Sexually graphic images on Wikipedia stir debates (continuation of a theme)

According to Computerworld today (10 Sep 2008)

Wikipedia has come under fire from some child protection groups over the inclusion of graphic sexual images in some entries. Childwise head Bernadette McMenamin told News Limited that some of the images easily accessible via the site crossed the line to what is deemed sexually explicit. The page on 'hardcore pornography', for instance, includes two stills from behind the scenes at a pornographic movie set, including one featuring explicit sex.

===========

The article continues..

Wikipedia has a strict anti-censorship policy – the phrase 'Wikipedia is not censored' is included in what is essentially the group's mission statement. As is the warning that "Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms."

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

The Wikipedia article (embedded link above) notes that "Since 1969, most of the world's liberal democracies have taken steps to legalize hardcore pornography. or they increasingly fail to enforce legislation to prohibit it resulting in de facto legalization."

The latter statement is to all intents and purposes the case in New South Wales, where the alleged pornographic image depicted in the Wikipedia article would be considered mild to inconsequential by those familiar with what is on sale and often mislabeled as being "X" rated (a legal rating for the Australian Capital Territory) despite often falling outside the official "guidelines" - noting that "guidelines" are just that.

The law does not state that a legal classification has to satisfy the guidelines. The process of classification is a discretionary one as is the right to import from overseas - qualified by statements such as "to the extent the item should not be classified/imported" (paraphrased) and in my view the onus of proof should lie with those who wish to hinder freedom of sexual expression as to why an item should NOT be classified or imported rather than the reverse situation that appears to apply)

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

I have noted in the past that some corporate filters block access to wikis (of which Wikipedia is just one) thus depriving employees of a useful and frequently updated source of information. This poster is not convinced that this is a healthy trend. There is a trend for some Universities to debunk Wikipedia, but again I feel this is merely to bolster their position as one of the major sources of legitimate information - despite the fact that much of that information is itself censored and I would suggest the recent book "The Porn Report" is an excellent example of this (based on a talk given by the author to the Sydney Institute) which is at the time of posting available for download from the Sydney Institute(click on the podcast section and click the podcast download for the 21st May 2008 ). I understand the research framework forbade investigation into illegal sources of pornographic content thus confining research into items legally classified by the Australian Classification Board.

It is known that University staff use Wikipedia as a source of information. We live in a changing world.

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

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

BLOG created

Blog created 30th. August 2008