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.

Pamela Anderson and the FPI...

Is it just me? Or does the FPI have a problem with any woman that does not wear the veil or at the very, very, very least dress modestly from head to toe in a manner that they find modest? And, since when has the helping the victims of disaster been haram or prohibited under Islam?

Some of Pamela Anderson's best days are behind her at with respect to looking super good (note to self...time to watch some Baywatch re-runs). But, all the same, she still is pretty much smoking at 43. Besides, Hugh Hefner reckons she still has enough left in the tank to do a Playboy cover. Herein lies the FPI problem with Pamela Anderson. Ms. Anderson has decided that she is going to donate USD 25,000 to a charity that provides water filters in disaster areas. This charity, Waves for Water, work all over the world.

The FPI in their infinite [lack] of wisdom have decided that they need to vocalise their opposition to the donation, and particularly the fact that it is likely to be used in Indonesia. The FPI penchant for porn and its special liking of Playboy is well known. I have always figured that most FPI members are anti-Playboy because it gives them an excuse to go out and collect playboy magazines presumably to stock up on them as "burning material" for later protests (or just to read them and stick the pages together and then burn them!). Nevertheless, getting back on track, the FPI has decided that because the money comes from Pamela Anderson, and is the product of a porn shoot, that the money is haram.

I always thought it was possible to make an utterance or two and then get on with the job so to speak.

Habib "Hey Baby" Umar Salim of the Jakartan Branch of FPI has determined that accepting money from a Playboy shoot is tantamount to asking God to strike Indonesia down with another disaster. The logic being, at least in the mind of Hey Baby, is that porn is a much bigger challenge for Indonesia than any of these natural disasters combined. Porn is so big a problem that it is better to reject the Pamela Anderson donation and allow children, along with their parents, to die from a lack of clean water. But, hey, God will undoubtedly be pleased with your efforts Hey Baby.

If Hey Baby had any brains he would realise that God would not be fooled by this sinner, Pamela Anderson, at judgment day and would not allow her to try and claim mitigating circumstances that the donation should buy her way into paradise. But, Hey Baby might also recognise that the call is one that God gets to make and not him.

However, it would seem that Hey Baby's bigger grievance is that the media is not reporting that the FPI has opened an aid centre for the victims of the Mount Merapi eruption. Hay Baby is whining that the media only writes bad stuff about the FPI like they kill people. Well, you and your white-robed thug buddies do go around beating people up and destroying their property because they do not subscribe to your brand of Islam so the media does have a right to report that, don't they? And, it might well be newsworthy that your opposition to this donation, and the good that it will bring through access to clean water, is tantamount to killing people.

If the hat fits...

And. lucky last...is this the money shot?

Taylor Momsen...

To be perfectly honest, I had never heard of this girl until a couple of weeks ago. Or if I had, then it had not really registered as being anything special. However, it seems that it is getting increasingly difficult to avoid knowing more than one wants to about this 17-year-old with a penchant for trouble and going beyond the edge of the "appropriate" line.

Yet, the latest antics which involve exposing her 17-year-old mammary glands to a whole lot of music fans attending The Pretty Reckless concert at Don Hill's in New York City last week. The idea of an underage girl flashing her 'assets' is disturbing. However, it would seem that Momsen had thought this through sort of as the most naughty bits of her assets were covered with gaffer tape. So, this begs the question "did she really flash or not?" I ask this question in a strict legal sense. If you cannot see the naughty bits, then has she committed a crime by doing what she did.

It is a desperate act of sensationalism, agreed. But, is it illegal?

Needless to say, there has been plenty of outrage in the cyber-sphere about how bad and evil this is, and why it is high time her parents intervened and brought her under much stricter parental control. Maybe they should. Sometimes it is easier said than done. There are plenty of parents out there in the real world who will attest to that!

Momsen's antics sort of make the attempts by Miley Cyrus to portray a more adult image look pretty tame. In fact, the recent kerfuffle about the of-age GQ photo shoot by the stars of Glee look almost angelic in comparison.

I have no qualms about posting the picture of the gaffer-taped breast bearing shenanigans of Taylor Momsen. Simply, what is under those pink little stars is gaffer tape. There is nothing to see!

