Zorro Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 From the SMH "The Federal Government is introducing 10-year jail sentences for downloading child pornography but they won't be in force until February." I know this is a very controversial topic but are such long gaol sentences for downloading such material too severe? I mean these people obviously have severe emotional problems...apparently four committed suicide after the recent raids in Australia. I can understand these sort of sentences for child abuse but for viewing images now matter how disgusting i or you might think they are does seem a little too harsh. Thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
check_bin_krap Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 I think its also a reponsibility of ISP's to filter out such stuff from the net. If they provide you with a connection where such material can be found, its not right. They certainly can't do anything with people exchanging the shit via e-mails, but a good start would be to block sites with kiddie porn. The technology to do it exists. The ISP I am using is doing it now, and hopes to sell the SW to others. 10 yrs is harsh, that seems more appropiate for people who do more than download. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous_Dog Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 Not at all, the "need" to view, creates the need for "Content" and hence the existance of the content. By making it illegal to view, you cut off demand, and hopefully that will deminish the problem. DOG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khun_Kong Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 check_bin_krap said:I think its also a reponsibility of ISP's to filter out such stuff from the net. ... Damn, that's one slippery slope. Maybe the airlines can filter out the flights to Thailand from their schedules because of the pR0n industry. Who gets to decide what is the acceptable content? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbaron Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 10 yrs is harsh, that seems more appropiate for people who do more than download. If nobody downloaded it, nobody would be making it. Kids wouldn't be abused in this way. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 Exactly, but I thought this would be obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
check_bin_krap Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 I don't have any strong views about the punishment. But to improve the problem, its stupid not control it the ISP side. Its not an issue of freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
check_bin_krap Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Damn, that's one slippery slope. Maybe the airlines can filter out the flights to Thailand from their schedules because of the pR0n industry. Who gets to decide what is the acceptable content? Its not a slippery slope. SW can easily catch up on this these days. Nude kids = blocked. Would you accept that TV channels send kiddie porn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlton68 Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 @ Zorro: Yep, ten years is a bit much. But then someone who downloads only a few pics and forgets to delete them will most likely never been found out. Or comes out with a small fine and a slap if found out. As for the heavy users with harddrives full of pics and movies their demand creates more child abuse I would say. And I believe they won't stop with pics either. Some day the wanna do the real thing... If they want to fine the downloaders ten years, how much they gonna fine the producers/do-it-yourselfes? @check_bin: If we go your direction one day the ISPs have to approve every line before it can be posted in nanaplaza. I don't want to be monitored by big brother all the time. Responsible for content is who puts the content on the net. And if an ISP knows about the illegal nature of the content and don't take it down they are responsible, too (or if they make it too easy like a 'child porn upload page'). But this adds the law and then we are talking about which law applies, specially if they set up their servers on pitcairn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khun_Kong Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 check_bin_krap said: Damn, that's one slippery slope. Maybe the airlines can filter out the flights to Thailand from their schedules because of the pR0n industry. Who gets to decide what is the acceptable content? Its not a slippery slope. SW can easily catch up on this these days. Nude kids = blocked. Would you accept that TV channels send kiddie porn? Would you accept that world governments block nanaplaza.com? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.