Australia Censorship News

Australia's Classification Board has released censorship rules that will be applied to the new adult R18+ category for computer games.

As Kotaku points out, the document disappointingly makes reference to the interactive nature of computer games necessitating tighter controls than other passive media formats, a notion that has been diluted by plenty of studies over the years, and never supported by any conclusive findings. The Censor Board document says:

Interactivity is an important consideration that the Board must take into account when classifying computer games. This is because there are differences in what some sections of the community condone in relation to passive viewing or the effects passive viewing may have on the viewer (as may occur in a film) compared to actively controlling outcomes by making choices to take or not take action.

Due to the interactive nature of computer games and the active repetitive involvement of the participant, as a general rule computer games may have a higher impact than similarly themed depictions of the classifiable elements in film, and therefore greater potential for harm or detriment, particularly to minors.

Interactivity may increase the impact of some content: for example, impact may be higher where interactivity enables action such as inflicting realistically depicted injuries or death or post-mortem damage, attacking civilians or engaging in sexual activity. Greater degrees of interactivity (such as first-person gameplay compared to third-person gameplay) may also increase the impact of some content.

The word 'impact' seems to be a fudge factor that means that its up to them. 'Impact' is an arbitrary scale with an arbitrary value of 'high impact' that will get games banned. The censors then justify the ban by a meaningless justification that the violence is 'high impact'. So Australian gamers will just have to wait and see how the censors arbitrarily interpret the arbitrary rules.

A while ago, the R18+ legislation for video games passed through Australia's Federal government successfully, and now it is time for each state to pass the law.

The ACT (Canberra) is the first territory to pass the R18+ law, which the ABC reports was done so with tri-partisan support, though the Canberra Liberals failed in a bid to boost the penalty for inappropriate display or distribution of material rated R18+.

Attorney General Simon Corbell has said, this is about making sure that adults are able to view and play and read what they wish as long as it does not do harm to others.

Hanger is a 2009 Canada horror video by Ryan Nicholson
With Debbie Rochon, Dan Ellis and Nathan Dashwood. See IMDb

The Australian Classification Board has just banned Ryan Nicholson's Hanger. It was submitted by Bounty Films, who have previously battled censors worldwide with their release of Human Centipede II . But the Australian censor was unimpressed and banned the DVD with the euphemistic 'Refused Classification' rating. Presumably the Australian censor will provide reasons for the decision at some point.

The film has never been sent to the BBFC but it would be sure to get a rough ride with scenes of sexual violence.

World Censorship Status

Australia: Banned by the Classification Board for:

• Au 2012 Bounty DVD

UK: Never submitted for release

Germany: Hanger was released July 2009 in a severely cut and censored version for the German market. Unfortunately a torrent version of this was spread around the world and undermined the standing of the film.

US: Uncut and MPAA Unrated for:

• US 2009 Vicious Circle R1 DVD via UK Amazon and at US Amazon

Summary Review: New Depths

Hardcore gore from Ryan Nicholson who previously directed Gutterballs, another extreme gore video that hasn't made it to the UK.

The director describes his film as:

A horrifying tale of revenge that begins with a back-alley abortion, and ends with a bloodbath so vicious that it brings a new meaning to an eye for eye. From pimps to dealers and hookers to junkies, this film dives headfirst into the depths of human depravity.

Update: Film Censor Explains the Ban

15th August 2012. See  article from  refused-classification.com .

The Australian Film Censor explained the ban as follows:

The film contains depictions of explicit sexual violence and sexualised violence that are very high in impact, as well as prolonged depictions of violence which are offensive and/or have a very high degree of impact. Depictions of violence include detailed mutilation and disfigurement, viscera and shattered bone as well as blood gushes, splatter and spray.

A male character is tortured with a blow torch while two others are choked to death - one with excrement and the other with a used tampon. Sexual themes underpin the depictions of violence with pornographic footage and still images featuring full frontal nudity with genital detail and explicit sexual intercourse frequently viewed in the background.

Other scenes of violence are cut with depictions of sexual activity and/or sexualised nudity. The sexual content and sexualised context both serve to heighten the overall impact of the violence viewed throughout the film.

This content exceeds what can be accommodated within the R18+ classification and, as such, is Refused Classification.

A Facebook page filled with racial jokes about aboriginal people has been taken down, after hundreds of people campaigned to have it removed.

SBS reported on the Facebook page, which allows posts with racial memes about Indigenous people. The page was temporarily removed, before re-appearing on the site with a tag noting that the content contained controversial humour .

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy weighed into the debate, saying he thought it should be taken down.

We don't want to live by the same standards that Facebook does, Conroy said: I think it's an offence. It's been reclassified but I think it should be taken down.

Race Discrimination Commissioner Dr Helen Szoke warned the page could be a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act: [The page] potentially does insult and offend, but it probably does more than that. I think the depiction of these images on Facebook actually moves more in to vilifying.