However, whether these sorts of actions are appropriate for a 17-year-old is a different debate to the strict legal one. Whether Momsen has any obligations to behave in a particular way because she is a role model is worth a thought. Ultimately, though perhaps the consumer is the one who needs to be pro-active here. Is this a case of supply and demand, the larger the demand for the sensational from her the more she strives to satisfy that demand. Chicken or the egg?

I wonder whether the producers of Gossip Girls are going to reprimand her for her silliness and stupidity? Or, do the ratings outcomes justify the means and the ends in this case? If what Momsen did was bad, then advertisers could conceivably pull the plug on all the advertising that they do on the show, right? This might make a statement that would have people taking notice for all the right reasons; certain behaviour is not tolerated and will cost you.

The final point is that perhaps this stupidity on Momsen's part will lead to a more sustained argument about the sexualisation of our children and who drives this, adults or the children themselves.

Indonesian Celebrities -- Atiqah Hasiholan...

I am up and at 'em early today. It is very much a case of very early to bed, very early to rise.

So, with nothing better to do, seeing that I handed in two assessment tasks yesterday, I figured I would make a couple of blog posts and do a little blog housekeeping. I have made a couple of "serious" posts already, and figured that I would check out my blog stats and see what people were looking for and what keywords they were following to get to my humble abode here on blogspot.

It seems that there are a lot of people out there obsessed with celebrity, particularly naked celebrities. It also seems that I have quite a lot of people ending up here in search of naked Indonesian celebrities. My recent posts on the sex tapes of Nazriel 'Ariel' Irham, Luna Maya, and Cut Tari ranked well. Although, a post I did 18 months or so ago on Tia Lestari still continues to bring in the visitors. Yet, of late it has been anything Luna Maya related that has been getting people dropping by and downloading the pictures that accompany most posts.

I tend not to publish too much naked stuff, being a family-oriented blog and all (just kidding :D). I am all for context, so if it is contextually appropriate, then I am likely to publish it and let the cards fall where they may.

Now, a post about naked celebrities would lend itself to the posting of some images of naked celebrities, but then that would be gratuitous, wouldn't it? To write a post on naked celebrities in order to post full-frontal nude images. So, while I was out surfing the net I came across these images of Atiqah Hasiholan. Atiqah is the daughter of Ratna Sarumpaet. Atiqah according to the spiel is an Indonesian actress. This would seem to fit the mold because mum is an actress and playwright  in her own right, which makes it a family affair.

I like Ratna Sarumpaet's work, both as a dramatist/ actor and as a social justice activist.

And here you were thinking "Indonesian Celebrities" I bet there will be some interesting pictures here. I bet you were not expecting this rather long lead in to the images, were you? A lesson in how to write lots about nothing...

The Pornography Law -- Judicial Review

This has appeared previously on the en.hukumonline.com website - here.

The debate on the pornography law seems to be a never ending one and is set to continue in the Constitutional Court on 23 February 2009. On 9 February 2009, in a move without any fanfare or announcement, eleven individuals filed a petition in the Constitutional Court seeking a judicial review of the Pornography Law. The petition seeks to have Articles 1(1), 4, and 10 repealed as constitutionally invalid.

The petitioners, among others, include Billy Lombok (Minahasa Christian Gospel Church), Jeffrey Delarue (Indonesian National Youth Committee of North Sulawesi), Janny Kopalit (Manado Catholic Youth), Goinpeace Tumbel (North Sulawesi Indonesian Christian Youth Movement), Bert Supit (Minahasa Cultural Council), and Charles Lepar (Manado Inter-Church Youth Forum). To represent them in the judicial review process, they have engaged O.C. Kaligis as their lawyer.

The substance of the petition is not surprising and is representative of much of the debate on the validity of the pornography law to date. The first claim as it relates to Article 1(1) is that the definition of pornography is too broad and as such is all-encompassing. The petitioners are arguing that such a broad definition will catch legitimate art and other traditional cultural practices under the definition.

The crux of the argument is that with such broad cultural diversity in Indonesia from Sabang to Merauke that it is unfair to have such a broad definition. Simply, what is acceptable in Papua might not be acceptable in Aceh. But, that lack of acceptance must not see the conduct criminalized as pornography or indecency.

Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see whether the Constitutional Court reads the pornography law as a whole or only the individual articles. The reason for this is that the government continues to maintain that the law specifically protects certain art and cultural traditions under other articles within the law. The petitioners despite representing an eclectic mix of church and youth organizations, they are also artists who feel that they have a legitimate grievance here in light of some of the art that they produce, such as carvings and paintings, would seemingly fall foul of the definition.

