discussion Proud Father (Off-Topic)

[3n69]

I dont think you understand the concept of laws. What he was initially caught for, developing a game with Lolis, was not legal in his country. He knew about the risk and still did it, so yes, it is justified and it is also correct that he got caught for that. This has nothing to do with an "idea" he had or that they needed to look for something else, even if he only developed his game, he would have faced jailtime.

That he turned out to have the real deal and was also spying on women is indeed a lucky case for the authorities, but also for basically anyone else, because I am happy about everyone who has actual ** in their possession to be locked away.

If you read my replies, you'll find I fully understand how laws function, and that that's not the point of the conversation. I had stated several times that I believe that the authorities did their job, and that he has plenty good reason to be in jail.

I also said they lucked out with this guy because had it just been the game he was put in jail for, this would have sparked a much larger conversation. But it was swept under the rug because this one incident proved to be a great boon for them.

My point in this entire thing had been that people are conflating the issue by saying that him making a video game, and doing this stuff irl is the same thing. It is not. If they followed their own laws to the letter, and put it across the board, action and horror content creators would get themselves and others arrested for making content of people being harmed and murdered. Do you see the issue here?

 

[Kernist]

If you read my replies, you'll find I fully understand how laws function, and that that's not the point of the conversation. I had stated several times that I believe that the authorities did their job, and that he has plenty good reason to be in jail.

I also said they lucked out with this guy because had it just been the game he was put in jail for, this would have sparked a much larger conversation. But it was swept under the rug because this one incident proved to be a great boon for them.

My point in this entire thing had been that people are conflating the issue by saying that him making a video game, and doing this stuff irl is the same thing. It is not. If they followed their own laws to the letter, and put it across the board, action and horror movie directors would be arrested action and horror content creators would get people arrested for making content of people being harmed and murdered. Do you see the issue here?

Guy in Norway was prosecuted just for playing Teaching Feeling and barely anyone cared. If you think that if not for the fact that they found something 'real" situation would spark much larger conversation you are completely detached from reality, average person doesn't care.

You are also wrong about everything else, but I am not gonna waste my time explaining why "action movies" are different.

 

[3n69]

Guy in Norway was prosecuted just for playing Teaching Feeling and barely anyone cared. If you think that if not for the fact that they found something 'real" situation would spark much larger conversation you are completely detached from reality, average person doesn't care.

You are also wrong about everything else, but I am not gonna waste my time explaining why "action movies" are different.

That's where you'd be wrong. It sparked a massive conversation, just not out in the open public, out of fear of further persecution. The conversation exists though. The issue is that not everyone is on the same page as to why it's a problem.

As for the violence vs sex bit, I'd like you to educate me on this, then. And I genuinely mean this, as gore genuinely put trauma in me as a tyke, which I only managed to recover from in my late teens.

Fictional content of people getting blown to bits vs other taboo acts, sexual or otherwise. Why is one okay over the other? Why is it that a single pubic hair can be an equivalent to an exploding limb in TV ratings? Why is it that we can quite literally make the most fucked up and heinous shit, but the moment they say "Btw, she's turning 18 tomorrow" it's only now suddenly controversy?

 

[Kernist]

That's where you'd be wrong. It sparked a massive conversation, just not out in the open public, out of fear of further prosecution. The conversation exists though. The issue is that not everyone is on the same page as to why it's a problem.

As for the violence vs sex bit, I'd like you to educate me on this, then. And I genuinely mean this, as gore genuinely put trauma in me as a tyke, which I only managed to recover from in my late teens.

Fictional content of people getting blown to bits vs other taboo acts, sexual or otherwise. Why is one okay over the other? Why is it that a single pubic hair can be an equivalent to an exploding limb in TV ratings? Why is it that we can quite literally make the most fucked up and heinous shit, but the moment they say "Btw, she's turning 18 tomorrow" it's only now suddenly controversy?

Yeah, "massive", sure.

