World News

From www.censorship.govt.nz 

The New Zealand Classification Office have banned Irreversible from public screenings but have allowed it to be shown to academics and to film festival goers.

Their news release reads as follows:

Irreversible is classified as:

Objectionable except if the availability of the publication is restricted for the purpose of study in a tertiary institution, or for the purpose of exhibition as part of the 2003 Beck's Incredible Film Festival or a film festival organised by an incorporated film society, and in all cases to persons who have attained the age of 18 years.

Irreversible contains scenes of extreme violence and sexual violence, explicit sexual images and dialogue, and other problematic elements such as portrayals of drug use and offensively racist, misogynistic and homophobic representations. Two scenes are of particular concern for their lengthy and graphic depictions of murder and rape. The Office has considered the effects of these depictions at length. The concerns identified include the possibility of emulation, the disturbing nature of the images, including their potential to increase women's fears about personal safety, and the possibility that the film's high level of extreme violence might further desensitise an audience already inured to media violence.

Excisions have been considered. The Office is grateful for the contributions on this subject made by the members of the public who viewed the film, and for the discussion and reflection that produced the suggestions made by Wellington Independent Rape Crisis. A high proportion of the audience at the public consultation indicated that they considered the film objectionable unless the length of the depictions of murder and/or the rape was reduced. However, a significant number of people thought no excisions should be made. Although members of the Rape Crisis collective reached a consensus that the film should not be banned, individual participants had varying views about whether there should be excisions and what should be excised. The reasons given by all of those who thought the rape scene should be left intact are similar: to reduce its length would diminish the impact of a scene that confronts its audience with the horrific nature of rape. Excisions to make the scene palatable would destroy its message, and risk altering the integrity of the film-maker’s vision. Viewers who argued against excisions also felt that the sickening brutality of the murder is an important part of the film's message. Suggestions for the removal of specific images have largely been dealt with in the body of the decision.

The Classification Office has concluded that excisions are not required. Viewers are almost guaranteed to find the film shocking and disturbing. However, any audience that perseveres through the film's initial assault on the senses is likely to have a thoughtful response to the issues it confronts. The Office has canvassed a range of public, professional and critical reactions to the film. A clear majority of these reactions involve serious consideration of the film's treatment of gender relations and violence. The film, therefore, contributes to this wider discourse. The film also contributes to critical film debate on screen representations of violence and sexual violence. It does compel its audience, and anyone interested in film, to think about the nature of their reactions to film violence in general and the rape/revenge genre in particular.

Although the film does not require excisions, in the Classification Office's view, it does require further restrictions on its availability and on the terms of its exhibition to minimise the likelihood of injury to the public good. The likelihood of injury to the public good if the film is made generally available lies in the exposure of children and young persons to material that they do not have the maturity or experience to deal with. A restriction to an adult audience, for whom the film is clearly intended, prevents this injury.

The likelihood of injury to the public good arising from the publication's availability to adult viewers has also been identified. The film is particularly likely to disturb adults if it is viewed without foreknowledge of the strength of the material. There is a clear likelihood of injury to the public good if people who have been subjected to any form of sexual abuse are re-traumatised by the film's depictions of violence and sexual violence. Prospective viewers need to be sufficiently informed to be able to choose for themselves whether or not to view the material. Restricting the availability of the film to film festivals and tertiary study increases the likelihood that adults will view the film in an informative context and provides recognised forums for challenging and controversial films. In the case of Irreversible, students of film are likely to find much of interest in its innovative techniques and structure. Viewing in a public forum also facilitates control over access and addresses the concern that the publication may be edited and used for other purposes.

From www.smh.com.au

A week out from opening night, the Sydney Film Festival has been caught up in a censorship row after the banning of Ken Park. The film includes scenes of explicit sex, suicide and auto-erotic asphyxiation. It has been refused classification by the Office of Film and Literature Classification.

When it premiered at the Venice Film Festival last September, some observers described Ken Park as too hard-core for cinema release. But it has since screened at numerous festivals.

Co-directed by the American film-maker and photographer Larry Clark, best known for Kids and Another Day in Paradise, the film is about four teenagers struggling with uncertain futures in suburban California.

Australia also recently banned  the sexually explicit French film Baise-Moi, the Office of Film and Literature Classification has refused classification for a film. After a 6-1 decision, the board said Ken Park dealt with sexual matters in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults. The film contained scenes of actual sexual activity involving actors playing minors. The R18+ classification permits material that is high in impact,The intensity, cumulative effect, tone and treatment of the scenes of actual sexual activity exceeded this impact test."

The film is understood to have been submitted for classification by a distributor wanting to release it on video. The festival has appealed and hopes for a decision before the film's scheduled screenings on June 17 and 18.

The festival's president, Cathy Robinson, was upset and angry at the decision. Any festival-goer seeing Ken Park, which she described as a significant film dealing with social issues affecting young adults, had to be over 18. She also said it was ironic that the 50th festival was seeing a return to the censorship controversies that dogged the festival in the past. In 1969, there was a storm when the Swedish film I Love, You Love was banned for showing a pregnant woman having sex.

