Won’t Someone Think of the Cartoons?

There comes a time in every moral panic when common sense completely takes a holiday.

Case in point: the ludicrous ruling by NSW Supreme Court Justice Michael Adams that pornographic cartoons of Simpsons characters constitute genuine child pornography.

Now, tell me: when did the crusade against child pornography stop being about protecting children?

Because that has most definitely stopped. At some point it become all about political point-scoring, puritanical moral grandstanding and theocratic thought-policing.

And that’s where we are now.

If our judges can consider stupid pictures of cartoons having sex as anywhere near equivalent to actual child pornography, then quite frankly we’ve entered the Twilight Zone.

It would be funny if it wasn’t so sinister.

What’s next? Well, The Simpsons Movie will obviously have to be banned, because we got a glimpse of Bart’s cartoon willy.

Then we’ll have to ban all TV shows and films that feature crime of any sort. It doesn’t matter that it isn’t real . . . because it might encourage someone to really do it!

Then we’ll have to ban any books that describe crimes. It won’t leave us with much in the way of literature, just a selection of Dr. Seuss books (although obviously not The Cat in the Hat . . . he’s a bad influence on children) and Miffy by Dick Bruna.

And how many otherwise-abused children will be protected by all this nonsense? Precisely none.

But of course, that’s not the point is it? This isn’t about protecting children anymore. It’s about policing morals, even when those morals affect no-one except the individual.

And when the judiciary starts deciding they have the right to do that, then we’re all in a lot of trouble.

Once again, Bolt just doesn't get it

Last week Age arts critic Robert Nelson reopened the debate on the representation of children in art by publishing a naked picture of his daughter Olympia on the cover of Arts Monthly magazine.

Professional dyspeptic Andrew Bolt, in his new role as moral crusader (taking a break from his role as fingers-in-the-ears-antiscience-climate-change-denier) was obviously horrified.

On Thursday Bolt published on his blog an earlier piece by Nelson, in which Nelson talks about the ways in which images of children are sexual. Bolt describes Nelson's piece as "disturbing", but as is often the case, he's completely missed the point.

If what Nelson says about the images being sexual isn't true, then Bolt's own argument that the images shouldn't be seen . . . because they're sexual . . . make no sense!

Of course the pictures are sexual. But the point is that the pictures aren't sexualising the children. They're just bringing out, as Mr Nelson says, the latent sexuality that is already there.

You can't make a teapot sexual merely by photographing it naked.

Bolt and Nelson are actually in complete agreement on this point.

The only difference is that Nelson advocates the pictures' public display, while Bolt (along with Kevin Rudd and Hetty Johnston and all our other self-appointed moral nannies) wants them hidden away.

I have to agree with Robert Nelson. Let's bring it out into the open. Hiding our children away in dark corners does not keep them safe.

If we genuinely want to see a reduction in child abuse, then let's give our kids pride in themselves, pride in their strength and most importantly, ownership of their sexuality.

The problem with the current stampede of moral outrage is that it works completely counter to this goal. Kevin Rudd saying he "cannot stand" the picture of Olympia is a case in point.

Olympia was understandably offended by his statement because she's proud of her pictures, as she should be. And does Olympia sound like the sort of girl who would stand to be abused? Of course not.

A child with a healthy sense of his or her own worth is the child that will kick an abuser in the nuts and run away.

Surely that's what we want our kids to be.

Yet More Moral Outrageousness

A few weeks ago, when Bill Henson's pictures were quietly returned to the galleries from whence they'd been confiscated and our self-appointed moral guardians had been distracted by the next shiny controversy, I thought this little storm in a teacup was done.

It's obviously a slow news week though, because it's taken only the slightest of nudges to get it back on the front page.

In a protest against the ridiculous view that nudity = porn = bad, the publishers of Art Monthly have put a picture of a naked 6-year-old on the front cover of their latest issue.

Apparently this is what we're getting outraged about as a society now.

Millions are starving all over the world, we are on the verge of doing irreparable damage to our climate, and soon Australian Idol will be back on our screens.

And what's the biggest issue of the day? The thing that's threatening our society the most? A picture of a little nude girl. Seriously.

The reaction from our "leaders" has been sadly predictable. K-Rudd and Dr Nelson have fallen over themselves in a scramble to see who can appear the most apoplectically outraged. I think Nelson may have clinched it with his threat to call the cops.

In an interesting development the subject of the photograph, now 11 years old, has hit back saying she is proud of the picture and offended that K-Rudd said he hated it.

Take that, Kevin.

Now can we talk about something serious?

For goodness sake, Idol will be back any day now. If we really want to do something about child exploitation, then our efforts would be much better spent ridding the world of that abomination.

All Heil the FCC

The US Federal Communications Commission (you know, the geniuses behind the media beat-up of Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction) have had another brilliant idea.

I know, they've said . . . let's auction off part of the broadband spectrum to anyone that will provide free Internet without pornography! Or, in their words, a "network-based filtering mechanism...in order to protect children and families."

Recognising this as just one more step back into the Victorian era by a crowd of fascist Luddites, the reaction from the technological crowd has been one of bemusement and muted giggles. The reaction from potential bidders has been more or less non-existent.

Remember when the Howard Government, thinking along similar lines, offered free home-based content filters? Yeah. It took a sixteen-year-old less than 24 hours to crack it.

Hopes and dreams of moral crusaders notwithstanding, the technology required to achieve this just doesn't exist yet. What's more, it's many years of intensive development away.

So here's what will happen:

First, there will be a lot of discussion about freedom of speech from bloggers, and a lot of resistance from the dominant telcos (AT&T etc.). They won't be worried about about the filtering, of course, but about someone providing net access for free.

Then there will be a few parties interested in the auction, but not many. The ultimate price paid will be less than impressive.

Finally once the dust has settled, the costs associated with providing the required porn-free access will blow out massively. Kids will download porn from that spectrum just to show it can be done, and the FCC will be bombarded with complaints from their parents.

The strawman company set up to run the thing will be weighed down by lawsuits and declare bankruptcy, a lot of well-meaning but ignorant creditors will lose their money and the whole project will be summarily abandoned.

Or, there might be a sudden outbreak of common sense and the whole thing might be dropped before it begins. But I wouldn't count on it.

Morality 33⅓

I must have my finger on the pulse. Or at least Barney Zwartz at the The Age does.

After Wednesday's post we seem to have had a veritable storm of misguided moral outrage.

Sadly, it all goes to prove my point that when morals are considered to be absolute or immutable, then rational argument and action quickly goes out the window.

First we had the condoms-with-Cruisers controversy, then Tania Zaetta's rumoured dalliance with our diggers in Afghanistan.

All this seems to have got the juices flowing for the hyper-conservative set, because on Thursday an exhibition by photographer Bill Henson was shut down by police, on suspicion of child pornography.

It was all happened pretty quickly, so like most people I haven't seen the images myself. However, I agree absolutely with the sentiments expressed in this article by art critic Robert Nelson.

The real tragedy is that a debate worth having . . . where the line between art and pornography lies . . . will not happen.

The decision will be hijacked by those who believe they already know the answer. And we as a society will be expected to toe the dictated line.

Finally, from the (potentially) serious the utterly ridiculous, this story appeared today.

If Bill Henson's experience is anything to go by, then Anne Geddes better watch out. She's next.

Californication

It's nice to see David Duchovny back on TV. Being a sci-fi nerd, I was a big fan of The X-Files back in the day, but I'll be the first to admit Duchovny's not the greatest actor in the world.

He has a limited range, oscillating somewhere between deadpan and wry. To succeed, he needs a script that can make use of his particular style. The X-Files did this well; his matter-of-factness brought a certain level of credibility to the incredible storylines. It's taken another 5 years, but thankfully he's again found a showcase for his talents.

Californication is my new favourite show, and will probably remain so until The L Word comes back next year. Or Battlestar Galactica in November. Or Heroes later this month. Ah, I'm so fickle.

After the first episode aired last Monday, Andrew Bolt had a little rant about Channel Ten peddling pornography.

Anything that gets Andrew Bolt worked up is usually pretty good value, and this is no exception.

Californication is a story about a guy bored with his life, living a joyless existence pining after his ex and the happy family life he's left behind. Even a constant succession of beautiful young women in his bed doesn't help. Most of the time he looks like he'd rather be taking a nap. The only time he perks up is when he's around his ex and his daughter.

Mr Bolt has clearly missed the key element of pornography, which is its fundamental lack of story. Pornography is, as he points out, "the depiction of erotic behaviour . . . intended to cause sexual excitement", and that's it. It's not intended to tell you a story, or teach you anything.

I'm not aware of Mr Bolt's personal predilections, but if he gets sexually excited by watching an ageing Lothario boredly shag his way through a succession of less-than-satisfying encounters, then he's seeing something I'm not.

Californication has those rarest of commodities in television: story and characters. And it's not pitched at ADHD 15-year-olds. It's pitched squarely at adults who can understand the emotional undertones. Adults who can look past the tits 'n' ass and see a sad guy looking for an emotional connection in the only way he knows how, and failing miserably.

Adults unlike Andrew Bolt.