Child Abuse Uploader to Stand Trial
Marts
His comment that he regrets co-operating with police is understandable. Never,
ever, co-operate with them, particularly if you're the target of their
investigations.
Just shut the hell up, let them earn their money if they're gonna try and shaft
you.
This thing is such a travesty of justice.
Sylvia Else
I'm disappointed, and a bit surprised, that it's to go to trial.
The next question is whether a judge will let it go to a jury, or will
just direct them to acquit.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
The offences of which he is charged were introduced into the
Commonwealth Criminal Code by the Crimes Legislation Amendment
(Telecommunications Offences and Other Measures) Act (No. 2) 2004.
The explanatory memorandum for the Bill said
"The qualification requiring that reasonable persons must regard the
material, given all the circumstances, as offensive allows community
standards and common sense to be imported into a decision on whether
material is offensive."
Common sense? Apparently that's not working as well as it might.
Showing considerable foresight, in the Bills Digest for the Bill, Peter
Prince and Roy Jordan, of the Law and Bills Digest Section, said:
"Parliament may wish to consider whether it is appropriate to have
definitions of 'child pornography' and 'child abuse' material covering a
potentially very wide range of material coupled with uncertain standards
for determining whether such material is 'offensive' for offences that
are punishable by up to ten years imprisonment."
Shame Parliament paid no attention.
In some ways, this case seems reminiscent of that faced by Dr Haneef -
the police have got a bit between their teeth, and want to prosecute
anyone whose actions could, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be
covered by an offence provision, without stopping to think about whether
what the person is alleged to have done fits any normal notion of
criminal behaviour.
The result is that people with no intent at all to do anything bad find
themselves dragged into bizarre criminal cases. The next person could be
you, or me.
Sylvia.
Epsilon
This is the result of a group of Queensland police
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_Argos) playing vigilantes, and
mis-using Commonwealth law. One possible outcome is for the Commonwealth
DPP to take over the prosecution, and to not proceed any further.
Unfortunately, the Commonwealth DPP also plays vigilantes.
It's different to the Haneef case, because there it was the AFP that carried
out the investigation and the Commonwealth DPP that ran the prosecution.
There were misgivings within the AFP about the matter, and within the
Commonwealth DPP. In due course, common sense did prevail.
Sylvia Else
Perhaps, though the decision that the case was unlikely to be successful
was not necessarily based on common sense.
One may hope that common sense will prevail in this case, either by the
judge throwing the case out, or the jury finding the accused not guilty
Still, common sense should have prevailed even before the charge was
laid. The accused is suffering considerably in the mean time.
Sylvia.
Marts
> laid. The accused is suffering considerably in the mean time.
And this is the big worry (aside from the chance of being locked up). If he gets
off I hope that he has an avenue of compensation, starting with that doctor's
job and that of the prosecuting officers.
Marts
> "The qualification requiring that reasonable persons must regard the
> material, given all the circumstances, as offensive allows community
> standards and common sense to be imported into a decision on whether
> material is offensive."
>
> Common sense? Apparently that's not working as well as it might.
It appears not. Then again, I don't know the full story, I must admit.
Did the guy post a link of this particular video onto that website or did he
post the actual video? Second, what was the context of the post/link? To
highlight something, for the purpose of voyeurism, or to alert people to the
dangers of such videos?
If the guy posted a link saying, "Hey folks check this nutcase out - he should
be swung around himself", then what would the problem be? But if he posted
something like, "does this get your rocks off, guys?", then you gotta wonder.
But what gets me is that it's been reported that the video has been seen and
repeated all over the web, been seen on the news in various countries. So, why
aren't they all being prosecuted under the respective jurisdictions? Or is Oz
the only country with such laws? And if so, why?
> The result is that people with no intent at all to do anything bad find
> themselves dragged into bizarre criminal cases. The next person could be
> you, or me.
And that, frankly, worries me.
I am so glad that in this day and age of our children being so sacrosanct to the
point of any allegation of child abuse, no matter how tenuous or patently false
it may be, will lead to a surefire conviction, that my kids are adults, that I
do not have to deal with children in any form, whether it be professional or
personal. God only knows what'd happen if I barked at one, and they fire back
"he's molesting me" for the simple reason that they can do it.
.
Noodle
http://luvtosurf.blogspot.com/2008/10/man-swings-baby-dangerously-disturbing.html
Judge for yourself.
Apparently, even WATCHING this will put you in jail!
So don't watch it! :-)
Noodle
> It appears not. Then again, I don't know the full story, I must admit.
You're right. You have no idea.
It refers to this video:
http://luvtosurf.blogspot.com/2008/10/man-swings-baby-dangerously-disturbing.html
The above link is what the Queensland 70 year old Pensioner is being
put in Jail for, by Queensland Police.
> Did the guy post a link of this particular video onto that website or did he
> post the actual video?
A link.
> Second, what was the context of the post/link?