Sure, I will educate you - Australian law doesn't forbid depicting fictional violence in movies and games. They did (or still do, I am not sure) forbid depiction of violence against the police though, that's why many games released there were modified or just outright banned. So, you know, they do in fact "follow their own laws to the letter" as you worded it.

 

[3n69]

Yeah, "massive", sure.

Sure, I will educate you - Australian law doesn't forbid depicting fictional violence in movies and games. They did (or still do, I am not sure) forbid depiction of violence against the police though, that's why many games released there were modified or just outright banned. So, you know, they do in fact "follow their own laws to the letter" as you worded it.

I was gonna word-wall this, but I'll try to cut things down.

Fictional violence against the police is a special snowflake response on their part, it also shows that it's a matter of "I don't care what happens to anyone else so long as my feelings aren't hurt" brand of ethics. Pretty on-brand for tribalism.
That's just pettiness and favoritism that didn't solve anything, only exemplifying my earlier point.
Aussie's had a lot of back and forth over the years in regards to what's okay and what's not. They change laws about as often as they get a new dangerous species discovered. It just proves the point that they have no foundational structure on the subject, and are still pretty flimsy about it. Only law I can think of that they're pretty okay with is their no-gun laws that've been around since the early 2000s.
Also, no, they don't do it across the board, because Ozploitation is still a very real thing, and has been since the 70s.

 

[Freyr]

Also for clarity: Making a game is no different than writing your unhinged thoughts in a tweet that's aimed towards nobody. Or writing a story or fanfic, just making it visual. In the end, it's a thought spoken aloud.

Not quite.

As example:
- If you tell a friend privately and in person that you think politician XY is an asshole => no problem
- If you post a tweet that you think politician XY is an asshole => probably still no problem (in most democratic countries)
- If you post a tweet that politician XY is an asshole and he should be killed => a problem but possibly you'll get away with it
- If you post a tweet that politician XY is evil because reasons and he will be killed by a car bomb that you are going to plant => a huge problem and when they raid your home and find detailed plans concerning how you are going to do it, you will spend many years in prison.

Legally this is called premeditation and I would assume that if you design a game with the content we are talking about, this could also be seen as premeditation (of wanting to abuse actual children).

Guy in Norway was prosecuted just for playing Teaching Feeling and barely anyone cared.

This is actually worrying. I missed that one.

If you think that if not for the fact that they found something 'real" situation would spark much larger conversation you are completely detached from reality

You are probably right, but still: that they found real stuff does obfuscate the issue.

If he were put in prison just because of the game, then it would have been a clear case against freedom of expression.

But you are correct that the game did violate Australian law and that he is therefore rightfully imprisoned.

average person doesn't care.

That's the real issue here. This kind of stuff is not popular with the general public and individuals who get prosecuted for it don't get a lot of sympathy.

The underlying issue, which could spark controversy is the moral dilemma between laws and universal human rights.

It is generally understood that freedom of expression is a universal human right. It is also understood that freedom of expression should have limitations, such as in the example regarding the politician above. The problem is, that in recent years and in several countries, lawmakers and prosecutors have moved more away from allowing freedom of expression to repressing the expression of certain things.

It is interesting that in the EU, the proposed Chat Control regulations, which is a huge invasion of privacy as well as freedom of expression and even freedom of thought, has: "The stated aim of the legislation is to prevent child sexual abuse online through the implementation of a number of measures, including the establishment of a framework that would make the detection and reporting of child sexual abuse material (

You must be registered to see links

) through

You must be registered to see links

by

You must be registered to see links

a legal requirement within the European Union."

 

[cherubin25]

If he were put in prison just because of the game, then it would have been a clear case against freedom of expression.

But you are correct that the game did violate Australian law and that he is therefore rightfully imprisoned.

Isnt this a bit contradicting? Because Laws are there to define what is "freedom of expression". If there would be no laws at all, everyone would be able to say or do whatever they like. Since they have freedom of expression. But laws limit it and IMO this is a good thing overall. At least most things in Democratic countries are understandable and also reasonable.

