Sexting...

The internet is a wonderful knowledge tool. The internet is also a place where harm and the potential of harm is ever present. Technology such as mobile phones are also excellent pieces of equipment that allow us to access and share knowledge. Modern mobile phones and instant sound and image communication devices that not only make us more productive, but have the potential to get us into serious trouble.

This is one such case on the serious trouble front.

Sexting is a serious problem. It is a serious problem because of the immediate harm it can do to those involved. It is a serious problem because after the immediate harm there is ongoing and long term harm that must be endured by those involved. Mobile phones link so easily into the internet now days that an image sent from one phone to another can be quickly uploaded to the internet. People need to realise that once an image is online, it is almost impossible for it to 'disappear'. What goes online, stays online...forever!

So, if you send or post a naked picture of yourself, then make sure it is something you will be happy to see when it comes back to haunt you in the future.

Now, that takes care of the sermon angle.

Onto the news.

A young man, Damien Eades, thought he had avoided any serious consequences from his part in soliciting a 13-year-old to post him naked images of herself. For Eades this might have been a little presumptuous. He is now set down to be the first Australian to stand trial in a sexting case.

In March of 2008, an 18-year-old Eades was employed at KFC. He sent the picture to a 13-year-old girl with the message "you like?" Aside from the fact that he is 18 and she is 13, what happens at KFC that employees have time to take off their shirts and pose for a few photos and then start sending them off to people? What ever happened to preparing and cooking chicken?

Anyways, after establishing that the 13-year-old "liked" what she saw, Eades for some reason thought it would be a good idea if she returned the favour, but by sending a shot of her 'bottom half'. The girl agreed and ended up sending a full-frontal nude shot of herself to Eades.

The story might have ended there, except for a rather vigilant father who thought it necessary to check out his daughter's phone. When Dad discovered the messages, it was on the phone to the police.

The case originally went to the Penrith Local Court and was dismissed. It would seem that the magistrate did not think that the charges against Eades, incitement of a person under 16 to commit an act of indecency and possession of child pornography, were worth pursuing at trial.

However, the Director of Public Prosecution was far from satisfied with that outcome and decided to appeal. The appeal was heard by Justice Greg James of the Supreme Court. Justice James agreed with the Director and sent the case back to the local court for trial. According to Justice James, the sexual content of the electronic transaction warranted a trial.


Eades might not be so lucky the second time around.

Breastfeeding and Facebook...

Seeing we are on the topic of breasts and their gratuitous, and perhaps pornographic exposure to the masses, I add this contribution by that self-appointed arbiter of all things decent and art-related, Facebook.

It would appear that Facebook has deemed the photographs taken by Melbourne based photographer Christopher Rimmer as being inappropriate for children. I am no artist in residence, even on my own blog, but in the art and porn stakes, these photos are so art.

It seems that the Zuckerberg afficionados have been taking themselves a little too seriously in Facebook land. They might want to peruse their fiefdom a little more and have a look at what is out there and go all out on this censorship crusade that they are on.

In the meantime, you be the judge!

This photo was pulled off the essential baby website.

The Birds & The Bees...

Life used to be so much more simple when the conversation was really only about when to have that "talk". You know, the one about the birds and the bees. However, the conversation is no longer a conversation hut a fully-fledged debate, and perhaps rightly so. There has been an increasing trend, courtesy of the internet, for our children and their youth to be tested by the bounds of what is 'right'.

Some of the more interesting debate centres on child stars as they grow into adulthood and begin testing the waters with respect to finding themselves, finding an identity that they are comfortable with, and moving from the relative safety to the less safe world of being an adult. This is exacerbated by the youngsters themselves when they avail themselves of the technology at their disposal and post pictures of themselves. Miley Cyrus as the childhood sweetheart of the Hannah Montana series is a prime example of this need to adult-me-up crossover from childhood star to wanna-be taken seriously adult.

Another 17-year-old looking to have a much more adult image of late is Taylor Momsen.  Her recent appearance on the cover of Revolver magazine is tribute to that desire to ratchet-up to the next level the desire to be an adult.

As I was looking for some images that were tame enough to attach to this post, it struck me that once an image is posted to the internet then it forever remains "out there".