The distributors have now decided to appeal the decision.

From AVN

Yesterday Wal-Mart announced that it had halted sales of Maxim, Stuff and FHM, men's magazines that feature a mix of scantily clad starlets and bawdy humor but go to some lengths to avoid being labeled as pornography.

The move was made after pressure from Christian nutter groups, which have been successful in lobbying Wal-Mart in the past regarding magazine content. Wal-Mart once even refused to stock Sports Illustrated, because of the swimsuit issue.

Maxim has been sold in Wal-Mart for the last three years, while FHM was added recently. The standards and general content of the magazines have not changed.

Maxim, Stuff and FHM have a combined circulation of almost five million, with much of their success deriving from newsstand sales. Maxim is the largest of the three, with an average circulation in the second half of last year of 2.5 million, and it sells an average of 848,000 copies a month on newsstands, a highly lucrative revenue stream.

Stephen Colvin, president of Dennis Publishing USA, which owns both Maxim and Stuff, shrugged off the move, noting that Wal-Mart accounts for "less than 3 percent" of the copies his company sells at newsstands.

However, free speech activists are concerned that the sheer size of Wal-Mart means a boycott by that company on any magazine or product can effectively ruin a publishing house, effectively placing Wal-Mart in the role of a corporate censor for America.

From the Hindustan Times

Pakistani telecommunication authorities have blocked more than 1,800 pornographic Web sites in an attempt to protect Internet users from what they call their corrupting and evil influence.

More than 60 per cent of an estimated one million Internet users in Islamic Pakistan visit pornographic sites, said Zahir Mohammed Khan, a senior official of the state-run Pakistan Telecommunication Co Ltd (PTCL). We launched a campaign to block such Web sites in February and, so far, have identified and blocked 1,800 of them," he told Reuters by telephone from Islamabad. But it's a difficult task as such sites are in millions."

The PTCL was also identifying what Khan called anti-Islamic and blasphemous sites.They too are being blocked, he said, without giving details. Every week we update the list of banned sites. We hope people will turn to other, informative sites because of the ban. These pornographic sites are a big social evil. The government cannot fight it alone. We need help from the ISPs and parents to fight this menace, he said.

Mirajul Huda of the Jamaat-e-Islami, a key nutter of a six-party Islamic opposition group, welcomed the ban but said it was too little. This ban is not enough. There is a need to reform the entire education system and the electronic media in line with our culture and religion so that our youngsters are not tempted with such evils, he said.

Internet service providers (ISPs) say a majority of those accessing pornographic sites are youngsters. Middle-aged people are also said to be regular visitors. Thousands of Internet cafes have sprung up in major cities and in remote, often conservative towns where youngsters spend hours surfing pornography sites for as little as 15 rupees ($0.35) an hour.

Mohammed Anwar, who owns a small Internet cafe in Karachi, said the ban had started to affect his business: Now there are fewer visitors. There has been at least a 50 per cent drop in the number of visitors. Our clients also spend less time surfing on the Net now.

From The Register

The European Commission is calling on all Member States to implement and enforce laws giving paid-for content providers protection from electronic piracy.

In the EC's book, electronic pay-services are provided by TV, radio and internet, but it is clear that the big sums being lost to piracy are leeching out of pay-TV.

In a report published yesterday on the implementation of the 1998 Directive on legal protection for electronic pay services, the EC urged members to fight electronic piracy. "The pirates and those who use their devices are taking a free ride on the backs of legitimate operators and users," it says. An early and powerful signal from Member States will prevent electronic pay-services piracy becoming socially acceptable, in the manner of digital music piracy, the Commission argues.

It is keen to closed any electronic piracy safe havens within individual Member States, although it does not name or shame any countries. Pay-for TV companies should get their act together too, the EC says. Consumers do not see why they are refused access to subscriber services because they are in the "wrong" country. If they can't pay for services, they will look for pirated smart cards to gain access. So TV broadcasters, for instance, should navigate their way through contractual agreements to provide cross-border services and payment options, the EC recommends.

From The Kansas City Star

Sex toys are still against the law in Alabama, at least as far as the Alabama Legislature is concerned.

The Alabama House voted against a bill Tuesday that would have removed a ban on sexual devices, such as vibrators, from the state's obscenity law. The ban on sexual devices was added at the last minute when the obscenity law passed the Legislature in 1998.

A federal district judge in Birmingham has twice ruled that the ban is unconstitutional. The first ruling was overturned by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and the second ruling has been appealed to the appeals court.

The sponsor of the bill, Rep. John Rogers, D-Birmingham, said because of the court ruling, the obscenity law is unenforceable as long as it contains the ban on sex toys.

All this does is make our obscenity law constitutional, Rogers said.

With little serious discussion, the House voted 37-28 to leave the sex toys ban in state law, leaving Rogers standing at the microphone shaking his head.

What you just did is make our obscenity law illegal. You voted for obscenity, Rogers shouted at lawmakers.