And I would not say that Australia is a difference there with outright banning any form of **, even if it is highly fictional. But it is probably just difficult to understand from a outsiders perspective, I also dont really agree with it personally, since it is Pixels after all. And in my country it is allowed as fiction, as long as it is not realistic (so something like Proud Father would be fine, but generating realistic looking AI-Images would not... Which I fully agree with).

In the end, he broke the Australian law and he knew that creating a game like Proud Father would mean that he is outside of his freedom of expression, he knew the risk and did it. And in the end, he got caught.

 

[Xia Liu Bei]

Because "it's their country and has the right to run it like that" is exactly what people thought about the Nazis and every other oppressive regime out there. It might be their law, but their law is incredibly fucked up. Unfortunately, there isn't a world system to stop countries from having repressive laws.

I'm on your side, but you people have got to stop calling everything and everyone you disagree with Nazis. I agree Australia is all kinds of fucked up, from arresting people for possessing Simpson's porn to their retarded lockdown policies to banning kids from using social media. But that's a far cry from shoving millions of people into ovens and gas chambers because of their ethnicity.

Make your point without the Nazi comparisons and you might find most people here actually agree with you on Australia being a retarded country. Australia and Western Europe are in a footrace to see who can ban free speech the fastest and most egregiously. But until they start literally gassing you out for naughty pixels leave the Nazi comparisons out of it.

 

[Moss]

I'm on your side, but you people have got to stop calling everything and everyone you disagree with Nazis. I agree Australia is all kinds of fucked up, from arresting people for possessing Simpson's porn to their retarded lockdown policies to banning kids from using social media. But that's a far cry from shoving millions of people into ovens and gas chambers because of their ethnicity.

Make your point without the Nazi comparisons and you might find most people here actually agree with you on Australia being a retarded country. Australia and Western Europe are in a footrace to see who can ban free speech the fastest and most egregiously. But until they start literally gassing you out for naughty pixels leave the Nazi comparisons out of it.

Well said.

Post automatically merged: Jan 12, 2026

I was gonna word-wall this, but I'll try to cut things down.

Fictional violence against the police is a special snowflake response on their part, it also shows that it's a matter of "I don't care what happens to anyone else so long as my feelings aren't hurt" brand of ethics. Pretty on-brand for tribalism.
That's just pettiness and favoritism that didn't solve anything, only exemplifying my earlier point.
Aussie's had a lot of back and forth over the years in regards to what's okay and what's not. They change laws about as often as they get a new dangerous species discovered. It just proves the point that they have no foundational structure on the subject, and are still pretty flimsy about it. Only law I can think of that they're pretty okay with is their no-gun laws that've been around since the early 2000s.
Also, no, they don't do it across the board, because Ozploitation is still a very real thing, and has been since the 70s.

What's "Ozploitation"?

 

[3n69]

What's "Ozploitation"?

You must be registered to see links

 

[Feral]

Make your point without the Nazi comparisons and you might find most people here actually agree with you on Australia being a retarded country. Australia and Western Europe are in a footrace to see who can ban free speech the fastest and most egregiously.

Australia does not have Constitutional freedom of speech that other countries enjoy. The Australian govt is currently trying to bring in hate speech laws outlawing a persons right to insult certain groups

Post automatically merged: Jan 13, 2026

If you read my replies, you'll find I fully understand how laws function, and that that's not the point of the conversation. I had stated several times that I believe that the authorities did their job, and that he has plenty good reason to be in jail.

I also said they lucked out with this guy because had it just been the game he was put in jail for, this would have sparked a much larger conversation. But it was swept under the rug because this one incident proved to be a great boon for them.

My point in this entire thing had been that people are conflating the issue by saying that him making a video game, and doing this stuff irl is the same thing. It is not. If they followed their own laws to the letter, and put it across the board, action and horror content creators would get themselves and others arrested for making content of people being harmed and murdered. Do you see the issue here?

