SMH self-censors Islam comments in video

In a a small but very worrying sign that some areas of debate have become off-limits in our society, 10 seconds of audio go mysteriously missing in a video hosted by the Sydney Morning Herald. The SMH is a co-sponsor of a series of public debates called Intelligence Squared, and hosts the videos on its site. 33 minutes into the debate on the controversial subject, "We'd be better off without religion", SMH columnist Richard Ackland is speaking for the affirmative, and brings up the subject of the chilling effect religion has on art and free speech.

Art that satirizes or even mocks religious sensibility is to be tossed on the fire and the artists flayed. More recently Random House has decided not to publish "The Jewel of Medina", for fear it may incite acts of violence. The book is described as an..."

10 seconds of silence follows as Mr Ackland continues. The audio resumes with the line "it's difficult stuff, but nothing a suicide bombing couldn't fix." If this is deliberate - and an audio glitch occuring at just this point in the debate seems a mighty coincidence - it rates a 10/10 on the irony-meter, doesn't it?

Watch the video here.

How to access "naughty comedy" on your 3 mobile

Access All Areas (3 mobile phone network)

Access all areas of Planet 3 with a PIN
Get your Access All Areas password

Over 18? It's easy to access MA and R-rated stuff on Planet 3 like Def Jam Comedy, Playboy, Stud TV and Big Brother Platinum. All you need is an Access All Areas password.

posted by Bob Bain

Organised crime 'dominates porn industry'

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Aussie censor says her role isn't to censor

Alexandra Greene, a 31 year old member of the Australian Classification Board says her role is not to censor, but rather to inform people about what they are about to watch and if necessary restrict the content from being viewed.

You've got to wonder what Greene thinks restricting legal content is, if not an act of censorship. Playing our national mummy perhaps?

She goes onto tell News.com.au in this interview that 'People should be able to watch or read what they like but we do need to protect people and children from unsolicited material, or at least give them the choice if they want to watch it.'

'I saw an interview with (Scottish comedian) Ronnie Barker where he said double entendres were OK because the children couldn't understand it and the adults would get a laugh. But now it's that adults get offended because they're worried their kids might understand.'

Do kids even give a hoot? Grow up Mum.

posted by Michael Meloni

Varying censorship rules are "frustrating" - Hines

According to Games Industry Biz

Pete Hines, Bethesda's product manager for Fallout 3, has expressed frustration at the varying censorship rules in different parts of the world, and that while the company makes its games in its own way, it's always mindful of the issues it will face with subjects such as violence, drug references and nudity.

"The frustrating thing for us is that the standards and rules can be so varied across territories, that we work with five or six ratings agencies and each one has different 'hot buttons'," he told CVG.

"In one place nudity is a big deal but violence is fine, and in another place drugs are a problem but nudity is fine. I guess that's the way of the world - not every country is the same. You're not aiming at one target, you're aiming at six different ones, worrying about how each one will feel about different things.

posted via Thunderbird email client

posted by Bob Bain

Recollections of talk by Helen Vnuk 2004 "In the Realm of the Censors"

From...

Logged Off - Link...

How does the OFLC define offensive and what reasonable community standards are - how often do these terms and guidelines get reviewed?

I'll give you the definition from Guidelines for the Classification of Publications, September 1999. "Offensive: Material which causes outrage or extreme disgust. The Guidelines distinguish between material which may offend some sections of the adult community, and material which offends against generally accepted standards, and is therefore likely to offend most people."

I'm not sure how they decide what "generally accepted standards" or even "reasonable community standards" are. I would imagine that's a very difficult thing to judge. I wouldn't like to have to guess at it. My friends tend to be fairly open-minded, so I probably have a distorted view of what "generally accepted standards" are. The guidelines get reviewed every few years (before the 1999 guidelines, the previous set of guidelines was drawn up in 1992). When they're reviewed, there's a call for submissions from the public. Last time there were 147 submissions, a lot of them from religious groups or from people who blamed porn for all of society's problems. This was used as justification for bringing in tighter restrictions. Obviously this system is flawed. The average person isn't going to make a submission to the government - even if they do enjoy reading Penthouse.

==========================================

In your opinion does the OFLC act as a political tool for the government of the day rather than a reflection of the contemporary population's views? How could this be improved?