I guess the point of this post is really to ponder why there is a need to sexualise our children through the media, how we should deal with it as a community when these youngsters bring it on themselves by posting pictures of themselves, and should this topic be addressed in schools as a means of trying to prevent the most negative outcomes of what seems to be out of control at the moment?

Moral Tragedy, Celebrity Sex Videos, and National Children's Day...

July has been a particularly fruitful month for blog posting at The RAB Experience. It is amazing what a break between university semesters can do to free up some time to devote to other passions, like my family. I might add the frequency of my blogging has benefited as well. This will come to an end though as I will be back in full-time accelerated study mode from Monday.

Looking back over this month, the tone of the posts have been particularly anti-SBY and celebrity porn-related. No dramas on either front, but I figured why not link both of these trending topics together. It seems that the president wants to link them and be linked to them. So, who am I to refuse such a request from the people's president. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono you are so not the man of the moment. It is time to give up on being the teflon populist president and think about actually doing what you were elected to do.

So, the president, porn, and national children's day within the context of moral tragedy is the topic for today's rant.

The president decided that National Children's Day was a good a day as any other to talk about celebrity sex tapes and the moral tragedy that this is. Mr. President, sir, I am sorry whether Ariel does the bump and grind with his girlfriend and videos it on a mobile phone or whether Ariel bumps uglies with Cut Tari is not a national moral tragedy that is worthy of the attention that you have given it on National Children's Day.

Is child pornography a tragedy? Yes, sir, it is! A recent example was reported in The Jakarta Globe over the last few days. This, sir, would have been a better example of a moral tragedy. The forcing of two high school students (it is now being reported that both the students in this video have been identified and are 18 years old) to perform sex acts on each other while being filmed by adults, and then having this film uploaded to the internet is a tragedy, a moral tragedy!

However, the Peterporn scandal is not child pornography. Neither is it a moral tragedy. The film is one where two consenting adults film themselves having sexual relations, or for the less politically correct, bonking each others brains out!

Is there a need to talk to children about pornography? Perhaps, does it need to be done on National Children's Day? No. National Children's Day might have been better served by the president announcing a comprehensive strategy on how his government intends to tackle poverty. Or perhaps a comprehensive strategy on education that sees every child educated in schools with quality facilities and quality teachers. There are so many issues the president could of addressed that are so much more important than Nazriel "Ariel" Irham and his sexual conquests with Luna Maya and Cut Tari, and the filming of those events.

The moral tragedy is that the children in families directly displaced by the mud extrusion at Sidoarjo have yet to be properly compensated, and subsequently the children themselves are suffering as they are often taken out of school to cut family expenditure and work to contribute to the family income. The moral tragedy Mr. President is not a celebrity sex video. It is a government so inept that it cannot make good on its promises to help those Indonesians most marginalized by the system.

Mr. President, you talk about proper education yet you do not practice what you preach. You demand that parents and teachers take a more pro-active role in educating children about what it means to be a productive citizen of the wider Indonesian community, yet your government seems unable or unwilling to confront the biggest scourge on Indonesian society, corruption. Yes, Mr. President, you are setting a wonderful example to the children of Indonesia; the status quo is OK and corruption can persist provided I or my family are not implicated in it.

Mr. President, it was opportunistic to take this occasion and degrade it by playing the porn card and hoping that this would in some way make you more popular. Nevertheless, you underestimate your people, the Indonesian people can see through the facade and your declining popularity is testament to that.

Yet, the final indignation would seem to be that the president, or some pencil-pushing policy wonk in the presidential palace decided that they should nix s declaration by children on the National Children's Day. The children came together from Sabang to Merauke and put together a declaration of the things that they consider important to them. If it is true that the interests of the children are paramount then it is about time we adults allowed them to have a voice. This declaration was their chance at having a voice. Instead the voice of Indonesian children was snuffed out so that the president could have a few extra minutes to berate parents and the nation about celebrity porn. Shame on you Mr. President.

It would also seem that vested interests played a part in this stupidity as well. The last point of the declaration put together by the children of Indonesia was a very pointed call on government to do more on reigning in tobacco and big tobacco companies that are poisoning Indonesia's children and their future, Indonesia's future.

Mr President, you talk about "your legacy", perhaps you should be talking about "What legacy?"

Enjoy the rest of the weekend!

