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
@ Someone BBBA
“If these sex scenes are in breech of state laws then this would be a good time for the legislators to get off their arses and rectify the situation.”
Not going to happen any-time soon. If it’s illegal to sell X rated material in shops in all states in Australia (seriously, it is), what chance is there?
Wow. I would have expected this from the Herald Sun, but The Age? How pathetic. If sex scenes featuring under 18’s or under 16’s are illegal then all of the free-to-air TV stations in this country and all major cinema outlets have screened child pornography. ACMA even investigated an episode of Outrageous Fortune several years ago in response to a complaint that a sex scene featuring a 15 year old girl was child pornography. They concluded that the episode was rated MA. Even our Classification Board has classified hundreds of films and TV shows featuring such sex scenes. If these sex scenes are in breech of state laws then this would be a good time for the legislators to get off their arses and rectify the situation.
I was shocked to see murders on underbelly. Murder is illegal and I don’t care if it’s staged and simulated murder, someone should go to gaol. All those saying fictional murder on tv is acceptable are just murders trying to make it more acceptable.
What about the very first episode of Californication that Ten showed?
It had Mia having sex with Hank and her character was 16 years old. It even showed her breasts.
@ mac. doesn;t matter if they are actually having sex. It’s portraying them as having sex. I think all this “it isn;t really child pornography..Blah blah. Are just pedo’s trying to make it more acceptable.
Haven’t teens in Home and Away had sex before?
The age of consent is irrelevant, it’s what is defined in the criminal code, and if what is shown in the show breaches what is stated in the criminal code, then the material is potentially illegal.
Every time a case like this gets brought up, it weakens confidence in the public being disgusted by the phrase ‘child pornography’. A man was even charged for possession of Simpsons porn. The law needs to be updated and vague terminologies need to be examined.
Don’t get me started on what is included in the much, much broader Refused Classification category (and will be censored online if the government gets their way).
a bit of topic, but i found it amusing that the creators though that by wearing a school uniform that Firass Dirani would suddenly look like a teenager.
Interesting both The Age and Brisbane Times articles disappeared 20 minutes after I sent both an email explaining that they need to get new legal experts. – The scene didnt depict underage sex at all, as both were clearly over 16 – the age of consent, as the scene occurred at a year 12 formal. The referencing to Ibrahim being a minor was related to him being too young to drink in his own club i.e. 18 years not <16.
Well written David. These days it seems people like to complain just for the sake of it. Its getting very tiresome!
The link page is blank for mew David, it’s not coming up with an error it’s just like the content on the page was deleted, or they are having a server problem?
Also anyone find it weird the lady at the center of the court case to have the show stopped is now doing an interview with 60 Minutes.
Craig: 60 minutes interview is with a woman who was the basis for an allegedly different character.
how can this be classed as child pornography, porn mean real sex, not acting, according to the logic in article, underbelly is showing illegal content by showing murders too.
Hmmmmm… has the original article now disappeared offline?
At the start of each episode of Underbelly, you see an on-screen reference as to which period the story is set. Golden Mile states “1988 to 1999”. John Ibrahim was born in 1970. That makes him 18, and Not underage – presuming that the writers have stuck to the basic facts.
Some groups and people just like to complain to keep up their profile and stance in the media.
The puritan PC mafia strike again…
Logically of course, it’s absurd. But we live in a country that has lost all reason on the subject of child pornography. It’s a moral panic in which governments are desperate to avoid being accused on talkback radio, ACA and the front pages of the tabloids for being soft on it. Hence they compete to pass ever more draconian laws with no thought to the effects on other areas such as the arts. They’re even going to censor everyone’s internet feed on the basis that it’ll help stop “child pornography”. Even though the majority of sites they plan to block have no connection with child porn – moral panics are handy like that.
The end result of this mindless, ill considered mania is that technically it’s possible Underbelly may have broken the law. In Australia it’s now illegal to even show cartoon children having sex or naked (I’m talking Simpson’s-type cartoon children!)
its stories like this that remind me why i read little “mainstream” news… people with opinions, not facts, are usually the ones given a platform to voice what they think and its made to come across as legitimate news.
Oh, please. Nine would have a small army of lawyers going over this series to make sure that they don’t get sued, so you’d think that if this qualified as child porn then one of them would have spotted it.
Why is it when one person complains it makes more noise and upheaval than when ten people praise?
I take it the writer has never watched an episode of Skins.
God don’t let them watch Skins!
the world has gone PC mad…seriously the next thing you know people will be complaining that people breath on television ‘these characters are creating enough CO2 emissions to ruin the world’ when does it stop? and what about TV shows like Home and Away and Neighbours (last year neighbours had a story line where three 17 year old girls all thought they were pregnant)?
and even though they aren’t australian made (although they have been released here and are freely available for anyone to buy and watch at any time-and for TV networks to play, for the most part unedited) films like Taxi Driver (that had a 12-year-old Jodie Foster playing a prostitute) and American Beauty (Mena Suvari had a scene where she was topless at just 17). and shows like Skins, Degrassi and Gossip Girl?
just plan stupid!
How to be a journalist in Australia – find a non-story, go to some kooky interest group with an opinion on everything, get a quote, write a story around it. Deadline met. Next week, how to turn a press release into an ‘exclusive’.
Oh No!!! Think of the Children.
Just another way to get some media airtime for a group who would not normally have any.