• Australia bans award-winning Swedish film Children's Island over child porn concerns
    94 replies, posted
I've seen worse on SBS on a friday night.
[QUOTE=Falchion;44242882]you are the epitome of the dumb ass national generalisation mindset[/QUOTE] Not really though.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;44242543]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.[/QUOTE] So what you're basically saying is that you think it should be OK as long as there's no physical harm involved? There is a reason why children can't give consent, and what about psychological problems that may not surface until several years after the exposure? And where are you going to draw the line between what is and what isn't exploitation? Adults making children perform sexually is one of those things that should always be illegal, no matter what.
[QUOTE=sltungle;44243096]... 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.[/QUOTE] its stupid here too but there's some wacky mindset that if we prevent kids from ever thinking about sex then they won't do it, unfortunately kids are going through puberty earlier and earlier for some reason and middle schoolers are horny as rabits while sex ed in public schools is either half hearted non existent or done so late that it doesn't matter. [editline]15th March 2014[/editline] if the film is truely that good, the deletion of one 45 second scene shouldn't destroy the message or to be of the film anyway
[QUOTE=Sableye;44243559]its stupid here too but there's some wacky mindset that if we prevent kids from ever thinking about sex then they won't do it, unfortunately kids are going through puberty earlier and earlier for some reason and middle schoolers are horny as rabits while sex ed in public schools is either half hearted non existent or done so late that it doesn't matter. [editline]15th March 2014[/editline] if the film is truely that good, the deletion of one 45 second scene shouldn't destroy the message or to be of the film anyway[/QUOTE] Censorship will destroy the message of the film. The point of the film is that the sexuality of young people is okay and nothing to be ashamed or frightened of. Censorship sends the exact opposite message.
[QUOTE=W key broke;44242439]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] Is it totally impossible to imagine that the kid was fine with it? I mean, if one doesn't grow up with the same nudity taboos, one isn't necessarily going to be uncomfortable with the same stuff. Plus, films include stuff that makes people uncomfortable all the goddamn time, from rape scenes to slave beatings. If you're going to ban something [I]because [/I]it causes offence, you're going to need to ban a lot of stuff. Sure, there's other reasons to ban the film that involve the scene, but I don't know that they're all that sensible; was the child harmed in the filming? No. Is it funding groups which produce real child pornography? No. Did it offend a few people? Yes, but I bet 12 Years a Slave did, and that's hailed as one of the best films ever.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;44243601]Censorship will destroy the message of the film. The point of the film is that the sexuality of young people is okay and nothing to be ashamed or frightened of. Censorship sends the exact opposite message.[/QUOTE] not really a good way to get across a point It's like trying to get people to accept atheism by throwing rocks at a chuch
I dont approve of it, we are getting into some very dangerous territory when we allow a movie to show a boy masturbate who is under the age of conscent. Allowing that could give pedophiles a loophole to go through, what's the difference between pictures of young boys jacking off and a movie? Artistic merit or not, I agree on their decision.
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;44243533]So what you're basically saying is that you think it should be OK as long as there's no physical harm involved?[/QUOTE] No that's not at all what I'm saying; I'm talking about any kind of harm. I'm sorry if I was vague about that, psychological harm is the main harm done to children when it comes to sex. This film caused no kinds of harm and that's why I think banning it is ridiculous. Child pornography causes a huge deal of harm, mainly psychological. This film, I believe, caused no kinds of harm. [QUOTE]There is a reason why children can't give consent, and what about psychological problems that may not surface until several years after the exposure?[/QUOTE] Maybe we should ask the 'victim'. The film is 30 years old, I think that counts as 'several years'.
While I agree that child masturbation closeups are sick and shouldn't be showcased anywhere... [QUOTE]Anyone buying, selling or showing the film publicly will now face fines of up to $275,000 and a maximum 10 years’ jail[/QUOTE] this however is just fucking ridiculous. Police state much? You could probably stab a person and get away with less of a sentence.
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;44248306]While I agree that child masturbation closeups are sick and shouldn't be showcased anywhere... this however is just fucking ridiculous. Police state much? You could probably stab a person and get away with less of a sentence.[/QUOTE] *up to, not an automatic $275,000 fine and 10 year sentence.