Porn Access to be Denied -- Indonesia...

Being one of your country's worst performing cabinet ministers in a cabinet that has supposedly been selected based on its professionalism and professional experience in the real world must be a kick in the teeth for a proud man. This is especially so when you get a fairly public rebuke from the president and his advisers. So, how does one turn it around in the world's most populous Muslim nation, play the porn card.

In a country that is in the grips of celebrity sex tape euphoria that is keeping the presses and gossip show running hot, it is little surprise that the Minister for Communication and Information, Tifatul Sembiring, has decided to publicly announce that Indonesia will be in essence porn site free within two months. Yes, purveyors and lovers of porn, your producing and viewing days are numbered now that the Minister has set the date.

The plan is to use a filter that blocks all international porn sites at the ISP level. In essence, there is a blacklist that ISPs are to maintain and use in order to filter out objectionable content. It is not entirely clear that Indonesia or the ISPs themselves have the technology in place to effectively enforce the ban, but time will tell. The plan for local porn content is to shut it down permanently.

A major concern is what constitutes pornography and how do sites end up on the blacklist, particularly the subjective nature of the listers could ensure that there might not be any, or sufficient, consideration given to whether the sites have educational value or otherwise. The decision will simply be based on whether the rude bits are showing or being spoken of, if they are then you are on the list.

The reality is that internet users are quite often as savvy, if not more savvy, than those tasked with enforcing the ban. For example, many sites will just migrate to different sites or use revolving addresses that make it difficult to consistently block them. Then, I am no expert, but there will surely be proxy servers and other mechanisms in place that allow for the filters to be bypassed.

I am not advocating pornography or access to it. However, to each their own. I am for putting in place mechanisms and technology that allows us to protect our children as much as possible. In most places these already exist in the form of parental controls and locks on computer systems. Yet, I am tech savvy enough to realise that when the time comes my son will probably be much more tech savvy than I, and consequently will be able to circumvent any controls his mum or I might try and put into place. Yet, we will still try.

The point I am trying to make here is that it is not a perfect world and laws to ban pornography across the board do not and will not work. The idea of banning all pornographic websites is also likely to be ineffective in the long term.

Truth be told, Tifatul Sembiring is a poorly performing Minister and he is seeking to deflect attention from his numerous and consistent failures by playing the porn card. I would say this is a high risk play on his part because he is unlikely to be the man who convinces Indonesians that porn is bad, porn is evil, and porn is against the law. He is likely to perform poorly on this one as well.

Child Pornography -- The Cat Did It!

This certainly puts a new twist on the old claim that the dog ate my homework.

A Florida man accused of downloading child pornography is blaming his cat. If one was talking about a single image, or perhaps even two or three, then you might be tempted to think that it is possible, unlikely, but possible.

However, the man, Kevin Griffin, is accused of downloading more than 1000 images onto his home computer. The idea that the cat sat around for most of the night downloading kiddie porn just does not seem possible.

Griffin's excuse is that he was downloading music at the time. He left the room, and when he came back the cat had managed to download all these strange images onto his computer. It sounds sort of like, "Officer, I am not as think you drunk I am!" Worth a shot, but just not convincing.

Sounds like Mr. Griffin could be in a spot of bother.

(Image courtesy of Greg Newington)

Rape or Porn or Both?

Common sense would suggest that if you are going to commit a crime, then do not film yourself doing it. This might be even more so if you are going to commit a rape and then distribute it amongst your friends via your mobile phone. That said, the footage might also be significant in proving that the sex was consensual and that no rape had taken place.

The gist of this case is that a teenage boy invites a girl to meet and then goes to a friend's house for some reason, presumably to have sex, the sex occurs and the friends that the boy has invited decide that the whole sex scene is worthy of some mobile phone footage and that this footage is worth sharing with others.

The boy's story is that he called the girl and invited her for the rendezvous and she willing agreed to the encounter. However, the parents of the girl have gotten wind of the rendezvous, the encounter, and perhaps even the footage and reported the boy to the police for allegedly raping the daughter.

This is the classic "he said, she said" scenario with a twist, video footage from a mobile phone.

There are a couple on interwoven issues here. Underage premarital sex, sexual violence in the form of rape, privacy issues, pornography, and crime, to name but a few. Perhaps cases like this interest me as it would allow for an exploration of the legal issues and the "how" the law is to be enforced (or implemented).

