The ABC reports that "a push is being made to impose a 'gawkers fine' on sightseers who hang around bushfire zones."
State/territory statute and common law provides some leverage in dealing with people who impede police, ambulance and fire service personnel in dealing with road accidents, house fires, industrial accidents and bushfires.
Port Lincoln mayor Peter Davis is reported, however, to have met with the South Australian Premier and Opposition Leader regarding a new law that would penalise "people caught by using their mobile phone cameras at bushfire scenes". The ABC report is sketchy but presumably such legislation would cover use of other digital still and video cameras, with exceptions for image capture by journalists (the latter being professional journalists rather than members of the 'citizen media').
Davis reportedly explained that he's seeking action -
when Parliament re-sits to immediately enforce the capacity of emergency service personnel to photograph these idiots' number plates and you'll get a 'gawkers fine'That's more appropriate than demands by other figures earlier last year for life imprisonment, hanging, sterilisation or other nastiness to arsonists - questioned in my 'Burning With Indignation: Arson, Law and the 2009 Victorian Bushfires' in 15(1) Local Government Law Journal (2009) 35-45. A gawker fine alongside the hoon legislation discussed recently? Do we need special legislation for bushfires? Do we need legislation against any gawking?
Meanwhile the NSW Government, apparently still having trouble making sense of what went wrong with the 2008 'Henson' raid, discussed in David Marr's The Henson Case (Melbourne: Text 2009), is considering recommendations by the Child Pornography Working Party.
The 45 page report [PDF] by that Working Party is being spun in a predictable manner, given the unwillingness of an ailing government to avoid the temptation of voicing outrage and easy solutions.
Acting Premier John Hatzistergos has thus indicated that the 'artistic merit defence' - which contrary to hype has not been raised successfully on a large scale and thus has not protected legions of producers/consumers of child pornography - will probably be scrapped.
Although promising community consultation before legislation is introduced in the state parliament following the report, he commented that -
We have a situation where we have the clause being present almost as an excuse for child pornography. And that sets up a presumption that somehow it's OK for artists to create images that are pornographic. That's not the message that we want to get across.In reality that statement is incorrect: there is no such legal presumption and it is unfortunate that such a statement is coming from a man who is also the state Attorney-General.
Media coverage of the report and its reception by the Government has highlighted the Working Party's recommendation that the maximum prison sentence for possessing child pornography should be doubled, ie increased to 10 years.
Mr Hatzistergos reportedly indicated that to his knowledge the 'merit' defence had not been successfully used in NSW and insisted that changes were not what the SMH characterises as "a knee-jerk reaction to the Bill Henson case of 2008", with Hatzistergos explaining that "It would be wrong to look at these laws in the context of any individual case".
While calling for deletion of the non-used 'artistic merit' defence the Working Party apparently has not suggested removal of the 'news and reporting' defence, with the Government hastening to add that the print/electronic media will continue to be free to feature images of kids.
