Dear Phil, Here is my reply to the article on Internet Porn. In the first 9 months of 1995, the two Melbourne dailies published over 80 articles on the threat of pornography via the internet. The media has created a widespread public concern about access to pornography by minors. This month the Victorian Government had to legislate to replace the existing system of classification of films and publications which expires at the end of the year. In legislating, the Government and the Parliament decided to deal with the relatively new problem of pornography via the internet.
Public life is never easy.
If Parliaments don't deal with the internet, they're characterised as Luddites. This perception is based on a fundamental misreading of the wording of the Bill. No one I have talked to, including two of the quoted authorities in the article, disagrees with the Government's objectives. Those objectives are to create criminal offences relating to the transmission of objectionable material such as child pornography and vile sadistic material. It is clearly not intended to make criminals of those who want to download a picture of a naked man or woman, read Playboy or penthouse online or read sexually explicit material.