Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 11712	2001-10-03 10:37:00	What's illegal?	Guest (0)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
19970	2001-12-06 00:18:00	Caution: LONG REPLY The URL already given cites the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act, 1993. Attention must be given not only to Section 3(2), which ISPs, InternetNZ and other sources often quote [this describes things which definitely are illegal]; but also to Section 3(3), which describes things which may be deemed to be illegal. Tackled in Parliament on the ambiguity and lack of clarity of this section during debate on the Bill in 1992, then Women?s Affairs Minister Jenny Shipley said this left the decision as to whether to risk possession of borderline material in the hands of the consumer, and hence he/she had to be very careful. If you?re in serious doubt and worry as to what may be illegal (and you have no compunction about viewing pornography), I suggest you hire a few videos and see what the producers and importers of those can get away with. Anything you can see on a video, or in a magazine, legally available in this country, you should be able to view and even download through, the internet. One curiosity, which I discovered through cuts made in a certain video, and confirmed with the Office of Film and Literature Classification; expression of human milk as an element of sexual foreplay is forbidden, through there is NO explicit mention of this in the Act. As a quicker guide than viewing videos, the list of findings of the OFLC is available in bound volumes monthly for a modest fee (it was $125 a year when I used to receive them several years ago but it?s probably risen since then. As to ?child porn,? that has a VERY wide definition, Section 3(2)(a) covers not only actual underage sexual activity, but anything that may suggest such activity, including nude or partially nude models over the age of consent judged to ?present as children? because of pigtails, appurtenances like teddy bears and lollipops, surrounding furnishings (any room with a map on the wall, for example, seems to be understood as a school classroom) and the wearing of ?striped socks?. That?s a quote from an OFLC classification of a video, for possession of which someone was arrested and convicted in 1999. Recently a book of David Hamilton?s soft-focus adolescent nude/semi-nude models, with no sexual activity whatsoever was declared objectionable By contrast, US legislation (in theory) allows portrayal of nude or partially nude children and young persons as long as no actual sexual activity or overtly sexual poses are involved. A number of websites have recently emerged showing such nude models, of both sexes) and claiming to be legal under this statute (Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 110, Section 2256). www.law.corenell.edu/uscode/18/2256.shtml This has NO relevance to New Zealand legislation, where simple child or adolescent nudity is almost certainly objectionable. Lastly, the FV&PC Act is currently up for ?review? before a select committee, who may produce a report before the end of the year. This will probably result in legislation (particularly on internet material) which is more conservative than current guidelines, though there may be some ?slackening? on various points. Disclaimer: I am not an enthusiast of child porn. Pictures of children involved in sex sicken me. Pictures of nude children do nothing for me. Nothing I say here is intended to be interpreted as supporting possession or distribution of any material declared illegal by our good and wise government. I *do*, however, support honest discussion, and fell Mr Physic merits a straight reply. Steve B.	Guest (0)
19971	2001-12-06 20:52:00	One small point of correction; I said: Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 110, Section 2256). www.law.corenell.edu/uscode/18/2256.shtml That should, of course be www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.shtml Cornell without the extra 'e'. Sorry, Steve B.	Guest (0)
1 2