The RAB Experience: Happy Snappies

Showing posts with label Happy Snappies. Show all posts

15 January 2010

Whatever Happened to Playboy Indonesia?

Early this evening I was checking out my blog statistics. I sometimes do this to see who is looking for what, what pages people are viewing, what people are downloading off of my blog, and what sorts of search terms they are using to find certain posts. There is lots of handy software for this sort of thing.

Anyways, this little stroll into blog statistics alerted me to the fact that lots of people are using search terms to find images of Indonesian and Japanese women that have been in the news. However, a recent trend has seen people searching for "Playboy Indonesia". So, with that in mind, I thought perhaps a Playboy related post was in order (and some happy snappies that are freely available on the internet).

Indonesian Playboy Magazine had a short run. I can only recall three issues being published. Although, I have to admit I was not a regular purchaser of the magazine. In fact, my guesstimates on the number of issues is based on the number of different covers that were thrust up against the window of the taxi I was in when I was stopped at traffic lights throughout the city. To be honest, if one is looking for pornography in the printed form in Indonesia then my guess is that the toll gates over Kebon Jeruk way might be a good starting point. I recall a couple of taxi rides back from the Universitas Pelita Harapan campus, which takes you past these particular toll gates, and some interesting picture material thrust up against the window of the taxi and accompanied with, "Hey Mister, picture good, cheap, only 20 thousand!"

Oh well, enough of the reminiscing and back to the post. Playboy, at least the Indonesian version, seems to have faded into extinction. It might make a comeback one day. Who knows?

Nevertheless, the furore that it generated was interesting because it is the only Playboy magazine that I can recall that really was not a skin magazine. The pictures, and some are attached here, were really tame. Tame in the PG sense of tame. It is also the only version of Playboy magazine that when you said, "the only reason I bought a copy was to read the articles" was in fact the truth. The articles were generally OK. The pictorials left way too much to the imagination. There simply was no titillation whatsoever.

It was funny to watch people come out and claim that the magazine was all about pornography, and that even if the pictures were not pornographic that it was still porn anyway by reason of the name of the magazine. In any event, a couple of the models were pursued for a while and the editor was tried for being a purveyor of porn and other indecent material. As I recall, nothing much came of the pursuit of the models and the editor was eventually acquitted. In the trial of the editor the judges took time out in their decision to provide a bit of a rebuke of the prosecution case and how it was poorly thought out and constructed.

The anti-porn law should put paid to an eventual comeback, but one never knows. It would be an interesting test case for the law.

For those of you searching for "Indonesian Playboy" I am almost certain that this post will not satisfy your curiosity...keep searching! However, here are some happy snappies of Andhara Early and Joanne Alexandra from Playboy and other places. Enjoy!

10 January 2010

Child Pornography and Artistic Merit...

It would seem that NSW is about to introduce legislation that removes artistic merit as a defense for images of children that are determined to be pornographic. The NSW Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, has said that a working group tasked with making recommendations on this matter has recommended that a defense of artistic merit must lapse once an image has been deemed to be pornographic.

Simply, whether the 'artist' in question produced the image as art or not becomes irrelevant with respect to the charge of producing, possessing, or distributing child porn material.

The question then becomes what about images that are not produced for artistic purposes, but rather are nothing more than personal family photos. For example, what if the Attorney-General had a happy snappy of one of his children or his grand children taking a bath. Is this producing or possessing child porn? What if in his apparent pride he shows the photograph to a colleague or places it on his computer as a screen saver and it is seen by members of his staff? Is this distributing child porn?

I am totally against child pornography. I find it objectionable in the extreme, abhorrent. I am certain that my views on this topic and subject have hardened since the birth of Will. The thought of him being exploited for child pornography is repugnant in the extreme. However, I really do not see what harm there is in either his mother, his grandparents, or his aunts and uncles having a picture of the little fella swimming but naked in the pool. I cannot fathom how I could be investigated, arrested, and prosecuted for producing, possessing, or distributing child pornography.

On the artistic front. I am not an artist and cannot make the arguments for artistic expression that an artist might need in producing images of children that may or may not push the boundaries of art and child porn. However, I do accept that artists have a right to that freedom of expression. An artist who takes a semi-naked picture of a child with the full consent of the parents of that child for the purposes of creating art that may later be exhibited should not lose the right to claim artistic merit as a defense because someone, probably a bureaucrat, has deemed the image to be child porn. The current recommendation would see a panel created to determine whether or not the image was a valid image of a child.

I am wondering whether in the common law there is a requirement for the commission of a crime to include not only the actus reus or the act, but also a requirement for mens rea, the intent. Before a crime can be proven is there not a need to determine the intent of the alleged offender to commit the crime charged?

It would seem to me that the removal of artistic merit as a defense removes a right to create art. Clearly, Bill Henson's work is not everyone's cuppa tea, but all the same neither is what Picasso or Rembrandt produced either.

Interestingly, many are arguing that this working group was set up in response to the furore surrounding Bill Henson and the closing down of an exhibition of his work. If this were true, then it seems a little silly considering his work was assessed by the relevant classification authorities in this area and determined to not breach any standards with respect to images involving children (including the photograph above).

There is certainly a need to tighten child pornography laws and to eliminate this scourge from the community. However, it seems that artists who produce images of children are the softest target available for the government on this front. The idea of removing the artistic merit defense for artists is evidence of the government's inability to deal appropriately and comprehensively with the scourge of child pornography.

There will undoubtedly be more to follow once the legislation is introduced to the NSW parliament.

27 September 2009

Latest Fashions -- Sunglasses...

Being an avid surfer of the internet, means that it is little wonder that I come across stuff that not only infuriates me or disturbs me, but stuff that also amuses me. Perhaps it is a case of small things amusing small minds, but there is nothing small about these sunglasses!

The picture above is available on the internet, the address is on the picture itself.