. What makes you think that if it was just the game he was put in for that it would have sparked a larger conversation? What exactly is it that you believe was swept under the rug ?

 

[3n69]

What makes you think that if it was just the game he was put in for that it would have sparked a larger conversation? What exactly is it that you believe was swept under the rug ?

I've repeated myself at least 4 times now. But I'll say it one final time:
The "conversation" is whether you should be scrutinized for the thoughts you have in your head vs the actions you conduct in real life. They pursued this guy off of an assumption that the thoughts in his head equate to something he'd do in real life. They were fortunate because for once they struck gold in allegations and evidence. The problem is that in practice you'd have to arrest 100 innocent people before reaching someone who fits the bill. (Don't take the numbers as actual statistics, I'm just making a point.)

What people have a hard time wrapping their heads around is that in any other circumstance, this would be considered widely inappropriate. For instance: If you make a slasher film, or a video game that involves the deaths of fictionally made characters -- should you be under investigation for mass murder? Because it's that same exact process that started their investigation in the first place. It's being swept under the rug because for once they had a good guess, and they're running with the idea that "The system works".

The problem is that it doesn't actually work when it's simply a gamble they won for once. If it did, you'd be hearing about this ALL the time. Taking into account the thousands of games and fictional content that are out there, finding even 10 people wouldn't be enough of a justification to have a law made like that, taking into account the hundreds, if not thousands that didn't do anything. The law insists that "Whether you did it or not doesn't matter. We're arresting you because you thought about it, and made it known that you thought about it."

Think about anything that would be considered illegal. THINK about drugs, murder, molestation, etc. Did you do it just then? Should you be arrested for having likely done it, despite the fact that all you did was think in the safety of your own mind? Because that's the framework they're working with, and is being swept because they don't want people to contest these hypocritical talking points.
If you're wondering why I call it hypocritical, I've already addressed this too: If you're going to make a law like this, it should be across the board; and not based off of biases, singling out one type of criminal. And if you can't do it across the board, then you shouldn't do it at all. Because, if the system doesn't work on all accounts, then it doesn't work in general.

And lest I forget, this leads to the other part of the problem. Something else I brought up time and time again: Conflating Fiction with Reality. Your actions in real life are not the result of passing thoughts you have in your head. Characters you made up in your mind are not real people, and don't have human rights, because they don't exist. Yet people keep asking for various details on characters in a way that makes them believe that any thoughts they have on them somehow reflects who they are as a person in real life.
This is because people are afraid of being judged for thinking out-loud, even when what they're thinking about doesn't exist irl
.
If you can't separate your imagination from reality, you're cooked. If anything, that's who the laws would be made for, if it was a consistent talking point that everyone in the world thinks that fictional characters are somehow real to them.
This is why Actors aren't the characters they play on TV. This is why playing MK doesn't actually make your every-day joe go out trying to perform fatalities. If any of this shit does happen, it's because the person in question was already fucked up in the head. This is why it's well known that good laws are never based off an exception. It has to be a status quo.

So if the investigation was based off of, say, previous tells that the person may be a deranged individual. Maybe he did something in the past he was reported for, maybe he has a known mental illness, or something that tips off investigators that "Yeah, maybe him thinking about this shit will lead to something worse." Then sure; the investigation would be open and shut. But they didn't do it like that.

 

[Feral]

I've repeated myself at least 4 times now. But I'll say it one final time:
The "conversation" is whether you should be scrutinized for the thoughts you have in your head vs the actions you conduct in real life. They pursued this guy off of an assumption that the thoughts in his head equate to something he'd do in real life. They were fortunate because for once they struck gold in allegations and evidence. The problem is that in practice you'd have to arrest 100 innocent people before reaching someone who fits the bill. (Don't take the numbers as actual statistics, I'm just making a point.)

