Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

The relentless march of the Nanny State

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by hornet, May 25, 2008.

  1.  Top
  2. actually I think it is more a case of the relentless sensationalising af a bad newspaper.
    naturally the news angle is the least relevant "its about baby adverts" angle.

    The enquiry, though it is difficult to process in that article is actually more about clarifying the law about sexualising young children. what do we find appropriate and what is inappropriate.
    This I'm sure you'd agree is a perfectly valid and important thing to have clarity on, the last thing you'd want is loopholes, for example if a father took hundreds of dodgy photos of his own kid, would he go free because they were 'family' photos?.

  3. it concerns me that the footage has made some person, apparently "normal", in the community think of things from this aspect. one could assume that they would need to be at least somewhat "thrilled" themselves in order to have any kind of reaction to the footage in question.
    i would have never thought twice about that ad.

  4. did you even READ the article?
    It's about the advertising standards bureau receiving complaints and they said it tops the complaints.
    Shit if netrider monitored the amount of complaints here and it was reported then all moderators should be shot and Vic and Jase should be millionaires from all the advertising revenue and the kickbacks.

    I'ts a filler news report nothing more and has nothing to do with "nanny state" :roll:
  5. Do have to wonder just how many complaints they actually get though.
    If I remember right an ad for Mazda was banned for encouraging speeding after just one complaint (probably from that whackjob Scruby) even though it had already been on air for at least a year and clearly didn't bother the other how ever many million that had seen it.

    I agree with Joel that it's disturbing that (supposedly) normal people would think that much about these nappy ads, and it's probably only getting media attention because of that art gallery incident in the media at the moment.
  6. I work in Media Advertising and the amount of consumer complaints we receive is unreal. People complain about the most stupid things and it puts the company in question under a lot of strain (if there's enough complaints about a particluar advertisement).

    Even though this article may seem like "filler" there would more than likely be lots of people - not just one person - with this same concern.

    However, I do agree that it's sickening to think that people would think like that, unfortunately this is the world we live in and as much as we would like to think that people are not like this, they are.

  7. Don't worry, they'll just make the female babies wear bras.
    It's okay though, we're still going to encourage kids to be kids, just if the three year old runs through the backyard naked or pees in an inappropriate spot they'll be arrested for exposure...
    and any man who is playing with a young child will be assumed to be a paedophile.
    Oh, and the actress in the huggies ad will be charged with sexual assault, guaranteeing she will never work with kids again.
    Don't worry, it's all in the name of progress...

  8. A study was done recently on paedofiles who'd been 'rehabilitated', and a large proportion confessed that they kept a lot of catalogues which had kids in them as stimuli. So it's understandable that people feel protective about children and their possible exploitation.

    Although I did read that study in the Herald Sun, so it's probably half lies and half imagination :p

  9. :shock: Fark me, there are some sicko people out :shock:
  10. paedofiles cannot be rehabilitated.theyre brains are simply wired in a certain way which cannot be corrected.they need to be shot.and i volunteer.
  11. The same could be argued of gays etc, where do you draw the line? With that sort of thinking, you end up shooting people who like pink.....

    Regards, Andrew.
  12. but gays dont pose a threat to children, or anyone for that matter.
  13. you want to be shot too joel? :-s :rofl:
  14. Of course not. He just means he can't be rehabilitated either :LOL:

  15. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/05/26/1211653938450.html

    this covers what i said in the first reply. the law is too abiguous on this matter, given the serious implications of the law, for all involved, the idea of the review is probably a good one. assuming it actually tackles the issue sensibly :roll:
  16. stewy & blue, you crazy foo's :LOL:
  17. Nope it's about true from what I remember.

    Leaving aside the (dubious) legal argument on exactly what the status of the 13 y.o's pics is. And here I might add I don't agree with any child posing for debatable commercial pics. Family pics of toddlers are fine.

    Maybe we are looking at this the wrong way. It's not the images, it's the perception of them that is the problem.

    If I look at a 2yo in a bath I see a cute nephew, neice, etc, but in a TOTALLY non sexual way. It's a kid being a kid.
    If a paedophile sees the same type of scene, their sick mind sees a whole different perspective.

    So where am I going with this? Simple. Once definitively, absolutely proven to be a paedophile, they are taken out of society, permanently. Make paedophilia a life sentence. Then watch the rates of child abuse drop!
  18. A few years ago I would probably have supported Bill Henson. Now I certainly wouldn't. While I accept that he may have purely artistic motives in mind, the fact remains that those who purchase these pictures often will not. I find his comments about customers hanging pictures above their beds particularly naive and disturbing. These are not images most people would be comfortable with in their bedrooms.

    I had occasion some years ago to report someone for downloading child pornography. As well as the sickening "hard core" stuff involving sexual acts, his collection also included art photos similar to those of Bill Henson's. When seen in company with the other material there was no doubt that they were being used for sexual gratification

    Before that incident I would probably have been among Bill Henson's defenders - now I realise just how blind those defenders actually are.

    While a picture hanging on a gallery wall may come across to most people as natural and innocent, the same photo found amid a collection of truly nasty material is unmistakably pornography.

    The question that the parents of these children and other supporters of Bill Henson need to consider is whether they would be so comfortable about these photographs if these images of their children were to turn up in that context?

    I don't believe that prosecuting serves any purpose in this case. Perhaps an order to have him speak both to counsellors who deal with survivors of sexual assault and to the police who deal with the perpetrators of these acts might open his eyes as to the inappropriateness of these images.