What kind of country is australia?
-
****Christian Graus wrote: Yes. I think that is largely why we are not as patriotic as Americans tend to be. For example, if we suffered a tragedy like Sept. 11, I don't think anyone would gather in the streets to sing out anthem, most people wouldn't know the words, or possibly even which song it was. That's interesting. How much alligence does the typical Aussie still feel towards Britain? You can talk about American patriotism, but I've served with British troops in the past who's patriotism to "king and country" made me blush. (I may be showing my ignorance here, but is Australia still part of the Commonwealth? Does the Commonwealth even any longer exist?)
Stan Shannon wrote: How much alligence does the typical Aussie still feel towards Britain Pretty much none - though there are a bunch of die-heard Monarchists here (our Prime Minister being one of them). We had a referendum last year about the whole thing but it was not exactly objective (see comment about our PM) We are still part of the Commonwealth but that doesn't mean much to the average Australian. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
Stan Shannon wrote: How much alligence does the typical Aussie still feel towards Britain Pretty much none - though there are a bunch of die-heard Monarchists here (our Prime Minister being one of them). We had a referendum last year about the whole thing but it was not exactly objective (see comment about our PM) We are still part of the Commonwealth but that doesn't mean much to the average Australian. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
Call me an ignorant American, but I'm monstorously clueless about other countries. Lately I've been curious about Australia. I'd like to know how Australia became a country (Wasn't it a british prision colony?). Secondly what kind of goverment is Australia. Specifically, it seems to me that the government is of the inrusive variety (which I find suprising). I've just read that Australia (http://www.smh.com.au/news/0201/21/opinion/opinion5.html) bans movies, as well as blocks internet sites. Is that a governmental right? or something that the people tolerate because of voter apathy? I'm not looking for the textbook answer, but the average citizen answer. I know it's hard to generalize and still represent a majority of the people.
We have some very small minded politicians, but in general Australia is far more permissive in terms of media than the US is. Moveis that would be edited for content in the US are often fine down here. We tend to not worry too much about things like nudity, and more about things like guns. That said, the law comes down like a ton of bricks on stuff like child exploitation. For more info on Australia read this ;) cheers, Chris Maunder
-
f1shlips wrote: I'd like to know how Australia became a country (Wasn't it a british prision colony?). Yes. I think that is largely why we are not as patriotic as Americans tend to be. For example, if we suffered a tragedy like Sept. 11, I don't think anyone would gather in the streets to sing out anthem, most people wouldn't know the words, or possibly even which song it was. f1shlips wrote: Secondly what kind of goverment is Australia. Specifically, it seems to me that the government is of the inrusive variety (which I find suprising). I've just read that Australia (http://www.smh.com.au/news/0201/21/opinion/opinion5.html) bans movies, as well as blocks internet sites. Alston is and will always be a moron, but yes, our states ban X rated porn. Our territories do not, and I suspect the fact that this means our nations capital is one of two places in the country you can buy porn and the one closest to the majority of the population means that this has been done largely for the benefit of the ACT ( or Chris did some serious lobbying :0) ) f1shlips wrote: Is that a governmental right? The censor has the right to decide if a movie will be released, and if so under what rating. The same laws are being applied to the Internet. Surely the US is no different. If I made a kiddie porn movie, could I show it in the US ? From my POV I think that there are things that obviously must not be shown and things that should be left to the individual. I saw my share of porn in the 80's, and I was not of age for most of it, so the stuff will always be around. Government control is always a bad thing, but I've never been personally affected by it so I have a perception that it's not really that bad. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
>Alston is and will always be a moron, but yes, our states ban X rated porn. Our territories do not That makes sense to me. >The censor has the right to decide if a movie will be released, and if so under what rating. The same laws are being applied to the Internet. Surely the US is no different. There is no one man appointed by the government that has the authority to block any sort of movie, or web site. However, the standard of what is acceptable is set by the community. For example, I can operate a porn theater in San Francisco, but I probably couldn't operate one in rural Kansas. Conceivebly, if society eventually tolerates it, I could watch porn on television. If I made a kiddie porn movie, could I show it in the US? Pehaps. Obviously child molestation is a crime, but there's an issue before the supreme court that is going to address whether or not its legal to use digital tools to create a fictionalized situations involving child molestation. Even then, showing it in public would depend on wether or not the community it is shown in would tolerate it. Congress, during the Clinton years, tried to pass the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which was struck down in whole as unconstitutional. They then tried to pass the Child Online Protection Act (COPA, aka CDA II). That issue is as of yet undecided by the supreme court, but given its history through the circuit and apellete court, it probably will be struck down also. I guess I'm trying to find out if Australia went through the same kind of struggle before censorship was allowed, or is it right of the government to do such things? To explain my query a little further, as a lobbyist for motorcycle rights, I learned that Australia was the first country to establish a manditory helmet law for motorcyclists. While America has manditory helmet laws on a state by state basis (manditory in 20 states), it's not set in stone that these laws will last (5 states in the last five years have changed or repealed their manditory requirements). It's not like the government can wave a majick wand and force us to wear helmets without discorse, public argument, or even civil disobedience (which is a lotta fun!). Is it the same in Australia, my initial opinion is no? Does that clarify my question a bit?