What people have a hard time wrapping their heads around is that in any other circumstance, this would be considered widely inappropriate. For instance: If you make a slasher film, or a video game that involves the deaths of fictionally made characters -- should you be under investigation for mass murder? Because it's that same exact process that started their investigation in the first place. It's being swept under the rug because for once they had a good guess, and they're running with the idea that "The system works".

The problem is that it doesn't actually work when it's simply a gamble they won for once. If it did, you'd be hearing about this ALL the time. Taking into account the thousands of games and fictional content that are out there, finding even 10 people wouldn't be enough of a justification to have a law made like that, taking into account the hundreds, if not thousands that didn't do anything. The law insists that "Whether you did it or not doesn't matter. We're arresting you because you thought about it, and made it known that you thought about it."

Think about anything that would be considered illegal. THINK about drugs, murder, molestation, etc. Did you do it just then? Should you be arrested for having likely done it, despite the fact that all you did was think in the safety of your own mind? Because that's the framework they're working with, and is being swept because they don't want people to contest these hypocritical talking points.
If you're wondering why I call it hypocritical, I've already addressed this too: If you're going to make a law like this, it should be across the board; and not based off of biases, singling out one type of criminal. And if you can't do it across the board, then you shouldn't do it at all. Because, if the system doesn't work on all accounts, then it doesn't work in general.

And lest I forget, this leads to the other part of the problem. Something else I brought up time and time again: Conflating Fiction with Reality. Your actions in real life are not the result of passing thoughts you have in your head. Characters you made up in your mind are not real people, and don't have human rights, because they don't exist. Yet people keep asking for various details on characters in a way that makes them believe that any thoughts they have on them somehow reflects who they are as a person in real life. If you can't separate your imagination from reality, you're cooked. If anything, that's who the laws would be made for, if it was a consistent talking point that everyone in the world thinks that fictional characters are somehow real to them.
This is why Actors aren't the characters they play on TV. This is why playing MK doesn't actually make your every-day joe go out trying to perform fatalities. If any of this shit does happen, it's because the person in question was already fucked up in the head. This is why it's well known that good laws are never based off an exception. It has to be a status quo.

One last time. Someone entered Australia with the game on his phone. Customs handed it to the Feds. The Feds got in touch with Itcho where it had been downloaded. Itcho handed the Feds Westys details. They followed the money trail and arrested him for making the game as well as living off the proceeds of crime. It was not until they searched his computer that they found everything else. The Feds were not after him cause they thought he might do something, they arrested him for making a game that is illegal to make in Australia

 

[3n69]

The Feds were not after him cause they thought he might do something, they arrested him for making a game that is illegal to make in Australia

Ask yourself the question: Why was the law made this way in the first place? Then go back to everything I just said up til now.

If he wasn't guilty, how would this whole situation have gone down? 100 innocents to catch 1 guy. Do you see what I'm saying?

 

[Feral]

Ask yourself the question: Why was the law made this way in the first place? Then go back to everything I just said up til now.

If he wasn't guilty, how would this whole situation have gone down? 100 innocents to catch 1 guy. Do you see what I'm saying?

What the fuck do you mean, what if he was not guilty. He is. He pleaded guilty. As for the 100 innocents to catch 1 guy, care to name these 100 innocents or is that just more of your hypothetical rantings

 

[3n69]

What the fuck do you mean, what if he was not guilty. He is. He pleaded guilty. As for the 100 innocents to catch 1 guy, care to name these 100 innocents or is that just more of your hypothetical rantings

HYPOTHETICALS, dude. Do you know what that is? I'm asking you what would have happened if he wasn't guilty. Because ANYONE could have been put in that situation, especially those who are not guilty of what he did.
You're also repeating everything I've already said: They. Lucked. Out. With. Him. If it had been anyone else who had maybe even just forgotten to simply take a game off their phone, and nothing else, explain to me why that person deserves to be arrested and investigated over a piece of fiction.

