Australia bans award-winning Swedish film Children's Island over child porn concerns
94 replies, posted
So after fully reading the article it seems I was mistaken, I thought the word depict was used to mean acted, not actual. I can now see the reason for the ban and it is kinda justified but 30 years after release..
[editline]15th March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Midas22;44239278]I don't find a lot of the shit you find on the internet arousing yet its still pornography.[/QUOTE]
It has to be created for the purpose of sexual arousal, at least for it to be the definition of porn. If someone takes photos of chickens or something because they are turned on by it and share it, it is porn. No one else on the planet might share that interest but it is still porn.
I dunno about legal definition though, because that would be a massive loophole for anyone creating anything dodgy. "Its art really!"
[QUOTE=redback3;44239092]There has to be a reason why it was in there otherwise it just throws the entire movie off, I've never seen [I]Children's Island[/I] so i can't really say.[/QUOTE]
The movie is about a boy who doesn't want to go into puberty. He always checks his crotch for any hair, so he knows if he is still in childhood. The movie has actually more than one scene where his penis his shown, so I don't get why this scene in particular is bad.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Island_%28film%29[/url]
(Also has a link to the movie)
[QUOTE=redback3;44239136]It's just the fact that it involves a child so it's a really huge uncomfortable grey area - if it was a late teen or an adult male then there would be no issue - but then again like I said before: it's if it works within its medium.[/QUOTE]
The only reason it should make you uncomfortable is because it could be harmful to the boy. If it wasn't harmful, it's fine and being uncomfortable with it is irrational. [I](But also understandable.)[/I]
[QUOTE=Midas22;44239238]I dunno facepunch. Last time I checked kids masturbating is classified as child porn, don't see what the big deal is.
"But its art!"[/QUOTE]
What's the point banning it if it caused no harm? Seriously, when you want to ban media, you better have one hell of a good reason because it [I]is[/I] censorship. The reason child porn is illegal is that the creation of it is seriously harmful to children - that logic is clearly not applicable to a movie like this.
[QUOTE=Jsm;44239286]I dunno about legal definition though, because that would be a massive loophole for anyone creating anything dodgy. "Its art really!"[/QUOTE]
So what if people find motion picture quality short clips of kids masturbating arousing?
one would think with austrailia being so god damn hostile to live in, they wouldn't be so fucking conservative
guess they still have that whole "you are here not because you want to be" mentality
[QUOTE=Sableye;44239319]one would think with austrailia being so god damn hostile to live in, they wouldn't be so fucking conservative
guess they still have that whole "you are here not because you want to be" mentality[/QUOTE]
Uhhhhhh how is living in Australia hostile in any way?
[QUOTE=Antdawg;44239350]Uhhhhhh how is living in Australia hostile in any way?[/QUOTE]
You mean to tell me not everything is attempting to kill you at every moment?
It's kind of funny really, I think all the Scandinavian countries have a bunch of old films with child nudity and/or films that explore early sexuality. It's because we weren't being retarded about nudity and sexuality as the rest of the world are right now.
When you take a step back for a second, there's just no way you could possibly say that a clip of a boy masturbating, is somehow worse than any clip of someone dying in any way. It's just masturbation, something that everyone does or has done. And yet we throw such a huge shitfit over a clip with it - going so far as to [I]ban[/I] it, while we're totally fine with all sorts of violence.
It is absolutely ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Jsm;44239361]You mean to tell me not everything is attempting to kill you at every moment?[/QUOTE]
The colony of spiders in my bathroom are total bros they get the cockroaches to fuck off. And the snakes are bros too with killing mice and shit.
It's about living in harmony with nature.
[sp]no I don't actually have any spider or snake problems and most people don't either[/sp]
[QUOTE=Antdawg;44239350]Uhhhhhh how is living in Australia hostile in any way?[/QUOTE]
i thought the running joke of austrailia is the water,wildlife, air, and heat are all conspiring to kill you
[QUOTE=redback3;44239136]All the animal deaths in Cannibal Holocaust are real, but it works with the medium so you kind of forget/forgive (can't think of a better word) the content - same as how the gross use of nazi imagery/racism in American History X is more forgiveable because of how it is used.[/QUOTE]
The actual torture of animals is not in anyway comparable to symbols that only represent past violence.
Australian censorship board never fails to deliver, be it games or movies, they always have something for you to feel ridiculed about. Unless you're Australian.
Honestly it's not entirely unreasonable.
If someone were to film a 13 year old masturbating with a handycam in their own home it would definitely be considered child porn. They're just drawing a line.
Unfortunately the whole "It's art so it's okay" debate is a huge grey area. Just because you agree with this once instance doesn't mean you'll agree with the next.
Intent changes a lot of things, namely murder into manslaughter.
Now, manslaughter is still a [I]crime[/I], but it's recognised that the intent was not to kill the victim.
Is there a reason that same logic intention can't be applied to stuff like this? The intention wasn't to cause arousal, there was no harm put upon the child (this one is arguable, I know.), so why would it be considered on equal footing with "normal" child pornography?
I can totally understand action being taken in regards to the scene, but I'd be hesitant to recommend banning the entire film; censoring it makes more sense.