An angle adopted by the petitioners, and worthy of note, is that as working artists who earn a living and support families from their artistic income the pornography law discriminates against them and in essence violates their right to work. This is the substantive argument against Article 4.

The problem, as the petitioners see it, with Article 10 is that the article is open to multiple interpretations. The petitioners seem to focus on the term “depict nudity” and the definition may vary from one region to another in terms of what is considered to depict nudity. The argument seems to rely, similarly to Article 1, on the fact that Indonesia is a country with a rich history of pluralism and cultural diversity.

However, in a generic sense the term, depict nudity, is not problematic. Simply, what is depicting nudity in Aceh will still be depicting nudity in Papua. The difference is whether or not the current law would provide an exception for the depiction.

On the sides to this petition there are still many within the community that take issue with the pornography law. One issue that continues to arise is related to enforcement and how law enforcement agencies, irrespective of whether they are the police or the Office of the Public Prosecutor, intend to enforce the provisions that many consider to be problematic.

At various times both the National Commission for Women and the National Commission for Human Rights have invited law enforcers to discuss in detail the proposed implementation and subsequent enforcement of the provisions of the law. These organizations generally focus on the broadness of the definitions and the all-encompassing nature of these definitions as the basis of their rejection of the provisions of the law. In this case Article 4 was also noted as being most problematic.

However, the police see the law as a valuable tool in combating crimes related to pornography. Nicolas A. Lilipaly, Head of the Pornography, Indecency, and Morality Unit at the Metro Jaya Police Headquarters, is unequivocal in stating that the Pornography Law has enhanced the police’s ability to deal with pornography, which had to date been dealt with under provisions of the Indonesian Criminal Code.

In another interesting aside and also related to the pornography law, the Chief Judge of the Central Jakarta District Court, Andriani Nurdin, stated that where laws exhibit weaknesses then the duty falls to the court to exercise their discretion and interpret the provisions as they appear or to create the law where the legislation remains silent. There is likely to be some serious questioning of this kind of judicial activism of the bench from the community, particularly if the courts were to use their discretion in ways that clearly exceeded the intent of the parliament when drafting the law.

This latest installment in the debate on pornography is certain to keep the issue alive within the community.

(RAB / SH)

World Naked Bike Ride -- 2008

World Naked Bike Ride is an event that has been happening for a number of years. However, I do not recall having ever heard of it!

The rides take place in more than 70 countries. It has expanded to include non-pedal power means of transport such as roller skating, inline skating and the like. The ride is to protest "indecent exposure to cars" and in particular the pollution of cars.

The photos are from the Sao Paulo (Brazil) and London (United Kingdom) protests / rides.

This is from Sao Paulo. I have to say there seems to be many more clothed than unclothed people riding bikes. However, it should be added that full nudity in public places in Brazil is apparently illegal! It would seem that the camera person knows which of the riders they want to photograph!

Nah...this is what I call a real kick in the nuts! This is one unhappy copper and it is likely to be one unhappy bike rider who might not be riding a bike for a while if the police officer manages to connect with the big right kick! Take a look at the expression on the copper's face; he's not messing around on this one!

This is a photo from the London event! This fella has a billboard big enough that he could have written a few other slogans for the day. I hazard to guess that he does not get the bike out of the garage all that often!

Saving the best till last! It seems like the route is spectator lined. I wonder why?

Wolf Whistling - An Appropriate Response?

Nah, this is a story out of New Zealand and it does not involve sheep or rugby!

The story involves and Israeli tourist and some New Zealand road workers who couldn't help themselves from giving a wolf whistle or two as this obviously good looking young tourist walked past their place of work.

It would seem that the tourist has been in NZ for a while and has been subjected to the whistles over a period of time. Perhaps this is a lesson in when enough is enough.

Anyway, after being whistled at on her way to the ATM presumably to draw some cash, she decided the best way to give these fellas a lesson was to strip off all her gear and give them an eyeful of what they were really whistling at.

Once she drew her cash she apparently put her gear back on and went on her merry way! Well, at least she would have if she had not been detained by the police.

Lucky for her she was just given a warning and told that this was inappropriate behaviour in NZ. I would have figured it probably would have been inappropriate behaviour in Israel too! That's just me though!