Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 101 to 108 of 108

Thread: Photographers Awareness on Laws

  1. #101

    Default Re: Photographers Awareness on Laws

    Simi dai chi? Early morning come in see this loooonggg loooonnngg thread already.....okie back to work....

  2. #102

    Default Re: Photographers Awareness on Laws

    just to set the record straight here, in case there has been any confusion. if you do take pictures of a woman, without her consent, and the pictures are of a "naughty" nature, then the offence is that under Section 509 of the penal code which states

    "Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman,….intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."

    this is the sectoin that has been used to prosecute offenders for all those peeping tom and upskirt pictures.

    in relation to undesirable publications, i think you need to understand the intention of parliament behind the act.. and that was to catch those selling obscene publications for commercial puposes. and child porn etc etc. the speech of the minister at the reading of the amendment bill.



    "Our censorship policy is based on the principle of differentiation. Different media have different impact and the extent of censorship varies accordingly. In general moving images have a greater impact than static images, which in turn, have a greater impact than words. We are most stringent with the visual media which reach the living rooms. Thus, we are strictest with free-to-air TV channels, but we allow more leeway for subscription services such as cable TV. With films, we differentiate between G, PG, NC-16 and R(A). For films shown to members of film societies, we are more relaxed.

    Within the print medium, we make a distinction between pictorials and the written word. We are stricter with graphic publications meant for children such as comics depicting sex. We are least concerned with the printed text because reading them requires a certain level of education and concentration. Some books meant for adults are required to be wrapped in plastic or cellophane in the book shops, so that children cannot browse them lightly. This principle of differentiation was also adopted by the Censorship Review Committee in 1992.

    Obscene publications

    Mr Speaker, Sir, our main target continues to be those who seek profit from distributing obscene publications. Currently, traffickers of obscene publications ae referred to the Police for action to be taken under the Penal Code. There are no provisions to deal with such cases under the existing UPA.

    Under clause 5 of the proposed amendments, those caught trafficking in obscene publications, by distributing, exhibiting, producing or having such publications for distribution, can be prosecuted under the UPA. The proposed penalty will be a maximum fine of $10,000 and/or a jail them of up to two years.

    Clause 3 spells out what we mean by "obscenity": 'A publication is obscene if its effect or the effect of any one of its parts or items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.'

    Objectionable Publications

    We have also included in the amendments the definition of what is objectionable. While some publications may not be blatantly pornographic or controversial, they may still be objectionable in the way they promote promiscuous lifestyles or glorify criminal activities.

    Under current legislation, other than confiscation, no further action can be taken against vendors who persist in selling objectionable publications. The proposed amendment will plug this present loophole so that vendors of objectionable publications can be prosecuted.

    Clause 5 of the proposed amendments allows for penalties against such distributors. For distributing, possessing or reproducing objectionable publications, the penalty would be a fine up to $5,000 and/or a jail term for one year. This maximum fine is half that for obscene publications.

    Prohibited Publications.

    We will continue to ban publications such as Playboy and Penthouse. We will increase the maximum fine for the sale banned publications from $2,000 to $10,000. For the possession of a banned publication, the maximum fine will be raised from $1,000 to $2,000. No change is recommended in the jail terms as they are already a sufficient deterrent.

    We have always exercised the power to ban or gazette publications sparingly. This policy will continue. We are in fact degazetting publications which, over time, are no longer objectionable on moral, religious orcommunal grounds. For example, the Journal of Contemporary Asia and the Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung have been recently degazetted.

    Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry will continue to review its censorship rules from time to time to ensure that standards applied to publications and videos are in tune with changing social mores in Singapore and changes in the world around us.
    Last edited by jdredd; 25th September 2006 at 11:33 AM.

  3. #103

    Default Re: Photographers Awareness on Laws

    Alamak !

    I need to take some english lessons !

    Not sure I understood everytrhing!

    But if another lawyer is watching, maybe TL's one, he will perfectly understand. Ouahahahahahah !
    Even if I do not agree with you, I will always fight for you to have your say.

  4. #104
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Photographers Awareness on Laws

    Which was why I said the wrong Act was quoted

  5. #105
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    611

    Default Re: Photographers Awareness on Laws

    Quote Originally Posted by drumma View Post
    i've been asked by TL to repost up this series again. those shots in my flickr. just give me ur comments to how i can do this properly. if it's against the law, i'll definitely remove. and i'm learning this with an open mind.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/drumma/tags/voyeurism/
    That is voyeurism? *sweat drop*.

    I only have this to say. Take it as an art if you want, but use some common sense and bear the consequences. If you think there's nothing wrong and it's purely for the sake of art, so be it.

    Just use street smarts and common sense to make the judgement. I don't get this damn thread at all..

  6. #106

    Default Re: Photographers Awareness on Laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
    That is voyeurism? *sweat drop*.

    I only have this to say. Take it as an art if you want, but use some common sense and bear the consequences. If you think there's nothing wrong and it's purely for the sake of art, so be it.

    Just use street smarts and common sense to make the judgement. I don't get this damn thread at all..
    This DAMN thread was the creation of a self appointed crusading fundamentalist extremist! It does not make sense to people with open minds. However, it makes a lot of sense to the zealots.

    Oh well. Cie la vie, that is if we can afford to let this go un-opposed.
    deadpoet
    my portfolio

  7. #107
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    611

    Default Re: Photographers Awareness on Laws

    Quote Originally Posted by microcosm View Post
    While the Singapore law is more relaxed these days over this, I think ultimately its up to the owners of this forums to decide where they want to draw the line. Afterall, CS is not a registered society right? if that is the case, then anything goes in this place and thus its up to the owner of this forums to make the decision where the line is drawn.

    Honestly, a tit here and a butt there does not offend anyone... being overly protective of the children here only drives them to find out and explore sex in a worse way. We have been young before and even before the internet was around, still porn floated around in schools even right? So? Does it really make a difference? Not to mention, with the internet, accessibility is not ever a problem and kids knowws how to bypass a parent filter in minutes. They are way more computer savvy than their folks these days.

    So I don't think we should overract at all.

    The problem is more of invasion of privacy and unauthorised use of images that is the cause of concern in this boards.

    Let's hear what the owners of the forums has to say about this.

    Respect.

    Are you kidding me!?

  8. #108

    Default Re: Photographers Awareness on Laws

    Laws Laws Laws and more LAWS. How about Laws of ClubSNAP.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •