www.simplyporndvd.com
Free shipping to Europe
Simply Porn DVD

 Australia Censorship News

Adult DVDs
Internet Video
LicensedShops
Store Reviews
Online Shops
Adult Mags
Gay Shops
New + Latest
Sex Machines
Sex Machines

 Latest

  Home  UK Nutters
  Index  World  Liberty
  Links  Media Info
  Forum  BBFC Shopping 
   
Sex News
Sex Shops List
Sex+Shopping


29th January   

Offsite: Australia Goes Weak at the Knee at the Thought of Porn...

Simply Porn
Free shipping to Europe
Simply Porn DVD

 

New censorship scheme missing that vital X factor

Permalink
 full story: Australian Censorship Review... Reviewing censorship law for all media

Australian Law Reform Commission logoAfter taking a record number of public submissions, the Australian Law Reform Commission has now released its final discussion paper on a new Classification Scheme.

Most of what the ALRC has suggested makes a lot of sense, including the addition of new classification categories of C for Children, PG 8+ and T 13+ for teens. Dropping the M for Mature category also makes sense, as would removing the legal requirement to enforce age on the MA15+ classification. This is because trying to regulate age requirements on people accessing MA15+ material on a website would be impossible to enforce online.

What doesn't make sense is the suggestion that Australia's restricted publications (Category 1 and 2) both become X-rated. The last time I looked, the X rating was banned in most states. So why is the ALRC suggesting the modern day equivalent of book-burning for anything nude and rude on paper? Why would the federal government, in Section 9 of the report, seek to ban categories of books and magazines that have been around for 30 years?

It is also somewhat disturbing to see that, while the ALRC was being bold and brave about suggesting all these new classifications, when it came to the X classification they went weak at the knees and stated in Section 6: If the Australian government decided to keep the X classification ... Why would they not make a recommendation about this category as they have for many others? The fact is, they advised the federal government to introduce a new C for Children and T for Teen category. So why not recommend that X be legal in all jurisdictions as well, so they can achieve the truly uniform and consistent national scheme they say they want?

...Read the full article

 

28th January   

Update: Once a Blocker, Always a Blocker...

Simply Porn
Free shipping to Europe
Simply Porn DVD

 

Australia's censorship minister still hankers after state imposed internet blocking

Permalink
 full story: Internet Censorship in Australia...Wide ranging state internet censorship

Stephen ConroyStephen Conroy, the Australian minister of Communications Blocking has remained stalwart in his support for Labor's hated mandatory internet blocking scheme in a debate on ABC TV.

He was asked whether Labor's support for the blocking was pointless, given that it may not have the numbers to get through Parliament.

Conroy answered that a review of the Refused Classification category of content still had to be undertaken before legislation was introduced to Parliament. He added:

The legislation will ultimately reflect the outcome of that review... for people to say it definitely won't be passed, the legislation hasn't been drafted, and that review hasn't taken place yet

You don't, simply because you've got a lot of criticism, say 'well I'm going to run away from that policy.

Other panelists were more wary. Independent Rob Oakeshott said he was in favour of personal responsibility in terms of internet use, but he would wait to see the legislation.

Shadow Innovation Minister Sophie Mirabella told the audience that the Coalition wouldn't support the policy because it wouldn't work, particularly as it was unable to block peer-to-peer traffic.

Australian Sex Party president Fiona Patton warned filter critics not to take the Coalition's opposition to the scheme for granted.(Shadow Treasurer) Joe Hockey may have said he won't support the filter as it stands, but certainly Tony Abbott out at Rooty Hill, of course, said that he would do whatever he could to stop people looking at filth, she said.

 

24th January   

Update: Starting the Parliamentary Game...

Simply Porn
Free shipping to Europe
Simply Porn DVD

 

Bill to introduce and adult rating for games will be introduced to the Australian Parliament in February

Permalink
 full story: R18+ for Games in Australia...Pondering an adult R18+ rating for video games

australian parliamentIn July last year, Australian state, and territory censorship ministers reached an in-principle agreement to introduce an R18+ classification for video games in Australia.

At the time, the measure was championed by the former Federal Minister for Home Affairs Brendan O'Connor.

he has since moved to a new job during the federal government's ministerial reshuffle late last year, with former Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare named the new Federal Minister for Home Affairs.

Clare so far been silent on his intentions for the adult classification for games. Now, speaking to GameSpot AU, Clare's office has revealed that the minister will stick to the previously announced timeline for R18+ and will introduce the R18+ for games bill in the first session of this year's parliamentary sittings, due to commence on February 7.

