4 ms·

I think this is a pretty good indication of where Australia is at - welcome to the nanny-nation. What really grates me about this is the supporters always seem

I think this is a pretty good indication of where Australia is at - welcome to the nanny-nation. What really grates me about this is the supporters always seem to fall back on saying it protects children. I find this absurd - it amounts to "can't see the problem therefore it doesn't exist".

ra 17y ago
Yep. Imagine how much policing $125mm could buy! Imagine how many child abusing monsters could be brought before the law for that kind of money, instead of just using it to close our eyes and pretending that nothing is happening! Absurd.
ErrantX 17y ago
What really grates me about this is the supporters always seem to fall back on saying it protects children. That always amuses me too; because it doesn't protect them at all (do Children really browse CP sites? no, they get caught in MSN or other chat rooms.... are they going to block all them ;)) It might limit the CP being viewed; but I highly doubt that will have an appreciable impact in the # of children abused.
- onceandonlyonce 17y ago
  > do Children really browse CP sites? I registered this one-off account to respond to this point: yes, they do. Or rather, I did, so there exists at least one :) When I was 11, even 18-year-olds tended to look ridiculously alien, anatomically, and were not something I would really consider myself aroused by. Instead, I tried to find porn of girls closer to my age, preferably ones I could fantasize were classmates or somesuch. I was much too introverted to strike up a conversation in a chat room; I just browsed websites until some random server somewhere transmitted the bits I wanted to see. Totally agree that it won't impact abuse, though—the Australians seem to have never heard of Tor.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    Thanks for the reply: your something of a statistical anomaly though (no offence intended). This, then, would have "protected" you, however the vast majority of kids looking at porn would be unaffected.

ra 17y ago

Yep. Imagine how much policing $125mm could buy! Imagine how many child abusing monsters could be brought before the law for that kind of money, instead of just using it to close our eyes and pretending that nothing is happening! Absurd.

ErrantX 17y ago

What really grates me about this is the supporters always seem to fall back on saying it protects children. That always amuses me too; because it doesn't protect them at all (do Children really browse CP sites? no, they get caught in MSN or other chat rooms.... are they going to block all them ;)) It might limit the CP being viewed; but I highly doubt that will have an appreciable impact in the # of children abused.

onceandonlyonce 17y ago
> do Children really browse CP sites? I registered this one-off account to respond to this point: yes, they do. Or rather, I did, so there exists at least one :) When I was 11, even 18-year-olds tended to look ridiculously alien, anatomically, and were not something I would really consider myself aroused by. Instead, I tried to find porn of girls closer to my age, preferably ones I could fantasize were classmates or somesuch. I was much too introverted to strike up a conversation in a chat room; I just browsed websites until some random server somewhere transmitted the bits I wanted to see. Totally agree that it won't impact abuse, though—the Australians seem to have never heard of Tor.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Thanks for the reply: your something of a statistical anomaly though (no offence intended). This, then, would have "protected" you, however the vast majority of kids looking at porn would be unaffected.