-
****Christian Graus wrote: Yes. I think that is largely why we are not as patriotic as Americans tend to be. For example, if we suffered a tragedy like Sept. 11, I don't think anyone would gather in the streets to sing out anthem, most people wouldn't know the words, or possibly even which song it was. That's interesting. How much alligence does the typical Aussie still feel towards Britain? You can talk about American patriotism, but I've served with British troops in the past who's patriotism to "king and country" made me blush. (I may be showing my ignorance here, but is Australia still part of the Commonwealth? Does the Commonwealth even any longer exist?)
Stan Shannon wrote: That's interesting. How much alligence does the typical Aussie still feel towards Britain? About zero. You need to go back 40-50 years for that. Stan Shannon wrote: (I may be showing my ignorance here, but is Australia still part of the Commonwealth? Does the Commonwealth even any longer exist?) Yes, and yes. We have a Governor General who in theory is the Queen's representative. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
We have some very small minded politicians, but in general Australia is far more permissive in terms of media than the US is. Moveis that would be edited for content in the US are often fine down here. We tend to not worry too much about things like nudity, and more about things like guns. That said, the law comes down like a ton of bricks on stuff like child exploitation. For more info on Australia read this ;) cheers, Chris Maunder
>but in general Australia is far more permissive in terms of media than the US is. Moveis that would be edited for content in the US are often fine down here. Well, thats just for television and the only way censorship of that sort is legal is because of the society in which is published tolerates it. An 1800s America wouldn't allow what is on television today, and perhaps a 2200's America will tolerate nudity and extremely foul language. So Australia doesn't actually block the import of movies? That's the way I understood the article.
-
>Alston is and will always be a moron, but yes, our states ban X rated porn. Our territories do not That makes sense to me. >The censor has the right to decide if a movie will be released, and if so under what rating. The same laws are being applied to the Internet. Surely the US is no different. There is no one man appointed by the government that has the authority to block any sort of movie, or web site. However, the standard of what is acceptable is set by the community. For example, I can operate a porn theater in San Francisco, but I probably couldn't operate one in rural Kansas. Conceivebly, if society eventually tolerates it, I could watch porn on television. If I made a kiddie porn movie, could I show it in the US? Pehaps. Obviously child molestation is a crime, but there's an issue before the supreme court that is going to address whether or not its legal to use digital tools to create a fictionalized situations involving child molestation. Even then, showing it in public would depend on wether or not the community it is shown in would tolerate it. Congress, during the Clinton years, tried to pass the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which was struck down in whole as unconstitutional. They then tried to pass the Child Online Protection Act (COPA, aka CDA II). That issue is as of yet undecided by the supreme court, but given its history through the circuit and apellete court, it probably will be struck down also. I guess I'm trying to find out if Australia went through the same kind of struggle before censorship was allowed, or is it right of the government to do such things? To explain my query a little further, as a lobbyist for motorcycle rights, I learned that Australia was the first country to establish a manditory helmet law for motorcyclists. While America has manditory helmet laws on a state by state basis (manditory in 20 states), it's not set in stone that these laws will last (5 states in the last five years have changed or repealed their manditory requirements). It's not like the government can wave a majick wand and force us to wear helmets without discorse, public argument, or even civil disobedience (which is a lotta fun!). Is it the same in Australia, my initial opinion is no? Does that clarify my question a bit?