However the Government lives on a parliamentary knife edge needing support from cross bench MPs. It is not yet clear whether the bill will get the necessary consensus.

 

15th January   

Offsite: Using a Hammer to Crack an Internet Poster's Nut...

A scary new Australian censorship enforcement regime applicable to individuals

Permalink
 full story: Australian Censorship Review... Reviewing censorship law for all media

libertus logoAustralia is currently consulting about proposals to apply censorship rules across all media. The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) are tasked with proposing censorship law that covers all media.

In a long and technical, but fascinating, response from Libertus, many aspects of applying censorship laws across the board are questioned. In particular it is pointed how onerous it can be for individuals or non commercial groups to be faced with commercial levels of fines for publishing material censored under vague definitions. Irene Graham writes:

The ALRC's proposals, if implemented, would significantly extend the breadth of existing Commonwealth law for the intended purpose of enabling criminal prosecution and penalisation of online content providers, including non-commercial content providers (i.e. average everyday Australians). Existing Commonwealth law concerning online content does not apply to content providers, it applies to designated content/hosting service providers.

The writer is shocked by ALRC proposals which, in effect, would make non-commercial online content providers criminally liable for inability to foresee a classification decision that would be made by a panel of members of the Classification Board (which is not even required to be unanimous, and a panel making a classification decision can be as few as 2 members).

...Read the full consultation response by Irene Graham of Libertus.net [pdf]

 

11th January   

Stereotypically Complaining...

Australian Jewish group complains about stereotypes in TV show The Promise

Permalink

Promise DVD Claire FoyThe Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) has complained with the Australian broadcaster SBS about the British-made television series The Promise, which it says conveys anti-Jewish stereotypes.

In a letter to SBS, the Jewish organisation alleges that the series

promotes, endorses and reinforces demeaning stereotypes about Jews as a group. All of the principal Jewish characters (and thus by implication Jews generally) are portrayed negatively and, ultimately, without any redeeming virtues. They are cast as variously cruel, violent, hateful, ruthless, unfeeling, amoral, treacherous, racist and/or hypocritical.

The ancient libel that holds all Jews throughout history to be collectively guilty of killing Jesus has been segued into the equally ludicrous proposition that all Jews are collectively guilty of the wanton shedding of innocent blood, a staple of contemporary Palestinian propaganda. The series also panders to stereotypes about Jews being immoderately wealthy and having acquired their wealth unfairly. The cumulative effect of these consistently negative portrayals of all of the principal Jewish characters and of the series' numerous misrepresentations of the relevant historical background in a way that consistently casts Jews in a negative light is to demean Jews as a group.

The relevant historical events (and their misrepresentation) and the principal Jewish characters are vehicles for attributing negative traits to Jews generally across time and space. 'The Promise' utilizes and reinforces racist tropes about Jews that, but for a brief post-WWII respite, have been embedded in western civilization since pre-Christian times and are not in any way comparable to negative portrayals of other groups.

The four-part series The Promise, written and directed by British filmmaker Peter Kosminsky, tells a fictional story about Erin (played by actress Claire Foy), an 18-year-old British girl who visits her Israeli friend Eliza in Israel in 2005. Erin carries and progressively reads through the diary of her grandfather, Len, which describes Len's experiences while serving as a sergeant in the British army in the 1940s.

First screened in the UK in February 2011 and in France in March 2011, critics and Jewish organizations in both countries condemned the series. The Board of Deputies of British Jews also complained, but Ofcom, the UK's TV censor, said the program was not in breach of any of its guidelines.

 

11th January   

Update: Shame about the Hype...

Steve McQueen's Shame rated as adult only in Australia

Permalink
 full story: MPAA NC-17...US adults only certificate is the kiss of box office death

shameThe distributor of Steve McQueen's new film Shame has lashed out at Australia's classification board, saying the internationally acclaimed film doesn't deserve an R18+ rating.

Transmission Films general manager Courtney Botfield says she is disappointed the Australian Classification Board has stamped Shame with the rating, which restricts marketing and tends to dent box office takings.

The classification is harsh, she claims, given the film's level of explicit content and the absence of violence:

We were disappointed, we don't think the film is that terribly explicit to deserve an R rating.

Given that it was rated in a similar classification bracket in the US it was on the cards, but we were pretty confident it wouldn't get one.

In fact the film was rated adults only in both the UK (18 rating), and the US (NC-17 rating).