A lot of people want to blame John Howard for the OFLC's decisions, but I don't know whether things would be very different under a Labor government. There are very strong conservative forces in both major parties at the moment, as well as some vocal conservative independents, and that's why a lot of censorship rulings don't reflect the contemporary population's views. To me, the solution is to get an independent organisation to do some proper community consultation and come up with a new set of guidelines that would, I would hope, be less restrictive than the current ones. If we could get rid of the ban on fetishes in X-rated videos, the ban on genital detail (ie, inner labia) in sex magazines and a few other things like that, then no matter how conservative the people appointed to the OFLC board are (and John Howard does get a say on that), they couldn't do too much harm.

"In the Realm of the Censors" included a series of discussions in Sydney in 2004. These are some hastily scribbled notes from one of those discussions.

posted by Bob Bain

Fiona Giles and David Haines talk at the "In the Realm of the Censors" 2004

This is from scrawled barely readable notes from the interesting Censorship talk held this afternoon at the State Archive. ("RChive")

The talk attracted 17 attendees (one of whom works for the Archive "Liz" I believe) plus Curator Susan Charlton plus the speakers Fiona Giles and David Haines. The format was largely by way of Fiona Giles interviewing David Haines, although there was a brief interlude where Fiona Giles spoke about her own work and interests.

David it appears is a fellow Pom having migrated to Australia from somewhere exotic seemingly based on a romantic interlude (well that's what I've written).

Prior to working as Deputy Censor he seems to have been exposed to little or no erotic material. I believe he mentioned some association with Adultshop. From what I can read of my scribbled notes some Attorney General (possibly a State AG) seemingly made some comment that some of this new technology should be banned altogether (possibly in jest?).

May I suggest Jeff Shaw.... ?? (only speculation)

In relation to his work as Deputy Censor he recalled that there were some 30,000+ complaints with regard to a film "Hail Mary" but that decisions are not based on such pressure but on the "merits of the case" (or similar wording). There was some comments made regarding the banning of David Irving entering Australia and complaints from the Jewish Board of Deputies regarding a film that he may have felt was possibly over classified as "R" on account of the number of complaints (it seemingly contained concentration camp type scenes often seen on TV in documentaries).

I've made a note that he became Deputy Censor around 1981/1982 but that nobody is permitted to make a career of censorship on the basis as I understand it that they may become desensitised.

He seemed to err on the side of caution when it came to classifying but preferred not to ban films altogether. In classification his reaction was perhaps a conservative one but he felt being a "liberal" that banning a film completely required considerable deliberation. His own personal views seem to be against violence and I have noted that Australian made (pornographic) films made in Australia would (paraphrasing his words) be regarded as tame in countries of Europe where there is greater demand for material that would be banned here (my words) and that the market both here and overseas for Australian produced material would be minimal - noting that export grants are not permitted with regards to "X" or "R" rated material derived from and/or during the filming of "X" rated material (Senator Harradine was mentioned in this regard).

He noted that most pornographic material he had seen was/is absolute rubbish (or words to that effect). I believe the term he used was "becoming punch drunk from watching absolute rubbish".

He noted that one censor had a psychological test prior to becoming a censor and a second test on relinquishing the position with the outcome being that she had seemingly become "more tolerant" or perhaps "more sensitive to censorship issues" (scribbled notes).

He seemed to indicate that around 0.08% material submitted would have been considered totally offensive (my note: most pornographic material these days doesn't even reach the censors office !) with perhaps 8 items of youthful porn being deliberated upon.

He noted that most material originated from America with some 9,000 titles per year being produced. (My note that most material on sale in Sydney originates in Europe not the United States and has never seen a censor or a classification board)

There was some commentary on "lactation porn" which seemed to be a topic of interest to Fiona Giles who noted (I believe) that many women get off on it and I've noted the term "adult nurse" where "women communicate over the Internet with regards to this type of material" (well that's what I've written).

I have seen "pregnant porn" and "lactating porn" for sale in Sydney but not for many years....

Fiona noted that in respect of her earlier books there was little "editorial control", but in the production of her latest book (about breasts) there was far more control and concern expressed at an editorial level. (The first book was "Dicks for something" and the second "Chicks for something" (bad scrawl - bad eyesight... must look these references up).

David was lured to become a pornographic films producer with his first work (producer not actor) seemingly being "Buffy Down Under" which cost $70,000 to make and sold in "X" and "R" versions some 16,000 copies. He noted there were always two cameras - one for the "X" version of one for the "R" version which require different parts of the anatomy the be photographed (not photographed).

Being a producer means:-

finding "talent"
finding equipment
writing the script
choosing location etc...

David seemed to indicate that male actors were/are terrible at reading / remembering lines which he seemed to regard as a shame given that his scripts were meant to be humorous (at least for the "R" rated versions).