Pornography Bill -- The Debate Rages On

Overview

In what many would consider a surprising turn of events over the last seven to ten days, the long and tortuous journey of the Bill on Pornography looks set to come to an end. Most pundits have the bill being passed by the full plenary session of the House of Representatives on 23 September 2008 or very soon thereafter. The passage of this bill has seen its fair share of controversy and the very passage of the bill is unlikely to bring to a close these controversies.

The primary concern is that the definitions scattered throughout the bill remain vague and open to interpretation and thereby decreasing the legal certainty in the field. There seems little debate that there needs to be express or explicit provisions inked into law. However, there is considerable debate as to whether there needs to be a specific pornography law considering many of the provisions are already regulated elsewhere in Indonesian law such as the Law on the Protection of Children and the Indonesian Criminal Code.

The bill started this journey as the Bill on Anti-Pornography and Anti-Pornoaction (Indecency). The indecency provisions were in general dropped from the law as these were seen as being more problematic as they tended to deal with private behaviors and were much more subjective in nature. However, some of the indecency provision have been maintained and have been reclassified as being pornographic. The bill in its current form is just the Pornography Bill.

Pancasila and the Bill
Interestingly, the bill starts off with considering the ideals and values contained in Pancasila. Pancasila is the State ideology and contains five basic principles which are supposed to guide the State and her people. Pancasila is very much about tolerance and promotes the idea of unity in diversity (or a more literal meaning of “many but one”) however there are serious questions as to whether this bill promotes diversity and unity in that diversity or is merely a means of tightening governmental controls of public and private behavior to a very narrow set of moral and ethical norms.

The Intent
The intent of the bill and the construction of the provisions are the two sides of the one coin. The intent is clear; pornography is dangerous and exploitative and therefore must be prevented and where possible eradicated. Nevertheless, even where the intent is reasonable the construction can be poor. For example, where a particular definition is so broad that it can conceivably be interpreted in several ways without breaching the general essence of the definition. One of the primary criticisms of this bill is that the definitions are so broad that just about any image can conceivably fit the definition.

What is Pornography?
Pornography is defined in Article 1 as, “any material of a sexual nature that is made by humans in the form of a pictures, sketches, illustrations, photographs, writings, voices, moving pictures, animation, cartoons, poetry/rhymes/prose/verse, conversation, body movements, or in any other communicative message form via a any form of media communication and / or displayed in public, which heightens sexual arousal and / or breaches moral norms within the community.”

Pornography Services
Generally, pornography services are services provided to facilitate pornography such as television, cable television, radio, telephone, internet, electronic communication devices, newspapers, magazines and other printed medium.

This provision is problematic and subjective on a number of levels. Article 4 expressly prohibits the offering or advertising of pornographic services either directly or indirectly. For example, is a newspaper that accepts an advertisement for a massage service indirectly advertising a pornographic service?

Even more interesting is whether a theatre that runs a play or performance that involves nudity protected by the art and cultural provisions discussed later or are that at the mercy of the authorities for permitting a prohibited pornographic performance?

Another issue not properly resolved in the bill is how are artists such as Inul and Dewi Persik to be considered under this law. Perhaps more to the point should they be considered at all under these provisions. It is still to be resolved who is to be the arbiter of the community norms with respect to whether artistic expression is protected or not.

Discrimination
The bill explicitly states that the regulations governing pornography are to be non-discriminative yet appear to regulate certain behaviors not only as being of questionable morality but labels them as being deviant. Some of these behaviours that are deemed deviant include homosexuality, lesbianism, and oral sex.

Pornography Collections
There is a strict prohibition against the listening to, the watching of, the ownership of, and the storage of pornography except where the prevailing laws and regulations grant the requisite authority to possess pornographic material. This means that anyone with any of the elements of the sexual material noted earlier will need to rid themselves of this material as soon as possible. Failure to do so will put the individual at risk of prosecution. This particular set of provisions will need to be read in conjunction with other prevailing laws and regulations as it is unclear for example how someone receiving an email with offending content is to be dealt with if they open the file and the image is stored in the cache memory.

