Front, and I can promise you both ragey sarcasm and weird news from the world of erotic publishing later in the month. Or after our possession date, or something.
In the meantime, I have not so much a column as a question I want to ask, sparked by the discussion around the Big Aussie Small Breast Controversy.
See, what Graeme says here is quite correct:
Our laws ban material that encourages the sexual exploitation of children. If pornography involving only actresses aged 18+ encourages the sexual exploitation of children (for example, by using actresses that look younger than 18, in situations that suggest they are younger than 18), then it will fall foul of the law.
It’s interesting, I think, to consider the idea that what the DIA insists on calling “child sexual abuse images” don’t have to involve children, or sexual abuse, or be images.
So here’s the question I want to consider. If you could phrase your answers so they could be cribbed directly into a discussion on internet filtering, I promise to try to remember to mention your name. Probably to my building inspector.
Under what circumstances should it be illegal to look at a picture of something it is legal to do?
*paraphrasing, obviously