Botfield says some people will miss out seeing an important film because of restrictions on marketing. She explained:

Mainly it's the trailering. The trailer is automatically rated R and can only play with other R-rated films, of which there are none, so that key marketing tool just disappears.

 

5th January   

Updated: Floating New Ideas for Censorship...

Australia bans TV from showing asylum seekers arriving in boats

Permalink

boat people.Australian media companies are angry that immigration officials have pushed through new government media censorship that would ban them from showing video of asylum seekers in Australia.

The Australian Communication and Media Authority says television stations will no longer be allowed to show video of asylum seekers reaching the country by boat.

But media companies are crying foul, saying the the restrictions, implemented at the behest of immigration officials, amount to censorship.

Chris Warren, federal secretary of the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance, said this amounts to an effort to prevent asylum seekers from telling their stories to the Australian people: It's an unnecessary restriction, which will get in the way of Australians really understanding what asylum seekers go through. Warren said while there are valid concerns about privacy behind the measure, it's not appropriate for the immigration authorities to step in and, in a heavy-handed way, try to impose restrictions on the media.

Update: Bollox

5th January 2012. See press release from acma.gov.au

ACMA logoThe Australian Communications and Media Authority seeks to correct inaccurate media reporting about its recently published Privacy Guidelines for Broadcasters 2011. Its publication concludes the first review of the ACMA's guidelines since their introduction in 2005.

Some media outlets have claimed that the guidelines are imposing new privacy restrictions on the electronic media, said ACMA Chairman, Chris Chapman. This is simply not the case. The regulation of broadcasting content in Australia is largely set out in codes of practice developed by the television and radio industries themselves.

Privacy protections have long been embedded in these codes of practice. The ACMA's revised guidelines do not, and indeed cannot, of themselves create new obligations, and are only intended to assist licensees to comply with their own codes.

The industry codes require broadcasters to take account of both the rights of individuals to privacy and the (ultimately overriding) public interest. Nothing has changed in this regard from the ACMA's existing 2005 Privacy Guidelines. There is no new "media restriction;" there are no new "media rules".

A particular erroneous claim being made is that the guidelines restrict the coverage by the media of the arrival of asylum seekers to Australia.

In fact, the guidelines make no specific mention of asylum seekers, as claimed, nor do they create a new protection, namely that of seclusion, Chapman said.

The notion of seclusion has been around for a long time, has been well explored in the courts and was specifically referred to and accepted in an ACMA investigation report into a 2008 Ten News at Five broadcast. The concept was then explicitly included in the ACMA's draft guidelines released for public consultation in August 2011.

Australian Film Classification Board

Australia

The Film Classification Board

The Australian state censor has responsibility for cinema, home video, video games, books and magazines.

Appeals about censorship decisions are heard by the Classification Review Board.

Film & Game Classifications

- G: (General Exhibition) These films and computer games are for general viewing.

- PG: (Parental Guidance) Contains material which some children find confusing or upsetting, and may require the guidance of parents or guardians. It is not recommended for viewing or playing by persons under 15 without guidance from parents or guardians.

- M:  (Recommended for mature audiences) Contains material that is not recommended for persons under 15 years of age.

- MA15+ (Mature Accompanied) The content is considered unsuitable for exhibition by persons under the age of 15. Persons under this age may only legally purchase or exhibit MA15+ rated content under the supervision of an adult guardian.

- R18+ (Restricted) People under 18 may not buy, rent or exhibit these films

- X18+ (Restricted) People under 18 may not buy, rent or exhibit these films. This rating applies to real sex content only

- RC (Refused Classification)Banned

Note that there is no R18+ X18+ available for games so adult games often end up getting banned much to the annoyance of gamers.

Note also that films classified as X18+ (Restricted) are banned from sale or rent in most of Australia. They can only be sold from Northern Territory and ACT (Canberra). Mail order and imports are allowed though and possession of X18+ material is legal

Publication Classifications

 - Unrestricted

- Unrestricted Mature: Not recommended for readers under 15.

- Restricted Category 1: Not available to persons under 18 years. Softcore

- Restricted Category 2 : Not available to persons under 18 years. Only to be sold in adults only shops: Hardcore

- RC: Refused Classification. Banned

Only publications that would be restricted 1 & 2 need to be submitted for censorship. There is also a scheme that magazines only need to be submitted once. Subsequent issues inherit the same rating. However later issues can be 'called in' for reassessment if anything crops up to alert the censors of changes.

Websites:
Classification Board

Melon Farmers Pages:
Australia News