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;44248306]While I agree that child masturbation closeups are sick and shouldn't be showcased anywhere... this however is just fucking ridiculous. Police state much? You could probably stab a person and get away with less of a sentence.[/QUOTE] Most of the time, police couldn't give a fuck because there's a long list of banned content and nobody bother to reads it, so you could show it publicly and I doubt the police would swarm the theatre
Who gives a fuck about whether adults find it distasteful? Ask whether the kid who's actually in the film understands what was happening and make sure he wasn't harmed. If he did get it and if he condones it then fuck anyone who thinks it should be banned. Generally speaking I believe 13 years old is old enough to make the distinction between what you do and don't want to do with your body. Child porn isn't an issue about adults seeing things they're not comfortable with, it's an issue about what's being done to children and in what context. Why don't people get that? So long as precautions have been taken to make absolute sure about the kid's consent and so long as the content itself isn't pornographic then it's art if you ask me.
[QUOTE=kitthehacker;44251320]Who gives a fuck about whether adults find it distasteful? Ask whether the kid who's actually in the film understands what was happening and make sure he wasn't harmed. If he did get it and if he condones it then fuck anyone who thinks it should be banned. [B]Generally speaking I believe 13 years old is old enough to make the distinction between what you do and don't want to do with your body.[/B] Child porn isn't an issue about adults seeing things they're not comfortable with, it's an issue about what's being done to children and in what context. Why don't people get that? So long as precautions have been taken to make absolute sure about the kid's consent and so long as the content itself isn't pornographic then it's art if you ask me.[/QUOTE] Well that may be your opinion, and I may be wrong, but it's likely uninformed. You could make an argument for 16 or 17 as most countries in the world have, but arguing for 13 during the prime developmental stage of both genders is nearly impossible.
[QUOTE=kitthehacker;44251320]Who gives a fuck about whether adults find it distasteful? Ask whether the kid who's actually in the film understands what was happening and make sure he wasn't harmed. If he did get it and if he condones it then fuck anyone who thinks it should be banned. Generally speaking I believe 13 years old is old enough to make the distinction between what you do and don't want to do with your body. Child porn isn't an issue about adults seeing things they're not comfortable with, it's an issue about what's being done to children and in what context. Why don't people get that? So long as precautions have been taken to make absolute sure about the kid's consent and so long as the content itself isn't pornographic then it's art if you ask me.[/QUOTE] Apparently this film "contained child exploitation material". Kind of takes away meaning from the term.
[QUOTE=Mbbird;44251377]Well that may be your opinion, and I may be wrong, but it's likely uninformed. You could make an argument for 16 or 17 as most countries in the world have, but arguing for 13 during the prime developmental stage of both genders is nearly impossible.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about the age of consent for sexual activity or something, although I get that it's a fine line. I'm saying that when you're 13 years old you can understand art. And if this kid understood what he was doing and why he was doing it (which I think a 13 year old who is mature and experienced enough to act in a major film is capable of doing) then it's his choice to make. There was (hopefully) no-one coercing him and there was no other party involved in the act itself. That's what differentiates it from child abuse/pornography in my mind.
so a film that has child porn has been legal to own in all countries (until now) for over 30 years? I thought CP was taken very seriously or does it have a grandfather clause?
[QUOTE=The Baconator;44251740]so a film that has child porn has been legal to own in all countries (until now) for over 30 years? I thought CP was taken very seriously or does it have a grandfather clause?[/QUOTE] There's a Dutch movie my parents saw when they were younger, it had a shower scene with a girl, topless or completely nude can't remember, and I believe she kissed with the lead actor at some point as well. She was a minor, the actors etc didn't even realize, and my parents only found out last year because of some documentary thing. Technically that's child porn, it's not banned I don't think.
I can't believe there are paedophiles in here complaining that child pornography was banned. Maybe filming naked kids performing sexual activities and labelling it art is ok in your messed up country, but Australia is a modern country and the most liveable in the world. We don't stand for such sick filth.
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;44251646] Sex for humans is so much different than sex for animals, most animals do it strictly for procreation, some do it for pleasure. While we do it for both of those, its still different for us. It's a social and psychological thing that effects people in different ways, and like driving/drinking/etc sex is generally not suitable for people that are still developing physically and mentally. [/quote] Are you aware that mental maturation of the prefrontal cortex (the part of the brain which most affects decision making, inhibition and other higher functions) doesn't finish until the mid-twenties? ([url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110922134617.htm)[/url] So if you really mean what you say and you're not just sophistically defending a system you happened to be born into, it would follow that you would want the age of sexual consent raised to at least 25. That would be the best way to stop people who are still developing physically and mentally from having sex. Though I'm sure, as a complete coincidence, you will in fact conclude that the current age of consent in your place of residence is the only correct one. [QUOTE=LuaChobo;44251646] Just because a 13 year old says s/he wanted to do something sexual or that he knows whats going on, doesn't mean s/he understands it. [/QUOTE] What specifically do you think would not be understood? A lot of people make this point, that there is some special consequence that for some reason a young person can't understand, without ever specifying what it is and why you can only understand it when you pass your country's age of consent, be it 13 or 21.