Sexual acts involving a minor recorded on video and put in a movie constitutes child pornography tbh. I think the ban is totally reasonable, but they should have censored that part instead imo
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;44239718]I can totally understand action being taken in regards to the scene, but I'd be hesitant to recommend banning the entire film; censoring it makes more sense.[/QUOTE]
Why, though? What's the point? The film's 30 years old, what would censoring the scene accomplish? What harm does the scene do?
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;44239718]Intent changes a lot of things, namely murder into manslaughter.
Now, manslaughter is still a [I]crime[/I], but it's recognised that the intent was not to kill the victim.
Is there a reason that same logic intention can't be applied to stuff like this? The intention wasn't to cause arousal, there was no harm put upon the child (this one is arguable, I know.), so why would it be considered on equal footing with "normal" child pornography?
I can totally understand action being taken in regards to the scene, but I'd be hesitant to recommend banning the entire film; censoring it makes more sense.[/QUOTE]
Context and intent is really important I guess, its what makes the album cover for Nevermind just an album cover and not child porn.
[QUOTE=Sableye;44239407]i thought the running joke of austrailia is the water,wildlife, air, and heat are all conspiring to kill you[/QUOTE]
Only if you live in the Outback, city life is pretty good
Considering the content I can understand the restriction (not every country has such a liberal stance towards openness around sexuality as Sweden), but it seems to be an 18+ rating would've sufficed to make the point. The general idea that everything involving nudity, or sexuality depicted in any other way than how sex is usually portrayed by mainstream media, constitutes porn is ridiculous and harmful. Anything can be masturbation material with the right amount of willpower.
This news article is false. There isn't masturbation in the movie.
Clearly there was a very, [I]very[/I] specific vision for this scene and while I can't say that vision is wrong, having that vision become a reality without compromise involves pointing a camera at a kid while he's masturbating. And that just is what it is.
were the laws regarding this stuff even the same back when this film was made?
like i'm pretty sure child pornography wasn't even illegal in the US until 1973 or so, but that's just the US
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;44237746]God forbid a film put someone out of their comfort zone.[/QUOTE]
[quote] 11-year old boy[/quote]
a 49 second clip of a 11 year old wanking it? You sure that's not going overboard even a [I]tiny bit[/I]
like what exactly did they say to this kid to get him to do this on camera? From what it sounds like there's a literal child-pornographic scene in the movie
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;44239374]It's kind of funny really, I think all the Scandinavian countries have a bunch of old films with child nudity and/or films that explore early sexuality. It's because we weren't being retarded about nudity and sexuality as the rest of the world are right now.
When you take a step back for a second, there's just no way you could possibly say that a clip of a boy masturbating, is somehow worse than any clip of someone dying in any way. It's just masturbation, something that everyone does or has done. And yet we throw such a huge shitfit over a clip with it - going so far as to [I]ban[/I] it, while we're totally fine with all sorts of violence.
It is absolutely ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
yeah shit guys why isn't child porn allowed? weird fucks in scandinavia used to be alright with it. why can't we?
[QUOTE=cool dude;44242506]yeah shit guys why isn't child porn allowed? weird fucks in scandinavia used to be alright with it. why can't we?[/QUOTE]
See you're one of those people who have just been blinded by this disgust to the point where you've forgotten the reason. You're supposed to be against child porn because it hurts children, but it's pretty obvious to me that the children involved in those movies weren't harmed, so it's completely irrelevant to go deep into this discussion about what does and what does not constitute child porn - those films are what they are and they're harmless. You being afraid of adolescent sexuality and nudity is dumb but that's your own business, but you should really take it down a notch when you're going to take it to the length where you want to ban films.
You can't see it because anything that even makes you think of children and nudity at the same time is automatically child porn to you, but you're supposed to be concerned about exploitation/harm and exploitation wasn't involved in these old films. Clearly there's a difference between child porn and films like this, and the difference is exploitation / harm.
You are the epitome of the Scandinavian progressiveness superiority complex stereotype.
[QUOTE=proch;44242572]You are the epitome of the Scandinavian progressiveness superiority complex stereotype.[/QUOTE]
you are the epitome of the dumb ass national generalisation mindset
I don't why they would even put that into a film, they should have just made it obvious the kid was jacking it without showing his johnson.
[QUOTE=isnipeu;44242918]I don't why they would even put that into a film, they should have just made it obvious the kid was jacking it without showing his johnson.[/QUOTE]
There was no masturbation scene in the movie. The article claims that there is but I have seen the movie and recall no such scene. The IMDB page states that:
"In the first shot, the kid is shown holding his breath in a bath, his buttocks are seen, but not much else.
The pre-pubescent boy is afraid of growing up and inspects his penis and testicles for signs of public hair. This occurs in plain view. Later as he approaches puberty (still without pubic hair), he spies upon a naked woman. A close up of his scrotum and erect penis is shown in close-up view twice as he peers at the woman through a hole."
No mention of masturbation.
I did some research and there are commercial films which show unsimulated masturbation by young boys; the 2008 Spanish film In Your Absence and the 2005 Brazilian film Eu Me Lembro. As far as I can tell neither of these films have been banned in Australia or elsewhere.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;44237818]It's one of those things everyone does but no one admits to, I don't understand it.[/QUOTE]
... is it? I think I'd wager that EVERY single person I know openly talks about, or makes jokes about masturbating.
Although you're in the US apparently so maybe it's a slight cultural difference.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
