Victoria Australia: amendments re children's photos of themselves which could be considered "pornography"

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 08:48:25PM +1000, Gil May wrote:
> Subject: : Victoria Legalizes Child Porn, check it out.
> Time for decent people to take a serious stand.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/AnthonyJC1983/videos/229304717949739/
> 
> I am speechless.  Have a look at what is shown as the Parliamentary Act put
> before the Parliament.



Interesting.

The de-criminalisation of natural/normal child activities (e.g.
taking pictures of themselves and others) is of course a good thing,
and appears to be the intent of these laws/ amendments that the OP
Subject line is referring to in a sensationalist way.

In fact the broad sweeping laws that were in place were broad and
sweeping, and failed to consider this situation of children doing
things children can be expeted to (and do) actually do - take photos
of themselves and friends.

Somewhat humorously and completely "non ironically" the narrator in
the linked video begins "Did you know, that the production,
possession and distribution of child pornography has been legalized
in Australia?" thus implicitly asserting (and inserting) himself into
the very same (and rightfully) dreaded 'censor' role or decider of
what is, and is not, pornography, that he later on highlights as
problematic (when he asks "who gets to decide what's reasonable").

As is usual with wanna be censors, those who would willingly make
such decisions for others, usually (as is the case here) don't want
others to make censorship decisions for themselves ("I would make
great censorship decisions!" "MY Marxist utopio would -really- be a
utopia, unlike all those other failed experiements in history!")


Unfortunately the narrator does not see this very irony of him
calling out the legislative trap ("Whom will make the decisions of
a reasonable man"), and completely falling into the same trap
throughout his entire video ("Child pornography of those images taken
by say 12 year olds of their own bodies, is still pornography and the
law must make no exception for this, and I'll decide what is and is
not pornographic").

Every "allegation" of "pornography" (or in this case the alleged
"legalization of child pornography") is necessarily a judgement call
founded on what is and what is not pornography, which of course
cannot be made except that the one making the allegation is defining,
or is willing to define and believes they are capable of defining,
"pornography" or in this case "child pornography" - which in any case
is essentially impossible to define other than "I know it when I see
it" which falls back to the arrogantly self implied "great moral
standing" of the one deigning to make such decisions on behalf of
others/ the rest of us.

The trap is self referential, and subtle, thus circuitous and
repetitive in most attempts to unravel it.

This subtlety is the reason cries of "please, won't someone think of
the children and save them (from themselves)" is both so appealing
yet so deceptive to many and simultaneously alluring to the virtue-
signalling SJW wanna bes, and thus also difficult for many to counter
(or rather "to straighten out the underlying assumptions which don't
quite make sense but I just can't quite figure out why").


Put another way, one Soul's personal childhood explorations and
memories, are another Soul's "pornography".

As in, literally.

Perhaps does the one brandishing the accusation stick of "your image
is pornographic, you must suffer the law" tell us more about the one
making this accusation, than the target of his accusation?

  Matthew 7:5: “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine
  own eye; and only then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote
  out of thy brother's eye.”
  https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-7-5/


Many humans project their own sin (incorrect direction, of action,
attention etc), fears, and painful personal past events, upon others,
naturally (but mostly incorrectly) assuming others have a similar
lense to themselves - the age old projectionism trap.


Something constructive? May be require that every legislated crime
name an actual victim, as well as the actual harm that victim has
actually suffered. And perhaps leave it to parents, rather than
police and the courts, to educate their children on the dangers of
sharing with others, images they take of themselves.

(And while we're at it, work hard to reduce or eliminate all
victimless crimes, putting humans first and corporations last in our
scheme of values.)



For an absolute classic (and very recent) example of projectionism in
action, see Lana Lockteff on Suzanne Harper (the so called "Jessie
Daniels")

  Feminist Professor: White Nuclear Families Are Racist & Supremacist
  Red Ice TV
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yR1BBlGI1M

Jessie/ Suzanne is virulently anti-White, speaks of "dismantling
white supremacy", the evils of the "white nuclear family" being "one
of the most powerful forces supporting white supremacy" etc etc etc
...

... and according to her own story (IF true), Suzanne was molested
by her grandfather and he'd had a stint in the KKK, yet this
"professor" Suzanne cannot see her projection of her (if true)
painful past, upon all white people and all "white nuclear families"
and "the patriarchy".

Go figure :D - perhaps she ought take a university course on
psychology.

Those with genuine unresolved issues arising from their childhood
ought seek the help they need to find healing, resolution, closure
and peace within themselves before one-sidely branding as evil an
entire race or people (in Suzanne Harper's case, all "white" people
and especially "white nuclear families").


A far greater problem which we actually appear to have and which
actually affects most of us, is the blackmailing of our politicians,
which since "the legalization" of those of the same gender who would
"get a room" and otherwise carry out their intimate business in
private, is these days limited to cuckoldry and pedophilia blackmail.

Perhaps those eager to decry legislation without even a word to the
problems inherent in the position they boldly oppose, ought ponder
this question of our blackmailed politicians. Assuming of course they
don't melt before hearing a position other than their own...


Create your world. Perhaps first "clean up your room" which
metaphorically speaking could include seeking closure on any painful
events from your own childhood if that's something you need, and
after this you might even find that some of those you love to hate
are actually interesting, caring, deeply thoughtful, and possibly
even loving, creative and wonderful fellow human beings.