Age of Consent and a very long bow
How on earth does an underage sex scene depicted in Underbelly qualify as "child pornography?"
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under News
A rather long bow is being drawn against Nine’s Underbelly today with suggestions in a Fairfax article that scenes in Sunday night’s episodes “broke child pornography laws.”
The scenes it is referring to showed teenage character John Ibrahim (Firass Dirani) having under-age sex in a school stairwell with former schoolmate Michelle (Rebecca Slade).
How on earth this equates to “child pornography” is baffling.
The article claims under New South Wales and Victorian child pornography laws – which cover the production, dissemination and possession of such material – child pornography is defined as material that ”depicts or describes or appears to depict or describe” a child engaged in sexual activity or a child depicted in a sexual context.
It neglects to include that Age of Consent in New South Wales is 16.
The age of the character isn’t specified, but there are references that he is a minor. He’s clearly a senior high school student too.
Crucially it also leaves out the fact that everything in Underbelly is implied not actual. The scenes are a dramatic representation with actors who are above the age of 18. A few weeks ago another press article blasted SBS’ Wilfred for scenes of bestiality -with a bloke in a dog suit.
Are we to believe that teenage sex doesn’t happen in this country? The show had suitable classifications and a timeslot fitting with its content.
Someone from the Australian Childhood Foundation, is quoted as saying that showing schoolchildren having sex was not only illegal but also wrong.
”I think it’s gratuitous,” he said.
No, the breasts every five minutes in Series Two were gratuitous. Anyone would think Underbelly was the first television show to ever show teenagers having sex.
More sensibly the article quotes a Melbourne Uni professor, saying: “In this case, there is no doubt there is sexual context, but some would argue few people would have an issue with 17-year-olds shown having sex.”
Source: The Age
Share
- Tagged with Underbelly, Wilfred
38 Responses
Quite possibly. The letter does make a lot of sense, but with the state of our censorship laws only getting more draconian, not less, the original story wasn’t too unbelievable, at least for me.
Hi David,
You might be interested in this letter to the editor, which refutes the allegation about the show breaching child pornography laws:
theage.com.au/national/letters/brumby-must-lead-not-get-in-the-way-20100419-sp8v.html
Scroll down about half way.
I don’t watch the show, but I thought you might be interested in it.
Cheers,
Ben.
Thanks. Wonder if they ran a “We Were Wrong” follow up?
I am also advised Nine was in touch with them prior to its publication despite references to the contrary.
Original article is cached here.
Well if the people who wrote the article actually watched the scene…the characters did not actually portray them having sex, they got a bit hot and heavy, but that was it. Kids do a lot worse these days, but they were also portraying a pair who had graduated, doesn’t sound like child porn to me…and if you really want to hone in on child porn, I’m pretty sure that Nicole Kidman did a movie where she kissed a young boy, or look at Stanley Kubricks movies – Lolita, or Eyes Wide Shut, where Leelee Sobeski plays a young girl whose father lets 2 men have sex with her in the costume shop! This series shows murder, violence, physical and emotional abuse of women, pornography, strippers, hookers, drug dealers… yet the media feels the need to focus on a couple of high school graduates getting a bit hot and heavy. Get over it and deal with the real problems in our society!
David – it does appear very much as if the original article has been removed – and in a very deliberate manner – michaelwyres.com/2010/04/explain-or-resign-senator-410/ There seems to have been some pressure brought to bear somewhere, and discussion of what is and isn’t RC content has been closed down.
Interesting to say the very least…
Were there the same complaints when the opening episode of The Box (back in 1974!) had a storyline based around a TV personality having “relations” with a 15-year-old in his dressing room?
Yup, you’re right – “child” is defined (for the purposes of child pornography) as a person under the age of 16. Interesting then that a 2010 Bill to amend the act uses 18 as the threshold.
I completely agree regarding the silliness of the complaint and that it makes a mockery of genuine victims. IIRC there was a guy from Sydney who was convicted of possessing cp because he had cartoons of child characters from The Simpson’s engaging in sexual activity.
2:34am? Insomniac? 😉
David, while I certainly don’t want to side with those complaining about this, the fact of the matter is that, according to the NSW Crimes Act 1900 – Section 91H, child pornography is defined as
“…material that depicts or describes (or appears to depict or describe), in a manner that would in all the circumstances cause offence to reasonable persons, a person who is (or appears to be) a child:
(a) engaged in sexual activity, or
(b) in a sexual context, or…”
“Child” is defined elsewhere to be a person under the age of 18 years – 17 year olds can have sex, you just can’t film it.
So, while it’s a bit silly of The Age to be running an article on this, technically they do have a point. However, a little bit further on in The Act, it explicitly states that an acceptable defence against a charge of producing or disseminating cp is if the material has been classified by the Commonwealth as anything other than “RC”. The ACMA (rather than the OFLC) classifies TV programs, but I assume it has the same effect.
Another storm of outrage in a teacup of meh.
1900? 2004 Amendment redefines child pornography as material that depicts or describes, in a manner that would in all the circumstances cause offence to reasonable persons, a person under (or apparently under) the age of 16 years.
The whole notion that adult actors simulating a consenting sexual scene in a dramatic context, with appropriate classification, is ‘child porn’ is not just ridiculous but insulting to genuine victims of an insidious crime. Everything is implied not actual. Nobody was under age. You could probably start another broad debate too about whether the act of sex actually equals ‘pornography.’
I think the fact the original article mysteriously vanished offline yesterday morning speaks volumes.
I know she wasn’t 16. I said her character was 16.
The actors The Age writer is carrying on about are adults too.
@ FJ – The actor who played Mia (Madeline Zima the little kid off the popular show The Nanny now on GO!) is now 24 years old and was 21/ 22 when that was filmed so that isn’t child pornography.
The first Godfather film had shown a topless 16 year old girl making out with Al Pacino, and the scene was considered to be so insignificant that it didn’t even warrant a mention in its MA15+ classification (hell, the scene in isolation would have slid past the censors with no more than a PG). And of course, plenty of nude under eighteeners are involved in nude and/or sex scenes in Skins.
I believe Underbelly is breaching the M guidelines in terms of violence and sex, but as for these allegations of “child pornography?” Give me a break. =/