There also seemed to be complications "getting wood" which could slow down production by a couple of hours. I can only speculate what the term "getting wood" means (presumably achieving and maintaining an erection in company and under the supervision of countless people).

A second film involving "Buffy" was never produced. He noted that during production the cameraman's hands tend to wobble, which is regarded as problematic. When viewing or monitoring material he admitted that what was being produced was of no consequence. The "meaning" (or otherwise) of the material being produced wasn't forefront in his mind.

He noted that in his experience only two actors had problems with being identified as being in a pornographic film after production.

His second film was "Revenge Australian Style" in which he made a brief appearance (clothed not as an actor) the "R" version being intended for European audiences and regarded in some way as containing (or meaning to contain) witty dialogue. However as noted it's a belief that Australian sourced material wouldn't be popular in Europe where a greater range of material is available (some of it here in Sydney)

There was some discussion regarding a "Ken Park" and a film called "Irreversible" (note http://www.garbledonline.net/irreversible.html) where he mentioned that he had to look away from the violent rape scene. I haven't heard of or seen this film.

David seems turned off by violence and notes that there are some portrayals that clearly shouldn't be on the agenda (I may disagree with him on aspects of that) noting that child porn was one, but he also noted that he had never seen "an unhappy dog in a porno film" (which is also my [limited] experience. Dogs take great pleasure in sex with humans)

(This cropped in conversation in "The Forum" at one stage...Yoda's odd forum that I've been reading for years)

He noted that no violence or even hint of violence was/is permitted in "X" films. A gun on a table would have the film removed from the "X" rating immediately.

With regards to the revised standards he noted that in some respects these were potentially more liberal than others believe.

That's what I've scrawled down.

There were some questions from the audience. One involved the importation of films from overseas noting a belief that control now rests with "OFLC trained customs officers) (correct) which he seemed unaware of. He also mentioned that if someone attempts to import material of a similar genre twice then they can expect to be prosecuted. I dispute his interpretation of that as when speaking to Australian Customs on the issue I was told it only applied with respect to a tile "condemned to the crown" and presumably each film is dealt with based on Australian standards (and they can differ or be misleading from film to film. I dispute his understanding of this).

I purchased an "X" rated film from "hidden surveillance cameras" on the way to the talk and will possibly watch it and possibly review it tomorrow. This I regard as a privacy issue and I haven't purchased it for pleasure. It will be a struggle watching it as I'm not a great fan of sex or nudity in films although I am tolerant their production and distribution (the method and ethics often under question) as indeed I am to fantasy material of various kinds - some of which may well appeal to me (more so than sex or porno films which do nothing for me).

Any errors due to poor eyesight, handwriting. and/or hearing and attention span :-)

If there are errors in interpretation forgive me !

"In the Realm of the Censors" was held in Sydney in 2004.

posted by Bob Bain

Notes from Discussion 2 "In the Realm of the Censors" 2004

I attended the second talk in a series of four talks associated with the (minimal) exhibition "In the Realm of the Censors" yesterday...

The talk was by way of a conversation between David Marr and Frank Moorhouse and was vigorous in tone and in language.

Some brief notes I have scribbled include: (apologies for any errors)

Reference to "The State Within" a term I haven't heard before which indicates that we carry inside us the will of the state whether we know it or not and "The Church Within".

Reference was made to an analogy of "hahas" (hidden ditches) which I understand are trenches used in lieu of fences. (I'm not sure of the spelling). It was noted that much censorship isn't visible due to the fact that although there are no visible fences there are "unseen hahas". A "Lord of the Manor" may look out over his land and see nothing but "freedom" as the "hahas" are invisible. Censorship is like that. We don't know that it's taking place.

Reference was also made to "it's all but over now" where each generation believes that censorship is coming to an end which has never been and probably never will be the case.

There was some reference to the struggle between the Christian religion and other forms of philosophy noting that in Christian thought - fucking is alright provided it's done in the name of the reproduction of the species and not for pleasure.

Reference was made to some controversial necklace worn by some Wendy person which read "I have been fucked by God's steel prick" which it was alleged may have been a religious statement of some kind. I'm not sure of the reference but the quote was seemingly edited in the press such that nobody could understand it.

The trial regarding "Portnoy's Complaint" was discussed. It was stated that the book was deemed "obscene" in every state (except NSW) however in New South Wales (unlike other states) it went before a jury. The defending lawyer was noted as having a long pointing finger which he used to advantage.