Brisbane resident Jacinta O'Keefe started a change.org petition after a complaint to Facebook failed to result in the removal of the page: It is an openly racist page that is encouraging hate towards Aboriginal people. I find it incredible that Facebook would refuse to remove this page .

The social media site has responded to complaints with the message: After reviewing your report, we were not able to confirm that the specific page you reported violates Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.

But the page ended up being removed anyway as of 6pm 8/8 2012.

New South Wales' top policeman has claimed that knife crime is soaring among youngsters supposedly because brutal video games that reward players for murder, rape and theft have made violence seem acceptable.

Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione believes young people are being desensitised by spending hours acting out deadly scenarios on their computer screens:

The thing that's concerning me is the prevalence of people who are at this stage not just prepared to carry a knife, but prepared to use it

That has increased significantly.

He said he had reached the conclusion that there was:

Nothing more potentially damaging than the sort of violence they're being exposed to, be it in movies, be it in console games they're playing.

How can it not affect you if you're a young adolescent growing up in an era where to be violent is almost praiseworthy, where you engage in virtual crime on a daily basis and many of these young people (do) for hours and hours on end.

You get rewarded for killing people, raping women, stealing money from prostitutes, driving cars crashing and killing people.

That's not going to affect the vast majority but it's only got to affect one or two and what have you got? You've got some potentially really disturbed young person out there who's got access to weapons like knives or is good with the fist, can go out there and almost live that life now in the streets of modern Australia. That's concerning.

And not once did he mention any scientific or well reasons basis for his nutter rant.

Australia's Advertising Standards Board has issued a judgment in which it said comments made by fans of a vodka brand's Facebook page were ads and must therefore comply with industry self-regulatory codes and therefore consumer protection laws. Advertisement

The ruling will force companies to vet comments posted by the public to ensure they are not sexist, racist or factually inaccurate.

Non compliant companies could be fined or publicly shamed for the comments that appear on their Facebook brand pages.

A media lawyer is warning that the Advertising Standards Board's ruling on Smirnoff's Facebook page will put the onus back on companies to be more vigilant about the nature of the comments people are posting to their company pages. John Swinson, a partner at law firm King & Wood Mallesons, said the board's ruling turned people's opinions into statements of facts .

Swinson said that if, for example, a member of the public posted a comment on Smirnoff's site that claimed it was the purest Russian vodka and would lead to success with the opposite sex and Smirnoff failed to remove it, the company could be liable on a number of counts.

Although the Advertising Standards Board dismissed the original complaint about Smirnoff, which centred on sexism, under-age drinking and obscene language, it ruled industry codes applied not only to what a company was posting on its Facebook page but to the user-generated comments that followed.

The board's determination also cited a recent case of a health company, Allergy Pathway, which was fined for allowing misleading and deceptive testimonials to remain on its Facebook and Twitter pages.

A New South Wales woman has been the victim of $600 fine and put on a nine-month good behaviour bond after pleading guilty to selling or publicly exhibiting X-rated DVDs.

Lisa Mooney was charged with one count of selling or publicly exhibiting films classified X 18-plus or refused classification on June 19 after a police raid on her Armidale adult shop in May.

It was claimed in court that Ms Mooney was not aware that the films could not be sold and immediately admitted it to police.

After handing down the sentence, Magistrate Richardson said it was up to business owners to understand the laws and regulations governing their respective industries.

Australia's advert censor has banned an ad for Unilever deodorant Lynx for demeaning older men, but it was cleared of degrading both sexes, racism and bad language.

The part of the ad deemed unacceptable came at end, when an old man produced two deflated medicine balls and asks, Can you help me with these saggy old balls? Nobody's played with them for years.

The ad received around 150 complaints from the public. One of the complaints to the Adverstising Standards Bureau (ASB) read:

It is smutty and filled with crude innuendo of a sexual nature. It is not clever advertising but rather immature banter akin to schoolyard talk. It has nothing to do with the advertising of the product and is totally unnecessary and demeaning to men. If the topic was woman's breasts there would be outrage. Not funny not clever just feral.

The ASB ruled that, with the exception of the depiction of the older man, the portrayals of the people in the ad were not offensive.

Update: Follow Up Press Conference

26th July 2012. See  article from  mumbrella.com.au
See video from youtube.com

Lynx responds to ad ban with fake press conference boosting the double entendre Lynx responds to ad ban with fake press conference boosting the double entendre.

In a move suggesting that a ban on Unilever's Lynx Clean Your Balls ad was a part of the company's advertising strategy from the outset, the brand has immediately launched a new video featuring an unapologetic mock press conference.

The Australian parliamentary Treaties Committee is recommending that ratification Of ACTA be deferred - partly because of its near-collapse in Europe.

The committee states that ACTA should not be ratified until a range of conditions, including a cost-benefit analysis, are met.

Committee chair Kelvin Thomson says, in the committee's media statement outlines concerns including: a lack of clarity in the text; insufficient protection for individuals; and ACTA's potential to shift the balance in the interpretation of copyright law, intellectual property law and patent law . He also notes the unfavourable reception that ACTA has received internationally.