f1shlips wrote: Pehaps. Obviously child molestation is a crime, but there's an issue before the supreme court that is going to address whether or not its legal to use digital tools to create a fictionalized situations involving child molestation. A porn movie by definition is surely not fiction in terms of the events taking place. f1shlips wrote: I guess I'm trying to find out if Australia went through the same kind of struggle before censorship was allowed, or is it right of the government to do such things? We have always had a censor AFAIK. f1shlips wrote: To explain my query a little further, as a lobbyist for motorcycle rights, I learned that Australia was the first country to establish a manditory helmet law for motorcyclists. While America has manditory helmet laws on a state by state basis (manditory in 20 states), it's not set in stone that these laws will last (5 states in the last five years have changed or repealed their manditory requirements). It's not like the government can wave a majick wand and force us to wear helmets without discorse, public argument, or even civil disobedience (which is a lotta fun!). Is it the same in Australia, my initial opinion is no? Does that clarify my question a bit? Laws can be made at a federal level to supercede what the states do, for example I believe Federal anti discrimination law made Tassies law against gay sex to be moot. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
>but in general Australia is far more permissive in terms of media than the US is. Moveis that would be edited for content in the US are often fine down here. Well, thats just for television and the only way censorship of that sort is legal is because of the society in which is published tolerates it. An 1800s America wouldn't allow what is on television today, and perhaps a 2200's America will tolerate nudity and extremely foul language. So Australia doesn't actually block the import of movies? That's the way I understood the article.
f1shlips wrote: Well, thats just for television Not so. Movies here often contain scenes banned in the US. I get the impression the US is on the one hand permissive of porn to a degree we are not, and on the other ridiculous in the manner Hollywood movies are rated and cut. f1shlips wrote: So Australia doesn't actually block the import of movies? That's the way I understood the article. Only movies that are illegal - i.e. a film which depicts underage sex or bestiality would not get in. In answer to the main question, I forgot to say - best bloody country in the world. :-) Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
f1shlips wrote: Well, thats just for television Not so. Movies here often contain scenes banned in the US. I get the impression the US is on the one hand permissive of porn to a degree we are not, and on the other ridiculous in the manner Hollywood movies are rated and cut. f1shlips wrote: So Australia doesn't actually block the import of movies? That's the way I understood the article. Only movies that are illegal - i.e. a film which depicts underage sex or bestiality would not get in. In answer to the main question, I forgot to say - best bloody country in the world. :-) Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
>banned in the US. For Instance? I'm quickly coming to the conculsion that 1.) You're still a part of Britan on the books, but not in any way that would affect Australians in any mannor. 2.) You're about as free as Americans are. Which really isn't free, but better worded as "less controlled by the government than most peoples". I like to say we're not free, we're free-er (which I usually have to back up by mentioning my six years in the Marines and where I was during Saudi...).
-
f1shlips wrote: Pehaps. Obviously child molestation is a crime, but there's an issue before the supreme court that is going to address whether or not its legal to use digital tools to create a fictionalized situations involving child molestation. A porn movie by definition is surely not fiction in terms of the events taking place. f1shlips wrote: I guess I'm trying to find out if Australia went through the same kind of struggle before censorship was allowed, or is it right of the government to do such things? We have always had a censor AFAIK. f1shlips wrote: To explain my query a little further, as a lobbyist for motorcycle rights, I learned that Australia was the first country to establish a manditory helmet law for motorcyclists. While America has manditory helmet laws on a state by state basis (manditory in 20 states), it's not set in stone that these laws will last (5 states in the last five years have changed or repealed their manditory requirements). It's not like the government can wave a majick wand and force us to wear helmets without discorse, public argument, or even civil disobedience (which is a lotta fun!). Is it the same in Australia, my initial opinion is no? Does that clarify my question a bit? Laws can be made at a federal level to supercede what the states do, for example I believe Federal anti discrimination law made Tassies law against gay sex to be moot. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
>A porn movie by definition is surely not fiction in terms of the events taking place. I dunno, and apparently neither do the courts. Typically the courts give great deference to the intent of the people who passed law. The purported intent of the law is to prevent minors from being harmed. However, in the case of "virtual kiddie porn" no children were harmed, so a virtual kid porn-o may not be a crime. However the voyurestic pettifile(? little help here Spell-O-Matic) gets stasifaction from it (I guess), which seems just as wrong. The actual decision from the court should be quite interesting.
