Victoria Australia: amendments re children's photos of themselves which could be considered "pornography"
zen at freedbms.net
Mon Jul 8 23:21:06 PDT 2019
Blackmail 1-0-1 :
Before SHTF, Let's Revisit Jeffrey Epstein's Little Black Book
Step 1 is understand the problem, a necessary first step required for
any possibility of handling this deep state problem.
On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 09:44:44PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> 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.
> 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.”
> 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
> Feminist Professor: White Nuclear Families Are Racist & Supremacist
> Red Ice TV
> 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
> 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.
More information about the cypherpunks