🚀 go-pugleaf

Come discuss fat, dead feminists at http://forums.jebusville.com



On Wed, 18 May 2005 09:01:58 +1000, Bob Bain <�++�@tpg.com.au> wrote:

>On 17 May 2005 09:20:48 -0700, "Bibliophilia" <cmiller@crs.loc.gov>
>wrote in message id
><1116346848.194657.214680@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: in the
>newsgroup talk.bizarre
>
>>> We are still a censored nation though.
>
>>We are. I think Dworkin had a point about rape, porn, prostitution all
>>having the same root - the ideas  that women are property and sex is
>>about dominance rather than pleasure.
>
> That doesn't apply to many types of pornography including "female
>domination" and "male homosexual" pornography.  There are many women
>who produce, or willingly participate in the production of sexual
>material that could be referred to as "pornography".
>
> There's a difference in my view between the "pornography industry"
>which can indeed exploit ( and which in my view deliberately exploits
>and takes advantage of illegality and prefers illegality to the
>decriminilisation of sexual entertainment) and people who produce and
>distribute material (no doubt for a price) which is related to their
>own often legal sexual activities.
>
> The first ("the pornographic industry") which is alleged in many
>cases to be controlled (or at least partially controlled) by the Mafia
>is more likely to take advantage of people who do not wish to be taken
>advantage of.
>
>>Conceptually, she has it right, but it's a matter of degree,
>> in that rape is worse than porn, which is worse than prostitution. 
>
> Just inside my front door there's a box of 10 videotapes lodged with
>the Office of Film and Literature Classification in 2002 which
>includes a very explicit film regarding rape (with a VERY VERY graphic
>front cover) which I simply bundled up with some other material in
>2002 acting of the advice of the State Attorney General of New South
>Wales (Bob Debus), and following his instructions took it personally
>to the arm of the OFLC (A Federal Agency) that has the power to refer
>matters regarding illegality to the New South Wales Polce. 
>
> That haven't done so and in September last year insisted that I pick
>it up from their offices or they would return it me by registered mail
>- which they did - on the explicit instructions of the Director of the
>OFLC (www.oflc.gov.au) Mr. Des Clark.
>
> I lodged a protest with the Federal Ombudsman but was told that the
>material wasn't sufficiently offensive or a matter of concern to refer
>the matters to the New South Wales police.
>
> I now have a letter from the Federal Ombudsman's office which states
>that this is a "reasonable decision" of the OFLC (who have the power
>to enforce). 
>
> I have noted elsewhere that it the reasonable decisions of reasonable
>adults that is the cornerstone of censorship laws in both this country
>and in the State of New South Wales.
>
> Although Ms. Dworkin may have found fantasy depictions of rape
>offensive and various bondage movies demeaning to women I can assure
>you the women at the OFLC and the Ombudsman's Office in Pitt Street,
>Sydney Australia do not appear to agree with her.
>
> The evidence is sitting in a box and delivered to me (registered
>mail) by a legislative arm of the Federal Government and endorsed as
>"non offensive" and "reasonable" by a second agency of the Australian
>Federal Government.
>
> I can only repeat it's the reasonable decisions of reasonable adults
>that is the cornerstone of censorship laws in this country and in the
>State of New South Wales.
>
> This isn't fiction.
>
> (posted also to aus.censorship)
>