-
>banned in the US. For Instance? I'm quickly coming to the conculsion that 1.) You're still a part of Britan on the books, but not in any way that would affect Australians in any mannor. 2.) You're about as free as Americans are. Which really isn't free, but better worded as "less controlled by the government than most peoples". I like to say we're not free, we're free-er (which I usually have to back up by mentioning my six years in the Marines and where I was during Saudi...).
f1shlips wrote: >banned in the US. For Instance? Gosh, I dunno. I don't go to the movies often. But it is for sure that when I got the X Files taped for me movie shorts coming from the US had a higher rating than they did when they came here. f1shlips wrote: 1.) You're still a part of Britan on the books, but not in any way that would affect Australians in any mannor. True. f1shlips wrote: . 2.) You're about as free as Americans are. Which really isn't free, but better worded as "less controlled by the government than most peoples". I like to say we're not free, we're free-er (which I usually have to back up by mentioning my six years in the Marines and where I was during Saudi...). The only total freedom is anarchy. We're about as 'free' as you could hope to be IMO. I believe more so than the US because we our government has been free, for example, to ban cigarette smoking advertising ( since the 70's ), and are currently banning smoking in public places altogether, and also to protect the interests of law abiding citizens above the 'right' of rednecks to arm themselves to the hilt. I believe my freedom not to get shot of given cancer by proxy is higher than the right of others to kill themselves slowly and carry means of killing others quickly. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
Call me an ignorant American, but I'm monstorously clueless about other countries. Lately I've been curious about Australia. I'd like to know how Australia became a country (Wasn't it a british prision colony?). Secondly what kind of goverment is Australia. Specifically, it seems to me that the government is of the inrusive variety (which I find suprising). I've just read that Australia (http://www.smh.com.au/news/0201/21/opinion/opinion5.html) bans movies, as well as blocks internet sites. Is that a governmental right? or something that the people tolerate because of voter apathy? I'm not looking for the textbook answer, but the average citizen answer. I know it's hard to generalize and still represent a majority of the people.
Australia is a country. It is also a continent. It is also an island. Funny huh? Nish Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org If you don't find me on CP, I'll be at Bob's HungOut
-
>A porn movie by definition is surely not fiction in terms of the events taking place. I dunno, and apparently neither do the courts. Typically the courts give great deference to the intent of the people who passed law. The purported intent of the law is to prevent minors from being harmed. However, in the case of "virtual kiddie porn" no children were harmed, so a virtual kid porn-o may not be a crime. However the voyurestic pettifile(? little help here Spell-O-Matic) gets stasifaction from it (I guess), which seems just as wrong. The actual decision from the court should be quite interesting.
f1shlips wrote: >A porn movie by definition is surely not fiction in terms of the events taking place. I dunno, and apparently neither do the courts. Typically the courts give great deference to the intent of the people who passed law. The purported intent of the law is to prevent minors from being harmed. However, in the case of "virtual kiddie porn" no children were harmed, so a virtual kid porn-o may not be a crime. I don't remember watching any porn that was virtual. Is there such a thing ? I'd still contend that the child is harmed, by virtue of being required to simulate sex. To put it another way, if someone got my daughter to simulate sex, regardless of if she was willing ( she'd probably think it was hilarious ), I would find that person and kill them. Of course, here in Australia it would be harder than in the US because I would have trouble getting a decent gun. :-) f1shlips wrote: However the voyurestic pettifile(? little help here Spell-O-Matic) gets stasifaction from it (I guess), which seems just as wrong. The actual decision from the court should be quite interesting. To me the issue is that a/ anyone who watches this stuff is obviously a pedophile, and therefore deserves to die. b/ any child involved in making it, simulated or not, is being exposed to things that they should not be ( and I'm thinking more of the idea of exploitative sex than sex in general ) c/ any child in such an environment seems unlikely to be being nurtured or loved by anyone in the vicinity. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
Stan Shannon wrote: That's interesting. How much alligence does the typical Aussie still feel towards Britain? About zero. You need to go back 40-50 years for that. Stan Shannon wrote: (I may be showing my ignorance here, but is Australia still part of the Commonwealth? Does the Commonwealth even any longer exist?) Yes, and yes. We have a Governor General who in theory is the Queen's representative. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
****Christian Graus wrote: Stan Shannon wrote: That's interesting. How much alligence does the typical Aussie still feel towards Britain? About zero. You need to go back 40-50 years for that Wow! Does that mean the british queen means shit to the average aussie? Nish Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org If you don't find me on CP, I'll be at Bob's HungOut
-
****Christian Graus wrote: Stan Shannon wrote: That's interesting. How much alligence does the typical Aussie still feel towards Britain? About zero. You need to go back 40-50 years for that Wow! Does that mean the british queen means shit to the average aussie? Nish Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org If you don't find me on CP, I'll be at Bob's HungOut
Nish [BusterBoy] wrote: Does that mean the british queen means sh*t to the average aussie? Outside of country towns where time stands still, yes. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
f1shlips wrote: >banned in the US. For Instance? Gosh, I dunno. I don't go to the movies often. But it is for sure that when I got the X Files taped for me movie shorts coming from the US had a higher rating than they did when they came here. f1shlips wrote: 1.) You're still a part of Britan on the books, but not in any way that would affect Australians in any mannor. True. f1shlips wrote: . 2.) You're about as free as Americans are. Which really isn't free, but better worded as "less controlled by the government than most peoples". I like to say we're not free, we're free-er (which I usually have to back up by mentioning my six years in the Marines and where I was during Saudi...). The only total freedom is anarchy. We're about as 'free' as you could hope to be IMO. I believe more so than the US because we our government has been free, for example, to ban cigarette smoking advertising ( since the 70's ), and are currently banning smoking in public places altogether, and also to protect the interests of law abiding citizens above the 'right' of rednecks to arm themselves to the hilt. I believe my freedom not to get shot of given cancer by proxy is higher than the right of others to kill themselves slowly and carry means of killing others quickly. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
Australia is a country. It is also a continent. It is also an island. Funny huh? Nish Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org If you don't find me on CP, I'll be at Bob's HungOut
Sorry to spoil your fun, Nish, but... Generally, continent and island are considered mutually exclusive. Check out this link for more info: http://users.erols.com/jcalder/CONTISLAND.html Besides, and I'm sure Christian will back me up here, Tasmanians tend to get very annoyed when you forget that Tasmania, one of Australia's states, is a completely separate island. Australia (as a country) also contains a large number of other islands. ------------------------ Derek Waters derek@lj-oz.com
-
f1shlips wrote: >banned in the US. For Instance? Gosh, I dunno. I don't go to the movies often. But it is for sure that when I got the X Files taped for me movie shorts coming from the US had a higher rating than they did when they came here. f1shlips wrote: 1.) You're still a part of Britan on the books, but not in any way that would affect Australians in any mannor. True. f1shlips wrote: . 2.) You're about as free as Americans are. Which really isn't free, but better worded as "less controlled by the government than most peoples". I like to say we're not free, we're free-er (which I usually have to back up by mentioning my six years in the Marines and where I was during Saudi...). The only total freedom is anarchy. We're about as 'free' as you could hope to be IMO. I believe more so than the US because we our government has been free, for example, to ban cigarette smoking advertising ( since the 70's ), and are currently banning smoking in public places altogether, and also to protect the interests of law abiding citizens above the 'right' of rednecks to arm themselves to the hilt. I believe my freedom not to get shot of given cancer by proxy is higher than the right of others to kill themselves slowly and carry means of killing others quickly. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
****Christian Graus wrote: I believe more so than the US because we our government has been free, for example, to ban cigarette smoking advertising ( since the 70's ), and are currently banning smoking in public places altogether, and also to protect the interests of law abiding citizens above the 'right' of rednecks to arm themselves to the hilt. I believe my freedom not to get shot of given cancer by proxy is higher than the right of others to kill themselves slowly and carry means of killing others quickly. There are plenty of Americans that would like to ban smoking and/or guns (handguns in particular). We have this little thing called the US Constitution that keeps getting in the way. Funny thing about our constitution, it is less a blue print of US government and more a set of limits as to what government can and can't do. As for your freedom not to be shot (ban guns) or get cancer (ban smoking), I would imagine that the majority of Americans (myself included) would squawk about what gets banned next. Automobiles (car accidents), airplanes (plane crashes), all knives (stabbings), all buildings over 20 feet tall (falling or jumping), TV's and CRT's (radiation)... In other words, where does it end? It's all a matter of where you draw the line. Australians are perfectly capable of drawing their line where ever they choose. Americans as well. In general, I've found that Asians and Europeans are much quicker to give up previous freedoms than Americans. Maybe because they've had to due to over-crowding and such.