Criminalizing Models
The penalties for voluntarily or agreeing to be a model for material that is deemed pornographic attracts significant jail time and fines. The maximum amount of jail time permissible is ten years or a criminal fine of IDR 5 billion. When one considers that the wearing of a bikini could run afoul of the provisions if the context is deemed to be counter to the intent of the provision. However, this assumes that the photo of the bikini was a marketing campaign to sell more bikinis.

Art, Culture, Custom, and Ritual
The bill purports to make exceptions for pornography that is deemed to be artistic, culturally necessary, part of an acknowledged custom or ritual. It was only recently that when the bill finally looked like getting over the line that small protests broke out. One such protest included Balinese women wearing a traditional see through kebaya that clearly showed the outline of the women's breasts. This might arouse the sexual needs of some however the kebaya is clearly a traditional piece of clothing that is common to many of Indonesia's diverse ethnic cultures.

However, the elucidations to the provision suggest that the interpretation is restrictive and is dependent on not arousing the sexual desires of those who view the material. The example given in the elucidations is one of naked statues.

It is unclear as to what else might be considered under this definition. Are the bare-chested women participating in a ritual or customary ceremony protected from prosecution simply by claiming a tradition, custom, or ritual? The lack of legal certainty in this regard has caused a considerable amount of anxiety to be voiced by those in Bali and Papua.

Bali is particularly worried as there is a concern that the bill, once enacted, will have a devastating impact on tourism. However, the intent of the bill does not seem to be directed at women wearing bikinis or men wearing speedos at the beach.

Child Pornography
The sum total of the bill’s regulation of child pornography and the protection of children is contained in two short articles, Articles 16 and 17.

Article 16 simply requires people to protect children from pornography. Article 17 requires that children exposed to pornography are rehabilitated.

The Community’s Role
Aside from the definition of pornography, the role of the community is the most often debated provision. Yet, the bill seems to provide a broad role for the community in prevention while simultaneously limiting that role.

Of most contention is Article 21 which simply states that, “the community can play a role in the prevention of the production, dissemination, and utilization of pornography.” This is clearly a very broad mandate for the community to play an active role in the prevention of pornography in the general community.

However, Article 22(1) stipulates that the role of the community as envisaged in Article 21 is to:
(a) Report breaches of this law;
(b) Initiate class action lawsuits in the courts;
(c) Undertake socialization activities to explain the prevailing laws and regulations in this area; and
(d) To provide guidance to the community with respect to the dangers and impacts of pornography.

Article 22(2) is explicit in stating that any actions taken under the provisions of 22(1)(a) and (b) must be done so in compliance with prevailing laws and regulations and the perpetrators of any actions are to be fully responsible for those actions.

The provisions can reasonably be interpreted to be restrictive as to what actions are permissible by the community. Nevertheless, the provisions are simultaneously and perhaps purposefully vague in this regard.

Sanctions
There are both criminal sanctions and administrative sanctions contained in the bill. The bill also allows a judge to call founders and administrators to appear in court where the corporations they represent are alleged to be involved in a breach of the provisions of this bill.

The criminal sanctions range from 6 months to 15 years imprisonment and fines ranging from IDR 250 million to IDR 7.5 billion. Where the offense includes the exploitation of a child the liabilities are increased by one-third.

The administrative sanctions include the suspension of business activities, the cancelation of business permits, the confiscation of any proceeds of crime, and the revocation of incorporation.

Closing Provisions
The bill gives anyone with pornography one month to rid themselves of any offending material.

The bill will come into immediate force upon its enactment.

Conclusion

It is clear that the House of Representatives is keen to see this bill passed despite considerable opposition to it. It is unclear, and remains so, as to why there is a need to regulate pornography in this way. However, it seems that politicians in the lead up to the general and presidential elections believe that this bill establishes their credentials as being tough on crime and taking the high moral ground. Yet, there is no-one arguing that pornography is a good or positive activity, the arguments relate to necessity.

Questions remain as to how serious the government is with respect to enforcing the provisions once the bill passes the House and is ultimately enacted. Simply, without the full commitment of law enforcement the bill becomes just another law on the statute books.

Art Monthly Australia -- Child Pornography Update

This was something that I posted on previously and posed the question as to whether the photo should be considered to be child pornography. Not many comments, which is more indicative of my limited readership than the importance of the issue, however it would seem that the Classification Board in Australia has made this decision for us.