Some mention was made of the Gary Glitter "child porn" case noting that press reports indicated some tens of thousands of images of children. It was questioned "what sort of images of children were these ?". The reporting of number somehow implies that an offence or alleged offence is bad. I have a CD from 1992 which allegedly contains 28,000 erotic images. If subject to litigation I have no doubt the press might report "Mr X was found to be in possession of 28,000 erotic images" despite the fact I purchased the disks when they were legal to sell and do not contain child pornography of any kind (which was illegal back in 1992 almost everywhere).

There were comments made along the lines that if the state chooses material to censor then it also decides and is responsible for what not to censor which places it in an arguably difficult position.

The flow down effect of the elimination of violence from "X" rated films was noted.

A comment was made in respect of the film Ken Park that a lot of noise was made about a wanking scene but no comments were made that later in the film one of the children murders his grandparents with a knife.

(in passing I had images from Ken Park and Baise Moi on a censorship page for a while and one self appointed "liberal" ("I'm very broad minded") noted in a forum that he agreed with Fred Nile that "we don't want this sort of stuff in the country" and that the Prohibited Import Regulations to the Customs Act were as good a way as any to hinder it's importation.)

I believe it was Frank Moorhouse who suggested the term "anti-censorship" shouldn't be used and that the term "uncensored people" was more appropriate. I would like to consider myself an uncensored person but sadly find this is not the case and that those who would censor me are often those who claim we have rights to freedom of expression and that often those who claim to be "liberal" or "broad minded" often prove by their comments that they are neither liberal nor broad minded.

I believe it was David Marr who noted that he could quote the addresses of a dozen or so stores which sell "legitimate X rated movies" in contravention of state laws, noting that it was a belief that "some public official is being corrupted" and that (possibly) "somebody's on the take" which I believe he may find unacceptable (as I do).

An honest uncensored person does not (IMHO) find corruption or possible corruption an acceptable alternative to censorship.

And BTW around 30% of the titles marked "X" on sale in Sydney are not and have never been rated "X" by the OFLC.

The name of journalist Piers Ackerman was mentioned a few times although in what context I can't recall.

There was mention that one way of imposing censorship was by placing restrictions on the technology that creates it with comments that printing presses at some stage in history had to be licenced. As a personal comment moves to hinder expression via technological means are currently well under way - call it Digital Rights Maintenance or Region Coding (or whatever).

There were around 50 people in the audience and about two (possibly three) people raised questions from the floor.

It appears that the exhibition is regarded as highly controversial in some quarters and appears to relate to publications rather than video material.

Copies of the OFLC guidelines for publications were freely available.

"In the Realm of the Censors" was held in Sydney in 2004. These notes are from those sessions.

posted by Bob Bain

Replies regarding games classification and importing prohibited goods..

According to Games website Kotaku

Australian Classification Board Speaks On R18+ Games

Who should I be contacting to push the need for an R18+ rating for games?

Currently, the Censorship Minister is the Attorney-General for each State or Territory and the Australian Censorship Minister is the Minister for Home Affairs.

Can I import games that have been refused classification?

Customs may detain or seize any items that are suspected of contravening the Regulations. The maximum penalty for this type of offence is a fine of up to $110,000.

posted by Bob Bain

Inside Australia's game ratings body

Article from CNet Australia

By Laura Parker on 29 August 2008

The Classification Board — formerly the Office of Film and Literature Classification — is an independent body that classifies films, computer games and publications. Guidelines for classification are set out in the National Classification Code, agreed by the Australian Government and the States and Territories, and the Classification Board must abide by these when making classification decisions. The Classification Review Board, also an independent body, can review original classification decisions in certain circumstances and make a new classification decision.

Previously the OFLC, the office was disbanded and its members made part of the Attorney General's department. The body was renamed the Classification Board, and still performs the same role as before.

In this Q&A we've tackled all the big questions with the newly-named Classification Board to give an insight into what makes its members tick. We tracked down a Classification Board spokeswoman to give us all the details. And for more information about games classification, check out our in-depth feature, Censory Overload.

posted by Bob Bain

Facts about this blog

This blog has been created to document the state of censorship in Australia.  It replaces  nocensorshipaus.blogspot.com which has been deleted and is no longer available for use (google blogspot policy).

The blog is not moderated and comments on entries can be made by anyone, although they should relate to the issue being discussed and/or censorship in Australia and censorship in general where censorship includes anything and everything relating to censorship including freedom of speech and erotic or "objectionable" content.

Thanks

nocensorshipaus at gmail.com
admin at nocensorshipaus.net

BLOG created

Blog created 30th. August 2008