Objectionable material is a publication expresses, depicts, and describes issues that have to deal with horror, sex, cruelty, crime, or violence. Objectionable occurs when the publication is likely to be injurious to the general public. This implies that all the objectionable material has been banned from use and spreading to the general public (Jacob, 1999). There are a number of factors used to determine whether a publication is objectionable and whether it should be restricted or not. The consideration is given to the point in which the publication deals with acts of torture caused by inflicting physical harm on a person or some acts of cruelty (Gordon, 1993). An objectionable publication is also considered objectionable if it entails sexual violence and coercion associated with the sexual conduct of an individual. It is also categorized the same if the issue is a sexual and physical conduct which occurs by degrading or demeaning the process of nature. The material also opposes any sexual offense that involves children or young people who are below the age considered as “adults.” The material also resists any physical conduct whereby sexual satisfaction is obtained by inflicting physical harm on a person; otherwise referred as rape (Cox, 2006). Objectionable material is also against publications that promotes and encourages criminal actions which are deemed terrorists activities. Terrorism is a global threat which threatens the life of billions of citizens. Therefore, any material/ publication that praise any act of terrorism are considered objectionable (Sullivan, 2005). In addition, any material that represents a certain group of people as being inferior over the others due to class or wealth is prohibited on the grounds of discrimination which is specified in the Human Rights Act of 1993. Thus, an objectionable material has to meet all the above provision in order to be considered one (Belich, 2015).
Penalties for Possessing and Distributing Objectionable Material
According to the New Zealand Law and Constitution, there is a penalty for possessing an objectionable material. If a person is found possessing the material, either knowingly or unknowingly, may receive a jail sentence of not more than ten years in jail. In most cases, the law is tough on people who knowingly possess objectionable material (Ward, 2013). The resources can be acquired in many ways, but the most rampant means of acquiring the subject is through the internet. People who have possession of the files upload then into the internet where everybody can download. Because of the anonymity enjoyed on the internet, people can post and download the content of the internet without being monitored (Louis, 1967). However, every time a person downloads an objectionable material, there is the potential for an offense to have been committed. If a person downloads the material from the internet knowingly and stores in their computers, if they are caught, they will face the full wrath of the law (Wilson, 2002). However, if a person downloads the material unknowingly, they are supposed to delete it before another person accesses it without the permission of computer owner. Further, any person who is found knowingly distributing, trading, or displaying objectionable material using the internet or other means of distribution is guilty and should be charged in the court of law (Delacourt, 1997). The New Zealand constitution considers this a big crime and may force a person to serve a jail sentence of 14 years. In the event that the crime is committed by an organization, the law states that the corporation should pay a fine of $200,000. All these fines are meant to discourage people from possessing or distributing objectionable material (Mitchell, 2003).
Efforts made by New Zealand Agencies
The intention or process of downloading and gathering objectionable material is illegal in New Zealand and many other civilized states across the world. According to the New Zealand agencies, creating a database and duplicating images is professionally and ethically unacceptable regardless of the legal implications involved in the process (Sullivan, 2007). In New Zealand, the act is enforced by the ministry of Internal Affairs, Customs and the Police. According to the ministry, the material is objectionable if it involves exploiting children or under-age people for sexual reasons. It also restricts having sexual encounters with dead people. The agency also opposes bestiality and acts of torture or extreme violence or cruelty. In New Zealand, different agencies cooperate to try and combat the spread of objectionable material (Lemley, 2007). For instance, the Office of Film and Literature Classification is the one that decides whether the material is objectionable or not. The agency is an independent Crown entity, whereby, its board comprises of Chief Censor and Deputy Chief Censor. The two are appointed by the Governor-General (Browne, 1986). Decisions made the Classification One are reviewed by the Film and Literature Board of Review. The courts together with the law enforcement officers play a significant role in ending the distribution of objectionable material. A sentence for the guilty by the courts is a deterrent which will help reduce recidivism (Burgess, 1978). Human Rights agencies have also played a role in rehabilitating child exploitation material offenders. The offenders are usually treated within the community an in prisons. They are treated based on the assessment and the key principles or risk, responsiveness and need (Finkelhor, 1985).
References
Jacob, V., Krishnan, R., Ryu, Y. U., Chandrasekaran, R., & Hong, S. (1999, January). Filtering objectionable internet content. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on Information Systems (pp. 274-278). Association for Information Systems.
Gordon, E., & Abell, M. (1993). This objectionable colonial dialect': Historical and contemporary attitudes to New Zealand speech. MULTILINGUAL MATTERS, 21-21.
Cox, N. (2006). “Cyber-crime Jurisdiction in New Zealand. Cyber-crime Jurisdiction: A Global Survey (TMC Asser Press, The Hague, 2006), 177-188.
Sullivan, C. (2005). Internet traders of child pornography: Profiling research. Retrieved November, 15, 2006.
Belich, J. (2015). The New Zealand wars and the Victorian interpretation of racial conflict. Auckland University Press.
Ward, A. (2013). Show of Justice: Racial Amalgamation in Nineteenth Century New Zealand. Auckland University Press.
Louis, W. R. (1967). Great Britain and Germany's lost colonies, 1914-1919. Clarendon P..
Wilson, D. (2002). Censorship in New Zealand: The policy challenges of new technology. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 1-13.
Delacourt, J. T. (1997). International Impact of Internet Regulation, The. Harv. Int'l. LJ, 38, 207.
Mitchell, K. J., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2003). The exposure of youth to unwanted sexual material on the internet a national survey of risk, impact, and prevention. Youth & Society, 34(3), 330-358.
Sullivan, C. (2007). Internet Traders of Child Pornography: Profiling Research: Update. Department of Internal Affairs.
Lemley, M. A. (2007). Rationalizing Internet Safe Harbors. J. on Telecomm. & High Tech. L., 6, 101.
Browne, A., & Finkelhor, D. (1986). Impact of child sexual abuse: a review of the research. Psychological bulletin, 99(1), 66.
Burgess, A. W., & Groth, N. (1978). Sexual assault of children and adolescents. Lexington Books.
Finkelhor, D., & Browne, A. (1985). The traumatic impact of child sexual abuse: a conceptualization. American Journal of orthopsychiatry, 55(4), 530.
Beitchman, J. H., Zucker, K. J., Hood, J. E., DaCosta, G. A., Akman, D., & Cassavia, E. (1992). A review of the long-term effects of child sexual abuse. Child abuse & neglect, 16(1), 101-118.