Mike Mullikin - Sonork 100.10096 "Programming is like sex. One mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life." - Michael Sinz
-
f1shlips wrote: >A porn movie by definition is surely not fiction in terms of the events taking place. I dunno, and apparently neither do the courts. Typically the courts give great deference to the intent of the people who passed law. The purported intent of the law is to prevent minors from being harmed. However, in the case of "virtual kiddie porn" no children were harmed, so a virtual kid porn-o may not be a crime. I don't remember watching any porn that was virtual. Is there such a thing ? I'd still contend that the child is harmed, by virtue of being required to simulate sex. To put it another way, if someone got my daughter to simulate sex, regardless of if she was willing ( she'd probably think it was hilarious ), I would find that person and kill them. Of course, here in Australia it would be harder than in the US because I would have trouble getting a decent gun. :-) f1shlips wrote: However the voyurestic pettifile(? little help here Spell-O-Matic) gets stasifaction from it (I guess), which seems just as wrong. The actual decision from the court should be quite interesting. To me the issue is that a/ anyone who watches this stuff is obviously a pedophile, and therefore deserves to die. b/ any child involved in making it, simulated or not, is being exposed to things that they should not be ( and I'm thinking more of the idea of exploitative sex than sex in general ) c/ any child in such an environment seems unlikely to be being nurtured or loved by anyone in the vicinity. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
>I don't remember watching any porn that was virtual. Ever look at naked pictures of Britney Spears or Cristinia Agulera? How hard would it be to take that cute picture of a child taking a bath and mangle it into something sinister? Given the fact that technology will advance, the day will come when the average sick-o could use technology to simulate an entire movie. >To me the issue .... I'm not arguing with you about the sanity or quality of person who buys this crap. However, I'm not convinced that any law has been broken, or even if a law limiting the ability to create and view that kind of stuff could even be constitutionally upheld in this country.
-
****Christian Graus wrote: I believe more so than the US because we our government has been free, for example, to ban cigarette smoking advertising ( since the 70's ), and are currently banning smoking in public places altogether, and also to protect the interests of law abiding citizens above the 'right' of rednecks to arm themselves to the hilt. I believe my freedom not to get shot of given cancer by proxy is higher than the right of others to kill themselves slowly and carry means of killing others quickly. There are plenty of Americans that would like to ban smoking and/or guns (handguns in particular). We have this little thing called the US Constitution that keeps getting in the way. Funny thing about our constitution, it is less a blue print of US government and more a set of limits as to what government can and can't do. As for your freedom not to be shot (ban guns) or get cancer (ban smoking), I would imagine that the majority of Americans (myself included) would squawk about what gets banned next. Automobiles (car accidents), airplanes (plane crashes), all knives (stabbings), all buildings over 20 feet tall (falling or jumping), TV's and CRT's (radiation)... In other words, where does it end? It's all a matter of where you draw the line. Australians are perfectly capable of drawing their line where ever they choose. Americans as well. In general, I've found that Asians and Europeans are much quicker to give up previous freedoms than Americans. Maybe because they've had to due to over-crowding and such.
Mike Mullikin - Sonork 100.10096 "Programming is like sex. One mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life." - Michael Sinz
Mike Mullikin wrote: There are plenty of Americans that would like to ban smoking and/or guns (handguns in particular). We have this little thing called the US Constitution that keeps getting in the way. Funny thing about our constitution, it is less a blue print of US government and more a set of limits as to what government can and can't do. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. What does 'regulated' mean ? Is it reasonable to suggest in this day and age that the average american owning an automatic rifle is more of a deterent to invasion than your army, navy and air force ? War has changed. Are you sayng that bail is never imposed in the US in an amount the defendant cannot afford ? All criminal prosecutions are speedily resolved ? Mike Mullikin wrote: As for your freedom not to be shot (ban guns) or get cancer (ban smoking), I would imagine that the majority of Americans (myself included) would squawk about what gets banned next. Automobiles (car accidents), airplanes (plane crashes), all knives (stabbings), all buildings over 20 feet tall (falling or jumping), TV's and CRT's (radiation)... In other words, where does it end? You see, the thing is that here in Australia we have half a brain. Smoking not only kills you, it kills those around you, and serves no useful purpose. Guns are designed to kill people, they serve no other purpose. Cars, planes, etc are means of transport, and can obviously result in accidents if used without care, but are designed for useful purpose. So we have laws regulating the state in which one can drive, the age at which one can drive, what one must know about road laws in order to drive, etc. I believe there are laws regarding the carrying of knives obviously designed to hurt people, and your comments regarding buildings and TV's are not even worth responding to. Mike Mullikin wrote: It's all a matter of where you draw the line. Australians are perfectly capable of drawing their line where ever they choose. Americans as well. In general, I've found that Asians and Europeans are much quicker to give up previous freedoms than Americans. Maybe because they've had to due to over-crowding and such. It's because Americans are indoctrinated from an early age that someone elses freedom to hurt you is more important and that somehow a constitution written a long tim