After Art Monthly Australia chose the picture for its cover as a protest on the recent seizing of images from an exhibition of Bill Henson's work in Sydney, the magazine was reported for a possible violation of the law. The Classification Board was asked for an opinion and it has now given one.

That opinion is to classify the picture with an M rating. This translates to "suitable for publication, though discretion is advised for viewers under the age of 15."

The photo in question of Olympia Nelson was taken by her mother, Pollixeni Papapetrou. Olympia's father Robert Nelson had this to say after the Classification Board came back with its decision, "I think she's feeling very happy because her argument has always been there's nothing wrong with the picture" and "the idea that it's pornographic is absurd."

It is worth noting that the Classification Board decision was not unanimous as several members arguing that the magazine should have been given a Refused Classification rating. The magazine did have additional graphic sexual images inside. A Refused Classification translates to the magazine being prohibited for sale.

At the time the politicians from all parties sensing blood in the water began circling like sharks around a defenceless surfer. The majority were jumping up and down describing the image as pornography, the sexualization of a child, the theft of Olympia's childhood, and that Art Monthly Australia should have all its public funding removed. Now that the Classification Board has issued an M rating I wonder how these same politicians feel about the Classification Board. Are we going to see a full-scale spill at the Board?

Life goes on!

Sexting

I guess new technology calls for the creation of new words to explain new phenomenon. I always thought that I was fairly clued in and up-to-date on things. Today I learned that there was such a thing as sexting. The phenomenon is generally about people who utilize all the technological capabilities of their gadgets. In this case their mobile phones.

Most mobile phones now include cameras that have the ability to take still pictures and streaming video. A lot, albeit not all, people enjoy photographing and filming themselves in all their glory or in compromising positions and then sending that to friends and colleagues. This I was aware of but I did not know that this form of communication had a name, sexting.

For me when consenting adults take pictures of themselves and send them to each other is fine with me. Once you do it and then you lose control of those images and they appear on the Internet and end up causing you embarrassment, then so be it. This, I suggest, goes with the territory.

However, teens now also have mobile phones and by default also have the ability to be actively involved in sexting. The question is when kids send naked pictures of themselves to their peers of the same age have they broken the law? Are they involved in child pornography? Can they be charged?

It is clear that when someone over the age of consent encourages someone under the age of consent to photograph themselves and then sext them, then this would be something that would run afoul of prevailing legislation, at least in Australia.

New technology will require new laws to govern new developments and phenomenon.

More on Naked Kids as Art

The girl whose picture sparked the latest outbursts in the sexualization of children / child porn debate has come out in her own defence. The girl, Olympia Nelson, at the time the picture was taken was a mere six years old. She is now a much more commanding 11 years old. At 11 years old I am still not convinced that she knows or understands the implications of the photo or the debate that surrounds them.

The photos were taken by the Olympia's mother, Polixeni Papapetrou. I am not sure this makes a difference to the idea or arguments relating to exploitation. However, it does add to the dynamic of the argument the question, who should be able to make decisions relating to the photographing of minor children?

Nevertheless, the interesting part of this story is that Olympia Nelson is "really, really offended" that the PM, Kevin Rudd, cannot stand the images of a naked six year old Olympia. I prefer Brendan Nelson's (no relation as far as I know) characterization of the cover of Art Monthly Australia being the equivalent of a two-fingered salute to the rest of society.

The arguments being presented from both sides have some validity but none seem to be structured with a view to finding or striking some balance between the value of protecting children and any artistic value such images might have.

Art Monthly Australia have missed an opportunity to advance the argument by including other images of bondage involving a Japanese schoolgirl and a woman on the receiving end of some oral sex from an octopus. Sounds a little fetishy to me but I am sure it will peak some one's interest. Nevertheless, this is hardly a good means of getting people on side with your position.

The idea that these publications receive federal funding and therefore must comply to a certain standard would seem that the government offers funding as a means of dictating norms. There are probably arguments relating to free speech on this front but there are equally valid arguments that if the government is paying for it then it perhaps has a right to expect certain content acceptability provisions are to be put into place.

It would seem that this debate still has a ways to go before any resolution is found.

Child Pornography Debate -- Reignited

Is this child pornography?