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;44253258]You are speaking as if i'm saying it doesnt develop at all until the mid twenties. It's a curve, at a certain point you have the ability to properly understand sexual activities.[/QUOTE] I agree. But the metaphorical curve is experienced at vastly different rates by different people. Maybe I did presume too much about your opinions. It's just when must people bring up mental maturation they usually don’t actually care about the facts and simply insist that their local age of consent is the exact point when people become mature and everyone beneath that arbitrary age should be treated as a child.
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;44253419]I agree with you, but there is no doubt in my mind that 13 is a point where someone cannot fully grasp the idea of sex.[/QUOTE] I agree with you, but there is no doubt in my mind that 13 is a point where someone can fully grasp the idea of sex.
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;44253419]I agree with you, but there is no doubt in my mind that 13 is a point where someone cannot fully grasp the idea of sex.[/QUOTE] Imagine we ring up the actor today and see what he thinks of the movie and his part of it, and whether or not he feels exploited in his part. If he doesn't regret being in this movie and agrees that the performance of his part was necessary for the film to convey its message, would you agree that the movie is not exploitative and doesn't deserve to be refused rating? EDIT: Either way, the director of the film seems to agree (according to a different article) that if the film was to be shown today such close-up shots would've been cut. Back when the film was made it was rather common for depictions of youths and upbringing to be more graphic and intimate. This was before child pornography crimes became a thing you'd commonly hear about in the news.
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;44253419]I agree with you, but there is no doubt in my mind that 13 is a point where someone cannot fully grasp the idea of sex.[/QUOTE] What's so difficult to understand about it anyway? [editline]16th March 2014[/editline] The answer is nothing, at least not inherently. It's all this bullshit we've attached to sex that's difficult to understand. We treat it like it's this lovecraftian monster and act crazy about so many things that have to do with sex. If we weren't retarded about sex, there'd be nothing to understand. I think that's why this film worked out fine 30 years ago, it's because people weren't going batshit crazy things like that back then.
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;44259269]Yeah man because 30 years ago people were REALLY HAPPY WITH MANY ASPECTS OF SEXUALITY TOTALLY[/QUOTE] I dunno, it seems like the 60's and 70's had allot of sexual deviancy in the media, with kinda a neutral approach to it.
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;44238037]It's not banned because of a scene that includes masturbation, it's more the fact that it's a relative close-up of a 13-something year old doing it[/QUOTE] Yeah, and from what I can tell a film not being banned for having a clip of a naked 13 year old jerking off would be news. [editline]16th March 2014[/editline] Here's an idea, why doesn't someone post the film clip on youtube then post it on facepunch and see if they get banned? It's only a scene from a movie after all.
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;44260689]Yeah, and from what I can tell a film not being banned for having a clip of a naked 13 year old jerking off would be news. [editline]16th March 2014[/editline] Here's an idea, why doesn't someone post the film clip on youtube then post it on facepunch and see if they get banned? It's only a scene from a movie after all.[/QUOTE] They'd probably get banner, and the clip removed from youtube because of the legal implications of hosting something that's arguably child porn on a website. Even if it's totally legal, I bet Garry wouldn't appreciate that. And just because action is taken against something doesn't mean action [I]should[/I] be taken. No one's denying that this kind of thing will land you in hot water; we're talking about if it should land you in hot water.
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;44260689]Yeah, and from what I can tell a film not being banned for having a clip of a naked 13 year old jerking off would be news. [editline]16th March 2014[/editline] Here's an idea, why doesn't someone post the film clip on youtube then post it on facepunch and see if they get banned? It's only a scene from a movie after all.[/QUOTE] It doesn't seem to be on Youtube anymore but it was once, it must have been removed. But it is not an underground rare movie. You can buy it on Amazon for £20 and since it's copyright has expired you can watch it in it's entirety on the internet archive which is linked to on the Wikipedia page of the film.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.