The context is this:
http://luvtosurf.blogspot.com/2008/10/man-swings-baby-dangerously-disturbing.html
> To
> highlight something, for the purpose of voyeurism, or to alert people to the
> dangers of such videos?
To alert people to the dangers of such videos.
> If the guy posted a link saying, "Hey folks check this nutcase out - he should
> be swung around himself", then what would the problem be?
There is no problem.
> But if he posted
> something like, "does this get your rocks off, guys?", then you gotta wonder.
He didn't.
> But what gets me is that it's been reported that the video has been seen and
> repeated all over the web, been seen on the news in various countries. So, why
> aren't they all being prosecuted under the respective jurisdictions?
Because Queensland Police are arseholes who got out of their way to
make trouble for their own citizens.
Even worse, Queensland MAGISTRATES are so computer illerate that they
let cases like this proceed to Court!
>Or is Oz
> the only country with such laws? And if so, why?
Because YOU personally don't write to your Local Federal Member and
get rid of these laws.
> And that, frankly, worries me.
Me too.
And Sylvia Else.
And tens of thousands of other Australians who believe in FREE SPEECH.
Again, we are talking about this and nothing else. Doesn't seem
harmful at all, does it?:
http://luvtosurf.blogspot.com/2008/10/man-swings-baby-dangerously-disturbing.html
Phil Allison
"Marts"
>
>
> And this is the big worry (aside from the chance of being locked up). If
> he gets
> off I hope that he has an avenue of compensation, starting with that
> doctor's
> job and that of the prosecuting officers.
** No t the slightest chance of either in this one.
The specialist doctor is immune as an expert witness and the police
investgators are also immune unless criminality can be proved against them -
like faking evidence etc.
In criminal cases, the accused has next to no hope of any compensation for
costs UNLESS the police admit error and drop the charges.
.... Phil
Phil Allison
"Noodle"
>
> The above link is what the Queensland 70 year old Pensioner is being
> put in Jail for, by Queensland Police.
** Jesus H. Christ - you are a slack bastard with facts !!!!
The accused is NEITHER 70 years old NOR a pensioner !!!
READ the fucking news story.
IMBECILE !!
.... Phil
F Murtz
inertia in such a way as to lessen the strain on the baby and I would
not be surprised to find out that it could be training for acrobatics in
a circus or something.
Noodle
> The accused is NEITHER 70 years old NOR a pensioner !!!
Sorry, the accused is 60 YEARS OLD.
Not 70.
My fault.
Sylvia Else
> Sylvia Else wrote...
>
>> "The qualification requiring that reasonable persons must regard the
>> material, given all the circumstances, as offensive allows community
>> standards and common sense to be imported into a decision on whether
>> material is offensive."
>>
>> Common sense? Apparently that's not working as well as it might.
>
> It appears not. Then again, I don't know the full story, I must admit.
>
> Did the guy post a link of this particular video onto that website or did he
> post the actual video? Second, what was the context of the post/link? To
> highlight something, for the purpose of voyeurism, or to alert people to the
> dangers of such videos?
He posted he video that he'd downloaded from somewhere else. I think his
purpose was to question to the wisdom of what the man was doing to the
child.
>
> If the guy posted a link saying, "Hey folks check this nutcase out - he should
> be swung around himself", then what would the problem be? But if he posted
> something like, "does this get your rocks off, guys?", then you gotta wonder.
Legally, I don't think it would actually make much if any difference.
The case depends on two questions. Firstly, was it child abuse material
within the meaning of the legislation, and if it was, was the depiction
of the child abuse, in all the circumstances, offensive to a reasonable
person.
If that seems to you to be horribly vague, then you'll get no argument
from me.
>
> But what gets me is that it's been reported that the video has been seen and
> repeated all over the web, been seen on the news in various countries. So, why
> aren't they all being prosecuted under the respective jurisdictions? Or is Oz
> the only country with such laws? And if so, why?
Maybe we're the only jurisdiction that has its definition of child abuse
material expressed in such a manner, or perhaps we're the only place
where the police feel that their role is to prosecute everyone whose
actions can, by whatever stretch necessary, be fitted into the defintion
of an offence, rather than just prosecuting criminals.
That said, there have been some absurd prosecutions and threats of
prosecutions in respect of alleged child pornography in the USA.
It seems that the words "child pornography/abuse" and "terrorism" switch
of the intellects of law enforcers in many places.
Sylvia.
Epsilon
> the intellects of law enforcers
An impossible combination. The former is never an element in the job
specifications of the latter.
Sylvia Else
Yes, I should of course have refererred to a reduction in their ability
to simulate an intellect.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
Unfortunately, that's just not going to happen. People who are acquitted
in criminal cases cannot usually even recover their legal costs.
Maybe he can sell the movie rights.
Sylvia.
Marts
> It seems that the words "child pornography/abuse" and "terrorism" switch
> of the intellects of law enforcers in many places.
That is assuming that they have "intellects" to switch off in the first place.