Victory...sort of

The Attorney has apparently heard the will of the people (here).
I still think that if you say something you should be prepared to stand up and be counted, but practicalities recognise that some are more vulnerable than others.

Certain sense of irony

SA Attorney General, Michael Atkinson, doesn't like nasty comment. Who of us does?

We now seem to have laws, leading up to our state election (see here) which will (as usual) require people who make electoral comment in letters to the ed to identify themselves with an appropriate name and an address. The new laws particularly extend this to internet weblogs...in particular I guess news ltd's Adelaide Now which gone into conniptions about it today. And rightly so.

I am not averse to people being encouraged to speak out in their own name rather than hiding behind pseudonym or anonym...but

The Attorney thinks that the new provisions will extend to Facebook and Twitter. And that political commentators in such would/should be required to divulge addresses.

One would have thought that at a time when a man has just been convicted for murder of a girl he allegedly stalked on the internet, that we should be discouraging people from putting personal information out there like that. But you know, the aim is maybe not to get the information out there but to stifle debate. This at least is the press's story and they are sticking to it.

There are other ironies too, when pollies are allowed to say what they like under so-called "Parliamentary Privilege" in order that they may be able to speak without fear or favour...I wonder where the ordinary person may be encouraged to speak with such boldness.

And when politicians can be indemnified at taxpayers' expense, even when they are found to have spoken inappropriately or innacurately...why this dogged pursuit of the little blogger.

Fortunately the Electoral Commissioner does not seem to think the law reaches as far as the Attorney thinks.

My issue is not that vile slanderers should be allowed to say what they like, but that this sort of tactic scares people into being overly cautious. Few amongst us, could afford legal action against one who is highly paid and/or indemnified. It borders on bullying the little chap into silence.

I blogged on this only a few days ago (here) in regard to another matter. Again I say it, it is so often those who are outrageously outspoken themselves who want to intimidate others into being quiet

Ongoing concern

I am still worried about this censorship business (here).
My concern is not, I think, that there should be absolutely no censorship. It is rather that if art is to be deliberatedf upon then I don't think the police are the ones who shoudl be doing the deliberating.
They may be the ones who need to go in and turn off the lights, but I don't think that in the end Superintendent Plod shoudl be the one deciding what is good and bad art.
Nor do artists need to be quite so precious and get all thingy because something called 'art' is critiqued as being exploitative.
I had a look at what is left of the said photos (which bizarrely have been made quite obscene by the imposition of censorial bars across various parts of various anatomies....another point altogether) and my impression is that they are not neutral, they are over the line.
Of course as a society we can say it is inappropriate, and even illegal for children to be treated in such a way. But maybe there is a case for any nude art being 'classified' (as films are) before they are put on display.
Then it is OK for police to act appropriately, but they should not be deciding what is and what is not art.

Ipso facto

Censorship makes me nervous.
It is even controversial to discuss it in relation to images of children. The latest row over a photographic exhibition in Sydney which, it now appears, police have closed down is the case in point.(here)
Naked photographs of children and teenagers.
The complaints are that they are sexual, and they may well be I don't know as I haven't seen them.
But not all naked pictures are necessarily sexual.
Anne Geddes has made a fortune out of delightful photos of cute babies. And we have on our wall at home one of our children in a giant plant pot after her style.
Whilst we are all so frightened to discuss this stuff, lest we be branded paedophilic, it would be a pity if we weren't able to have any more cutesy photographs.