Back at you: Name 50 people who were tried and convicted justly, and not the way Westy was. That's half. You should manage that, right? Actually no, even in the same way he was, that's fine too. People let it go because there's nothing more to look into other than the fact that they had a game.

Edit:

Of everything I can ever find out there, there are under 10 cases dating back as far as 2008, that are actually known. AFP states there are 1240 or so cases from the 200,000 or so people they looked into, narrowing down to around 120 people or who were convicted. Fun fact: They don't discriminate as to whether the material was fiction or not, but we do know that only within those 10 cases, only about 5 of them bothered reporting that there were any real materials, and even that's up for debate with some of them. Many wanted to push the narrative that fiction and non-fiction made no difference.

So to answer your question: I don't have names because they don't care to keep track on record, but we do know that you'll only be able to find maybe 3 or 5 if you're lucky who were convicted for having anything that wasn't just fictional.

I'll one up you further: Of the 1000 people who get convicted of real crap per year on average, it was based off of allegations that had nothing to do with fictional shit. How odd~

Just sayin' if this system actually worked, we'd hear about it much more. I'm also curious as to why you're so intent on defending this standpoint? You forget that what's being discussed here is that this whole order of operations affects your personal rights. Really, if anything you're telling me that you truly believe that you deserve to be arrested in a country that banned a fictional title you forgot to delete from your phone. Whether it's a game or a steamy novel.

Just because a law exists doesn't mean it's a good law. These kind specifically are often biased and reactionary, made out of some disproportionate sense of morality that only sounds good on paper, and looks terrible in practice.

You seem to also miss the point that I never said that anyone should not have observed the laws. You absolutely should. I've only ever said that the laws that conflate fiction with reality were built on flimsy foundations that don't really work in the grand scheme of things.

 

[3n69]

Fuck off troll

Chill. We're adults here. If I were trolling, I wouldn't be so civil, and certainly wouldn't be trying to help you understand something. If you really thought it, then I apologize for making you think think I was trolling.

For the record, I'm not upset with you (or anyone). Just frustrated that my words don't seem to make sense to you. I would actually think maybe you were trolling me instead, but you've been here 2 years, so you get the benefit of the doubt.

Even though this wasn't meant to be an argument, I'd like to remind you that all my responses were done to help you be made aware of a flawed practice that impedes all our rights as human beings. I explained this, why it's flawed, and even explained how shitty its track-record is. That's more than I intended to do here.

I've said all I needed to. I have no animosity towards you or anyone, so I just ask that you don't either when I see you in other threads.

 

[MattaMus11MattaMus11's icon]

please keep things civil and respectful. READ THE RULES

 

[Freyr]

We can discuss this thing for a very long time.

The facts are clear: the law in Australia is what it is, Westy broke it by making this game, admitted as such and is now convicted.

My opinion, which is basically worthless, is that this specific Australian law is morally wrong. But that doesn't help anybody.

What I do find quite astonishing though, is that, on a forum which is more or less specifically created due to censorship of certain content on a certain other forum, some people STILL think that they are somehow morally superior to Westy. Personally I find that sad. I don't suppose Westy has internet in his cell but I do wish him the best.

 

[Feral]

We can discuss this thing for a very long time.

The facts are clear: the law in Australia is what it is, Westy broke it by making this game, admitted as such and is now convicted.

My opinion, which is basically worthless, is that this specific Australian law is morally wrong. But that doesn't help anybody.

What I do find quite astonishing though, is that, on a forum which is more or less specifically created due to censorship of certain content on a certain other forum, some people STILL think that they are somehow morally superior to Westy. Personally I find that sad. I don't suppose Westy has internet in his cell but I do wish him the best.

Westy is a self confessed rock spider. He ADMITTED to possessing real life child porn. A number of members here have and still do show support for westy. By doing that, you are giving the very people who want these forums shut down, all the ammo to do it with. How do you not understand that ? By the way prisoners in Aussie jails have no access to the internet and due to being on the register for life if/when he gets out he will be monitored